Pesticides and Freshwater Biodiversity · Foreword 2 Introduction: Water, and life on Earth 3 The...

Pesticides and Freshwater BiodiversityAgricultural productivity and water protection

Contents

List of figures and tables 1

Foreword 2

Introduction: Water, and life on Earth 3

The value of aquatic ecosystems 9

Freshwater ecosystems and the variety of freshwater organisms 11

Freshwater ecosystem services 14

The impacts of human activities on freshwater organisms 19

The conservation status of some key freshwater species groups 21

Ecological disservices: 23

Threats to human health from water-borne organisms 23

Threats to livelihood – agricultural pests 25

Solutions for protecting harvests and water 29

Safeguarding agricultural productivity with pesticides 29

Agriculture and the management of fresh water quantity 32

Agriculture, pesticides, and the management of fresh water quality 33

Home, garden and amenities – a brief look at non-agricultural pesticide uses 45

The Water Framework Directive and the Common Agricultural Policy 46

Ways forward 47

Annex I. Legislative framework for Plant Protection Products 51

References 53

Acknowledgments

This brochure is the result of collaboration between the European Landowners’ Organization (ELO) and the European CropProtection Association (ECPA) – key European stakeholders active in the policy and science fields of agriculture and biodiversity.The principal authors, Gavin Whitmore (ECPA), Prof. Dr. Christoph Künast (E-Sycon), and Robert de Graeff (ELO) are particularly grateful to Peter Campbell, Jaime Costa, Sarah Driessens, and Stuart Rutherford for their expert input. This publication is part of a series that focuses on key ‘biodiversity and agriculture’ topics. This, and accompanying publications can be downloaded from www.ecpa.eu and www.elo.org

List of figures and tables:

Figure 1: Sustainable water allocations to ecosystems and competing uses 4

Figure 2: Water abstractions for irrigation, manufacturing industry, energy cooling and Public Water Supply 6

Figure 3: Water and agriculture – facts and figures 7

Figure 4: National share of total irrigated area in the EU 27 7

Figure 5: Percentage share monetary value contribution of inland wetlands (e.g. marshes), fresh water, and tropical forests to food and water provisioning services; based on 2007 price levels 9

Table 1: Summary of monetary values for Ecosystem Services per biome 10

Table 2: The variety of freshwater organisms 12

Table 3: Overview of Ecosystem Services which are provided by aquatic organisms 14

Table 4: The top 10 species produced in aquaculture in the European Union 16

Table 5: The principal categories of human activities affecting river systems 20

Table 6: Important diseases transmitted by water-inhabiting animals 23

Table 7: Non-chemical pest control methods for the control of mosquitoes in Europe 24

Table 8: Example fungal infections that impact agricultural productivity 27

Table 9: The extent of actual global crop losses to crop pest categories for key crop types, including figures on potential crop losses without crop protection practices 29

Figure 6: Water quantity issues using the DPSIR framework 32

Figure 7: Entry points of pesticides to fresh water 33

Table 10: Overview of scientific protection goals for the ecological threshold option as proposed by EFSA 36

Figure 8: Schematic presentation of the tiered approach within the acute and chronic effect assessment for plant protection products (PPPs) and aquatic organisms 35

Table 11: Overview of the specific protection goals for the ecological recovery option as proposed by EFSA 37

Table 12: The aquatic key drivers and their ecological entity to be protected as proposed by EFSA and the current standard aquatic test species related to these key drivers 37

Figure 9: An example food chain 39

Figure 10: Increasing exposure of organisms to a bioaccumulative compound in an aquatic food chain 39

Figure 11: Graphical presentation of a species sensitivity distribution curve with example lower, median and upper species sensitivity curve and lower, median and upper limit hazardous concentration to 5 % of the species (HC5) 40

Figure 12: Direct and indirect measures to protect surface water from drift 41

Table 13: Example best management practices to prevent or minimise run-off and/or erosion 42

Figure 13: Key stages in the use-phase of a crop protection product with potential to generate point source pollution 44

Pesticides and Freshwater Biodiversity 1

70% of Earth’s available fresh water is used for irrigation [1] in Europe, 44% [2].

Foreword

Productive agriculture requires a reliable supply of good quality fresh water. This places water protection as a priority for those involved in farming, who primarily focus efforts on ensuring an efficient use of water, and avoiding water contamination. In fact, a diverse group of stakeholders including the crop protection industry, landowners and farmers are actively engaged in initiatives to safeguard the environment and deliver productive agriculture.

This report is part of a series of publications that aim to improve accessibility to scientific and regulatory topics related to pesticides and biodiversity in Europe. This edition looks at the specific example of freshwater biodiversity; it details the regulatory framework in place to ensure thorough pesticide risk assessment and risk management, and describes some of the technologies and best management practices at

our disposal for producing a safe and plentiful supply of food, as well as keeping freshwater bodies in a good state.

It is our hope that this report leaves readers with new appreciation for the challenges we face in Europe, and confidence in modern solutions for sustainable agricultural productivity.

Jean Charles-Bocquet Director General, ECPA

Thierry de l’Escaille Secretary General, ELO

2 Pesticides and Freshwater Biodiversity

Water and life on EarthWater is a simple molecule, consisting of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms; but the chemical simplicity of water is in stark contrast to its complex physical properties.

Water sustains all life on Earth and is essential for agricultural production; without the right quantity and quality of water we cannot grow crops or raise livestock. However; when water passes through farmland, agricultural practices influence the water cycle and can affect water quality.

Today, aquatic ecosystems are being altered or destroyed at a greater rate than any other time in human history, and the rate of degradation often exceeds that of restoration [3]. All habitat types, on both land and in water, are losing biodiversity; but the decline is greatest in freshwater habitats. Globally, freshwater species populations have shown an average 37% decline between 1970 and 2008; this figure is derived from an alarming 70% decrease in tropical freshwater species, and a contrasting 36% increase in temperate freshwater species [4].

Poor agricultural practices can contribute to this degradation, and ultimately risk the provisioning and regulating ecosystem services which support agricultural productivity [5]; this can only add to the challenge of securing global food supply. Farming represents both the foundation of our modern civilisation, as well as a sector that has environmental responsibility for the ecosystems upon which we also rely [6].

World population is expected to grow by more than a third (around 2.3 billion people) between 2009 and 2050. This is a slower rate of growth than seen in the past four decades, but the task of feeding a growing population remains. Projections show that feeding a world population of 9.1 billion people in 2050 will require raising overall food production by some 70 percent between 2005/07 and 2050 [7]. In the context of this global challenge, the EU is a major contributor to food security and a key player in efforts to reach the millennium goal on combating hunger and nutrition [8].

Over the last decades, crop yields have steadily increased, although for certain crops and regions yield increases have levelled off. There is also a huge difference to be found between crop yields in different regions; in low-income regions in particular, there is a large gap between actual and potential crop yields.

The water footprint of common foods [1]

13 litres of water for a tomato

25 litres of water for a potato

35 litres of water of a cup of tea

70 litres of water for an apple

75 litres of water for a glass of beer

120 litres of water for a glass of wine

140 litres of water for a cup of coffee

170 litres of water of a glass of orange juice

184 litres of water for a bag of potato crisps

200 litres of water for a glass of milk

2400 litres of water for a hamburger

Daily drinking water requirements vs water required to produce daily food [1]

• The daily drinking water requirement per person is 2-4 litres

• It takes 2000 to 5000 litres of water to produce one person’s daily food


This is mainly related to the lack of access to markets, inputs and capital, and lack of access to the best agronomic practices and technologies. In fact, globally, in the region of 1 billion smallholder farms (mainly in Africa and Asia) feed around 5 billion people, whereas around 15 million medium-to large-scale farms feed about 1 billion people, who mainly live in cities [10].

Pressures from urban expansion, industrialisation and a changing climate mean that this increase in productivity will likely have to be achieved with less water, and less land [11]. At the same time, there is a growing need to improve the sustainable use of available land and water; some 25% of all agricultural land is highly degraded and many countries already face critical water scarcity [12]. Water security is a major and increasing concern in many parts of the world,

including both the availability (including extreme events) and quality of water [13].

Society is challenged with the sustainable management of water resources, this includes implementing agricultural practices that make efficient use of water and safeguard water quality. We must find ways to extract the freshwater needed for our daily lives, whilst maintaining and protecting freshwater ecosystems [3] (Figures 1 and 2); however, we must also respond to the food security challenge. This will involve increasing yields more efficiently, without compromising resources such as water [14]. There may be ample land resources available for agricultural production; however, natural resource constraints, including the availability of freshwater are a limiting factor to expanded production.

Transport

Agriculture

Industries

Leisure

EnergyPublic supply

Natural system including human activities

Distance to target• To fit availability/good quality• Prevent depreciation of

natural capital

Targets for water use/pollution or energy use

Sustainability boundaries, e.g. Water Framework Directive (WFD) ‘good status’, ‘environmental flow

Figure 1: Sustainable water allocations to ecosystems and competing uses [9]

The multiple demands placed on freshwater must achieve (quality and quantity) use targets that fall within a ‘sustainability boundary’ and thereby prevent the depreciation of natural capital offered by natural systems.

Water is a major component of living organisms, it makes-up more than 70% of the human body [15] and more than 95% of the body of a jellyfish [16]. The sticky-elastic properties of water allow it to move through blood vessels, and through the capillaries and roots of plants. Water supports all anatomical functions.


Farming has an important role to play in the sustainable management of water resources; agriculture is the major user of water, accounting for about 70% of global fresh water withdrawals [12]. The scope of sustainable management of water resources in agriculture concerns the responsibility of water managers and users to ensure that water resources are allocated efficiently and equitably and used to achieve socially, environmentally and economically beneficial outcomes – including the conservation of ecosystems [11].

According to the European Environment Agency (EEA), Southern European countries use the

largest percentages of extracted water for agriculture, generally accounting for more than two-thirds of total extraction; irrigation being the largest use of water in these countries (Figures 3 and 4). In contrast, Central European and the Nordic countries use the largest percentages of extracted fresh water for cooling in energy production, industrial production and public water supply [19].

Agricultural practices such as tillage, fertilisation, irrigation, drainage, grazing, use of heavy machinery and pesticides have influence over water quality and the volumes of water used for production. Efficient agricultural practices

Hydrothermal zones have been credited as nurturing first life [20]. The earliest known micro-fossils have been dated back as far as 3.5 billion years [21]; the earliest terrestrial plant fossils dated back to a relatively recent 480-460 million years ago [22] (the first amphibians some 200 million years later [23] ). It is evident from these fossil records that water has provided Earth its most continuous habitat for life; it is therefore no surprise that a common theme of space exploration is the search for water.

The EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the achievement of good ecological status for water by 2015 [18].

“Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include ‘provisioning services’ such as food, water, timber, and fibre; ‘regulating services’ that affect climate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality; ‘cultural services’ that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and ‘supporting services’ such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling. The human species, while buffered against environmental changes by culture and technology, is fundamentally dependent on the flow of ecosystem services.” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) [17]


minimise the use of fresh water, and poor management practices can increase the likelihood of pesticides contaminating the freshwater environment.

Recent trends have seen species level improvements in the temperate freshwater environment [4]; these improvements may be in-part due to improved land management practices which can ameliorate agricultural impacts on ecosystems [24]; however, the continuing loss of global biodiversity indicates that further improvements are necessary.

This report looks at the contribution that good water management and pesticides play in EU agriculture, and the roles of risk assessment and best management practices in safeguarding freshwater biodiversity. At the same time, this report underlines the importance of sustainable agricultural productivity for feeding the world and, keeping our water clean.

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

90 000

Early1990s

Early1990s

Early1990s

1998 -2007

1998 -2007

1998 -2007

Eastern Western Southern

Energy Industry Irrigation Public water supply

Abstractions (mio m3/year)

Figure 2: Water abstractions for irrigation, manufacturing industry, energy cooling and Public Water Supply [25]Agriculture is faced not only

with the challenge of using water more efficiently, but also using land more efficiently. Globally, the scope for expansion of agricultural land is limited. Total arable land is projected to increase by only 69 million hectares (less than 5%) by 2050, whereas additional production will need to come from increased productivity [12] – this means producing more food with fewer land and water resources.


Spain

Italy

FranceFrance

Greece

Germany

Portugal

DenmarkOthers Spain 30.1%

Italy 24.6%France 14%Greece 11.8%Germany 4.6%Portugal 3.9%Denmark 2.3%Others 8.7%

Figure 4: National share of total irrigated area in the EU 27 [2]

There is approximately 1.4 billion km3

of water on Earth

519

km (A

pp

rox.

)

Fresh water comprises around 3% of all water

Only 1% of fresh water is available (accessible) for human use

When this volume is represented as a cube, the length of each side equates to approximately the road distance between Amsterdam and Paris – around a 5 hour drive.

Agricultural use

Non-agricultural use

44% of water extracted in Europe is used for agriculture

9.8% of agricultural land in Europe is irrigated

Irrigated agricultral land

Non-irrigated agricultural land

Figure 3: Water and agriculture – facts and figures [2]


The value of aquatic ecosystems

Analysis of the monetary value of different groups of aquatic organisms reveals that freshwater environments including rivers, lakes, and wetlands make a greater contribution per hectare to ecosystems that provide food and water than most other environments, including tropical forests (Figure 5). In fact, biomes, inland wetlands, rivers, and lakes contribute more than five times the per hectare monetary value than tropical forest across key ecosystem services (Table 1).

It is the most intensively managed ecosystems (e.g. agro-ecosystems) that contribute the most towards vital provisioning services (production of food, feed and fibre, etc.); whereas, semi-natural ecosystems (e.g. grasslands) are key contributors of genetic resources and cultural services including aesthetic values [26].

In agricultural systems, biodiversity performs ecosystem services beyond the production of food, fibre, fuel, and income. Examples include recycling of nutrients, control of local microclimate, regulation of local hydrological processes, regulation of the abundance of undesirable organisms, and detoxification of noxious chemicals [27].

The ‘economic invisibility’ of the functions to which freshwater organisms make important contribution is perhaps explanation for the ‘silo thinking’ that sometimes fails to take into account the links between agricultural and ecological systems [28].

Sustainable productivity requires that agricultural practices contribute to sustaining valuable ecosystem services, and where possible promote ecosystem functions.

Tropical forest 7.2%

Fresh water (lakes/rivers) 60.5%

Inland wetlands 32.3%

Figure 5: Percentage share monetary value contribution of inland wetlands (e.g. marshes), fresh water, and tropical forests to food and water provisioning services; based on 2007 price levels [29]


Ecosystem Service

BIOME

Inland wetlands Fresh water (rivers/lakes) Tropical forest

Provisioning services

Food 614 106 200

Water 408 1,808 27

Raw materials 425 - 84

Genetic resources - - 13

Medicinal resources 99 - 1,504

Ornamental resources 114 - -

1,659 1,914 1,828

Regulating services

Air quality regulation - - 12

Climate regulation 488 - 2,044

Disturbance moderation 2,986 - 66

Regulation of water flows 5,606 - 342

Waste treatment 3,015 187 6

Erosion prevention 2,607 - 15

Nutrient cycling 1,713 - 3

Pollination - - 30

Biological control 948 - 11

17,364 187 2,529

Habitat services

Nursery service 1,287 - 16

Genetic diversity 1,168 - 23

2,455 0 39

Cultural services

Esthetic information 1,292 - -

Recreation 2,211 2,166 867

Inspiration 700 - -

4,203 2,166 867

Total economic value 25,682 4,267 5,264

Table 1: Summary of monetary values for Ecosystem Services per biome (values in Int.$/ha/year, 2007 price levels) [29]


Freshwater ecosystems and the variety of freshwater organisms

Aquatic ecosystems can be broadly classified as either freshwater or marine. Marine zones are massive, and include the oceans, seas, intertidal areas, estuaries, salt-marshes and coral reefs; they support organisms unique to marine ecosystems like sea urchins, starfish, cuttlefish and corals. Freshwaters account for only 0.8% of Earth’s surface and as little as 0.009% of its total water; in comparison marine zones cover about 71% of the Earth’s surface, containing the vast majority (97%) of the planet’s water.

In contrast to their relatively small share of Earth’s water, freshwater bodies are home to an enormous range and quantity of organisms, including two important ecological groups, plankton and benthos (Table 2). Plankton drift

in the open water and benthos inhabit the sediment that forms the water bottom. Many of these organisms – although small and inconspicuous – are of huge importance as they provide essential ecosystem services.

Continental Europe has several million kilometres of flowing water, and over a million lakes [31]; precipitation, geology, soil type and a multitude of other factors – including human activity – exert influence on their form and behaviour, with implications for the life forms that rely on freshwater habitats. Aquatic organisms have very specific demands of the freshwater environment, relying on specific conditions and often complex combinations of properties.

Insects which quantitatively make-up the majority of animals and dominate terrestrial and freshwater environments (over 75 % of all known animal species are insects) are rarely found in the marine environment, having largely failed to establish themselves in the world’s oceans and seas [32] [33].

Expressing the value of ecosystem services in monetary units is a way of understanding the relative value that today’s society places on these services. This information can be used, for example, to guide resource allocation where demand from competing uses exists, and to highlight the importance of incentives for conservation and sustainable use. The monetary valuation of ecosystem services is often underpinned with the warning that market-based valuations reflect the current needs of society and often fail to take in to consideration the needs of future generations [29]. The ‘Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB) is an important collection of studies aimed at initiating the process of analysing the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation [30]. For more on the TEEB, visit www.teebweb.org.


Organism or group of organisms Key characteristics

Bacteria Single cell structure with relatively simple organisation. May form colonies.

Blue-green algae Also called Cyanobacteria, these bacteria-like cell structures obtain energy through photosynthesis.

Unicellular organisms: Possess complex cellular organisation. Often form colonies.

Green algae Often move by means of flagella (a whip-like appendage), green in colour.

Diatoms Among the most common types of phytoplankton. To be found drifting in open water.

Amoebae Comprise part of the benthos, living on, in or near to the bed of the sea. Change their body size.

Heliozoa Mobile amoeboids with a sun-like shape. Predate on other microorganisms.

Ciliates Extremely mobile organisms with complex body structures. Feed often on bacteria.

Plants: Multi-cellular organisms that generate organic matter through photosynthesis (autotrophy)

Rooted plants

Relatively large structures, attached to the ground by roots.

Rootless plants

Floating plants, often located on the surface of water.

Invertebrates: Animals lacking a backbone

Sponges Bodies full of pores and channels – lacking nervous, digestive and circulatory systems. Found in clean water.

Jellyfish and hydra

Small, largely transparent predators. Hydra are a sessile (immobile) organism and usually remain anchored to a solid form. Jellyfish float and swim.

Worms Includes flatworms, annelids, and roundworms. Mostly inhabit the benthic zone.

Snails and mussels

Molluscs with helical (most snails) or two-part hinged shells (Bivalvia e.g. mussels).

Insects Adult insects may live in water (i.e. some species of beetle) or on the water surface (Hemiptera, ‘true bugs’, like pond skaters).

Insect larvae Many insects which have wings and are able to fly as adults pass their larval stage in water – including dragon flies, midges, and ephemerids (mayflies). Larvae are therefore aquatic animals, whereas the adult forms inhabit terrestrial environments which are often (but not always) close to the water.

Crustaceans Possessing an exoskeleton, many are small, some float (e.g. water fleas), others are large and live under water (e.g. crayfish).

Vertebrate animals: Animals possessing a backbone

Fish Live exclusively in the water – exhibit a wide variety of living behaviour including migration.

Amphibians Aquatic larvae (e.g. tadpoles) and terrestrial adults (e.g. newts, salamanders, frogs, toads).

Birds Many birds live on and around water. Hunting prey in the water and/or breeding at the surface.

Mammals Some large mammals (e.g. beavers and otters) require an aquatic habitat.

Table 2: The variety of freshwater organisms [34] [35]


Blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) obtain energy through photosynthesis

Pond skaters (fam. Gerridae), are insects that live on the surface of pond water

Adult damselflies are predators which can be often observed in the vegetation near the water, watching for prey.

Nymphaea alba, the European water lily, a rooted aqatic plant

An adult damselfly (suborder Zygoptera) molting from larval stage. Damselflies live the larval stage of their lifecycle in the water.

Many water-inhabiting insects like this aquatic beetle (fam. Dytiscidae) are able to leave the water, fly large distances and populate other water bodies.

pho

to :

© M

arti

n K

ünas

tp

hoto

: ©

Mar

tin

Kün

ast

pho

to :

© M

arti

n K

ünas

t


Freshwater ecosystem services

The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment groups ‘Ecosystem Services’ into key categories [17].

• Provisioning Services: products which people obtain from ecosystems, like food and fuel;

• Regulating Services: benefits which people obtain from the regulation of our environment, like air quality, water purification and climate regulation;

• Cultural Services: non-material benefits such as recreation and aesthetics;

• Supporting Services: the services required to maintain the conditions for life on Earth, through supporting the other key ecosystem services as listed above.

Table 3 lists some of the ecosystem services supported by aquatic organisms; this is not an exhaustive list of services but goes some way to illustrate the importance of aquatic organisms for human wellbeing.

Table 3: Overview of Ecosystem Services which are provided by aquatic organisms [5] [17]

Provisioning services: Products which people obtain from ecosystems

Examples of the roles of aquatic organisms

Food, fibre Provision of fish, and provision of aquatic organisms as fish feed

Genetic resources Conservation of genetic diversity

Natural medicines Provision of molecules for pharmaceuticals

Fresh water Water purification

Regulating Services: Benefits which people obtain from the regulation of our environment

Climate regulation Carbon sequestration

Water regulation Stabilisation of sediment

Water purification Degradation of natural and synthetic pollutants

Disease regulation Antagonism to vectors of waterborne disease

Hazard regulation Stabilisation of surface waters

Cultural services: Non-material benefits

Aesthetic values Contribution to attractive landscapes and plants

Recreation and ecotourism Contribution to a diversity of attractive and interesting animals and plants

Supporting Services: Required to maintain provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services

Photosynthesis Algae and aquatic plants provide biomass for aquatic food chains

Nutrient cycling Metabolisation of organic nutrients

Soil formation Degradation of organic matter supports soil formation


Water purificationFresh water is readily valued for extractive uses (e.g. water for utilities, irrigation, and industry), but the benefits of leaving water in freshwater bodies to support healthy aquatic ecosystems are sometimes overlooked [3].

Ecosystems can store and recycle certain amounts of organic and inorganic human waste through dilution, assimilation and chemical re-composition. Wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems are capable of acting as ‘free’ water purification plants, treating relatively large amounts of waste resulting from human activities [36]. The value of these natural processes is illustrated in their use in controlled conditions in wastewater treatment plants.

The organisms that populate the bottoms of freshwater systems and support ‘water purification’ processes are adapted to the sediment and organic matter conditions which are found within their environment, and suffer when the natural cycle of sediment inputs – such as seasonal leaf litter – are disrupted [3]; indeed, loss of these organisms can result in lowered water quality and effect ecosystem service delivery [5].

Poor agricultural, forestry and construction practices, and the regulation and impoundment of water bodies can put freshwater habitats and many aquatic and terrestrial species at risk [3] [37].

Fish and fisheriesThe majority of fish consumed by humans are caught in the sea; however, freshwater aquaculture yields more than 20% of European fish harvests [38] (Table 4). The European Union is the fifth largest fisheries and aquaculture producer worldwide with a turnover of roughly EUR 3.5 billion and some 85,000 employees [38]. A UK Government evaluation of the UK’s

freshwater fisheries estimated that they support about £1 billion of household income, the equivalent of 37,000 jobs [39].

Freshwater fish are also important for recreational angling, a popular pastime for many Europeans and a ‘cultural’ ecosystem service [40] [41].

In open water, the variety of microbes that degrade organic matter include species that form biofilms, which appear as slimy layers on solid surfaces under water. Biofilms may be better known for the slippery conditions they create for bathers, but they are important contributors to the water purification process.

A fish farm – freshwater aquaculture yields more than 20% of European fish harvests


Tonnes live weight

Percentage share of total live volume

Value in thousands of Euro

Percentage share of total value

Category

Mussel 492,413 39.18% 428,773 11.91% Marine mollusc

Trout 185,539 14.76% 499,904 13.89% Freshwater fish

Salmon 170,591 13.57% 752,116 20.90% Anadromous fish (born in freshwater, spends most of life in the sea and migrates to freshwater to spawn)

Oyster 98,751 7.86% 438,512 12.18% Marine mollusc

Carp 73,860 5.88% 136,467 3.79% Freshwater fish

Gilt-head seabream 72,900 5.80% 370,251 10.29% Marine fish

Seabass 67,809 5.40% 369,812 10.28% Marine fish

Clam 37,028 2.95% 171,597 4.77% Marine mollusc

Other freshwater fish 13,989 1.11% No data No data Freshwater fish

Turbot 10,799 0.86% 70,949 1.97% Marine fish

Bluefin tuna No data No data 145,374 4.04% Marine fish

Table 4: The top 10 species produced in aquaculture in the European Union (2011), ranked by tonnage live weight (volume in tonnes live weight and percentage of total) [38]

Cyprinus carpio, the common carp Salmon, the common name for species in the family Salmonidae. At around 21%, salmon contributes the largest share of the total value of aquaculture in the EU


The European Red List of Freshwater Fishes shows that there are declining population trends for many species; of 524 species native to Europe (425 of which are endemic), 13 species are described as extinct and 194 species (37%) are classified as threatened; the situation in the EU27 is no better, with 39% of 382 native species considered threatened [42]. The WWF Living Planet Index (2012) offers some better news, informing that between 1970 and 2008 a 36% increase in temperate freshwater species was recorded [4].

In the search for molecules with curative properties, the freshwater environment is also a source of natural medicines. Natural compounds can provide the resources or inspiration for medical innovations. The leech Hirudo medicinalis is a worm that favours freshwater pools and ditches and feeds by sucking blood from warm-blooded organisms like humans. A leech’s salivary glands produce the protein hirudin which possesses anticoagulant properties to prevent blood from clotting during digestion. Using recombinant biotechnology, hirudin-based anticoagulant medicines have been developed and are used to treat and prevent conditions including thrombosis and heart failure. [43]


The impacts of human activities on freshwater organisms

For centuries Europe’s land has been used to produce food, timber fuel and space for living; currently more than 80% of the land in Western Europe is under some form of direct management. Consequently, European species are to a large extent dependent upon the semi-natural habitats created and maintained by human activity [44].

Deforestation, cultivation and the growth of cities and industry have been the major contributors to the modification of inland waters since the Bronze Age; since medieval times, human activities have been dominant in shaping most European landscapes [42]. Following the rapid growth of the human population and the global economy over the past century, human uses of freshwater ecosystems have grown so steeply that they now produce large, widespread, negative ecological impacts. This fact is particularly alarming given the critical importance of the goods and services provided by freshwater ecosystems, which are among the most heavily altered ecosystems, subjected to an over proportional loss of biodiversity [45] [46]. Efforts to manage and guard against the impacts of climate change (e.g. engineering work/structures for flood prevention), can further threaten the freshwater environment [46].

Like all biodiversity, freshwater organisms suffer when their habitats are damaged or destroyed – a growing problem in Europe. Agricultural land use has seen the draining of ponds and puddles to ease the use of heavy machinery and maximise

available productive land; ditches are utilised for drainage and irrigation, and natural channels converted to subterranean drainage systems in order to provide more effective growing spaces. Small water bodies may be an undervalued element of the freshwater environment; ponds – and not lakes or rivers – are the most extensive aquatic habitat and support considerably more species than other freshwater waterbody types [47] [48].

Threats to freshwater biodiversity include five interacting categories: misuse of freshwater resources, water pollution, habitat degradation, flow modifications, and invasions by alien species. Environmental changes (e.g. nitrogen deposition) and climate change (temperature shifts and changes in precipitation and runoff patterns) on the global scale are superimposed upon all these threat categories [45]. The combined and interacting influences of these threats result in a population decline and range reduction of freshwater biodiversity worldwide [49].

Since the Bronze age, deforestation and the cultivation of soils have been the human activities responsible for the most major modifications to inland waters

The IUCN Red List for Europe offers an assessment of the status, trends and threats to many European species [50]. The Red List is compiled with the aim of informing action for biodiversity conservation, and can be used to gain insight to the health of species reliant on the freshwater environment.


The protection of freshwater biodiversity is particularly challenging, because to be fully effective, it requires control over upstream drainage, surrounding land, the riparian zone (the banks and area immediately adjacent to water sources), and – in the case of migrating aquatic fauna – downstream reaches [49].

The unique conservation challenge presented by freshwater biodiversity perhaps explains why assessments generally conclude that freshwater biodiversity is possibly more threatened than biodiversity in other systems [51].

Taking the example of rivers, Table 5 describes the potential extent of human interference with river systems, and goes someway to illustrate the complexity and range of potential sources of human interference with the freshwater environment. Impacts can occur through local activity, such as direct modification of a river channel or abstraction of water, or through changes to the local environment through management of riparian vegetation; impacts also result from supra-catchment activities, such as the acidification of rivers when acid rain formed in distant locations falls within a local catchment.

Supra-catchment effects

• Acid decomposition• Inter-basin transfer• Climate change

Catchment land-use change

• Afforestation and deforestation

• Urbanisation• Agricultural development• Land drainage/flood

protection

Corridor engineering

• Removal of riparian vegetation

• Flow regulation• Dams• Channelisation• Dredging and mining

Instream impacts • Organic and inorganic pollution

• Thermal pollution• Abstraction of water• Navigation• Exploitation of native species• Introduction of alien species

Table 5: The principal categories of human activities affecting river systems [52]


Freshwater fishesIn the EU 27, 39% of freshwater fishes are described as being threatened with extinction; more specifically, 13% are classified as critically endangered, 11% endangered, and 15% Vulnerable. The major threats to freshwater fishes are identified as water abstraction, alien species, hydropower and water control dams, and water pollution. Water pollution is attributed to a number of sources, including domestic waste, industrial and agricultural effluent, river transportation, and sedimentation [42].

Freshwater molluscsApproximately 40% of EU27 freshwater molluscs are threatened with extinction. In detail, 11.8% are critically endangered, 8.1% endangered and 21% vulnerable. Threatened freshwater mollusc species are suffering as a consequence of declining water quality in rivers and lakes. The intensification of agriculture attributed to affecting 36% of threatened species, with urbanisation (and in particular, poor sewage control) impacting 29% of the species. 33% of threatened species are mostly effected by the over utilisation of water. In contrast invasive species are widely present, but do not play a significant role, impacting less than 5% of threatened freshwater mollusc species [53].

Amphibians2.4% of amphibians in the EU27 are critically endangered, 6.1% endangered and 13.4% vulnerable; this means a total of around 20% of the EU27‘s amphibian species are threatened. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation pose the greatest threats to amphibian species – being dependent of freshwater habitats for their lifecycle, amphibians are particularly vulnerable to changes in the freshwater environment. Agricultural intensification and infrastructure development are amongst the most frequently cited causes of habitat decline and deterioration. Water abstraction is also a significant threat and is noted as having a particularly damaging effect on amphibian populations in the drier southern regions of Europe [55].

DragonfliesAround a quarter of European dragonfly species show declining populations, with about half of species exhibiting stable populations, and 10% a trend for population increase; in the EU27, 2.2% are listed as being critically endangered, 4.5% endangered, with 9.7% considered vulnerable. The main threat to European dragonflies is the drying-out of their habitats due to increasingly hot and dry summers and intensified water extraction for drinking and irrigation [44].

Anguilla anguilla, the common eel, may have suffered a decline of stocks as high as 99% since the 1980’s; the damming of rivers and the consequent blocking of migration routes a major contributor [42]

Radix balthica, the pond snail, is widespread across Europe and classified as Least Concern, is an abundant species with a stable population [54]

Aeshna cyanea, the blue or southern hawker is mostly found in standing and running waters with a slow current, the species is classified as Least Concern and occurs in habitats that are not threatened in any way [57]

Mesotriton alpestris, the apine newt, is a species of Least Concern in Europe; however, it is experiencing a population decline, largely as a result of habitat loss and fish introduction [56]


The conservation status of some key freshwater species groups

Water may contain highly toxic bacteria like Cholera, or Salmonella, or protozoa like Giardia


Ecological disservices: Threats posed by biodiversityWhilst the benefits of biodiversity are too numerous to list, biodiversity also poses threats that require management in order to maintain and improve our quality of life; indeed, not all of the organisms which inhabit fresh water are good for us; many pose a direct threat to our health and livelihoods. In addition to providing our food and water, nature also harms us, primarily through disease [58].

Threats to human health from water-borne organisms

Dipteran insects (posessing two wings as adults) from the families Simuliidae and Culicidae have it in common that the females consume blood from vertebrates. These insects can be a severe nuisance, however the main problem associated with these pests is the pathogens and parasites contained within their saliva. Many of the most disastrous tropical disease originate from aquatic organisms (Table 6).

In Europe the likelihood of contracting a disease transmitted by a waterborne organism is very low, but malaria was once common in large parts of

Europe including the coastal plains of Italy and the marshes of England. Malaria has been driven out of Europe by climate change, and by drainage of the marshes and wetlands that once provided the mosquito habitat. However, in 2012, the European Region reported 255 indigenous cases of malaria; so whilst Europe is close to eliminating malaria from the region, continued outbreaks highlight the threat of reintroduction, and the need for continued vigilance [60].

Disease Transmitter Figures (worldwide)

Malaria Anopheles mosquito 190-300 million people infested 700,000-1,000,000 deaths (2008)

Onchoceriasis (aka. River blindness, Robles disease)

Black fly 18 million people infested (approx.) 3 million people irreversibly blinded

Schistosomiasis (aka. Snail fever, bilharzia, snail fever, Katayama fever)

Freshwater snail 200 million people infested

Filariasis/Philariasis Mosquitoes and black fly 120 million people infested

Table 6: Important diseases transmitted by water-inhabiting animals [61] [62] [63] [64]

Mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles are responsible for the transmission of malaria and other diseases including filariasis

At any given time, over half the world’s hospital beds are occupied by people suffering from water-related diseases [59].


Although water-borne pests present threats to human health and wellbeing, synthetic pesticides play no role in the control of these organisms in Europe. Due to stringent regulations for the use of pesticides in Europe, and efforts to avoid water contamination, non-chemical methods of control are used (Table 7).

It is beyond the scope of this report to provide detailed assessment of the pros and cons of initiatives in place to eradicate or limit

waterborne diseases, but it should be mentioned that non-chemical vector control programmes can have impacts on non-target organisms which may be viewed critically from a nature conservation perspective. For example, the use of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis to control mosquitoes in the Camargue, France, resulted in localised reductions of several bird species as the mosquito control agent also reduced food availability for birds [66].

Removal of habitat (source reduction)

The drying of breeding habitats is a simple and effective method. Homeowners can remove plastic ponds and drain areas of standing water. In the open landscape, drainage of water bodies is less neither practical nor economical, and is most likely contrary to efforts to protect biodiversity.

Introduction of predators (biological control)

Several species of fish feed on mosquito larvae; the introduction of these predator species can effectively control mosquito populations. The mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) is a small fish with a high reproduction rate. Originating from southern USA and Mexico, it has been introduced to several regions of Southern Europe where it successfully controls mosquitoes.

Poisoning (microbial control)

The naturally occurring soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis produces a protein which is a highly selective toxin for mosquito larvae. “BTI” (Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis) is widely used in Europe for mosquito control. It can be applied by hand or dispersed by helicopter when large areas require treatment.

Table 7: Non-chemical pest control methods for the control of mosquitoes in Europe

In Europe, water-borne pests are managed with biological control, rather than synthetic pesticides.

Diarrhoea is the leading global cause of illness and death, and the second leading cause of death in children under 5 years old; each year diarrhoea kills around 760,000 children under five. 88% of diarrhoeal deaths are due to a lack of access to sanitation facilities, together with inadequate availability of water for hygiene and unsafe drinking water. The tragedy of these figures is underlined by the fact that diarrhoea is both preventable and treatable [65].


Threats to livelihood – agricultural pests

Beyond the often severe impacts that biodiversity can have on our health, there are also significant challenges for the day-to-day functioning of society, most notably threats to our ability to feed ourselves. The terrestrial environment is by far the greater source of agricultural pests, but the freshwater environment provides some notable examples.

Agricultural pests are animals, plants and pathogens that have the potential to compete with the cultivation of food and feed. There are three important categories of agricultural pest organisms:

• Animal pests – animals which feed on crops, causing physical damage and transmitting plant disease;

• Weeds – plants which compete with crops for resources like water, sunlight, or fertiliser;

• Pathogens – microbes (bacteria and viruses) which infest crops and cause plant diseases [67].

Animal pestsAnimal pests inflict most damage whilst they are feeding; the canopy, roots and seeds of crops offering excellent forage. Animal pests can also transmit plant diseases; sucking insects – such as aphids – deliver pathogens to plants through the vomit expelled as part of their feeding process.

Animal pests are not limited to insects, a variety of taxonomic groups qualify, including nematodes, mites, snails, birds and mammals.

According to the principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), an animal is considered a pest once the number of organisms per defined area exceeds a numerical threshold of acceptability; therefore, an animal is not automatically considered a pest just because it feeds on crops. These numerical thresholds are specific to pest and crop type.

WeedsWhen a plant competes with crops for resources such as soil, sunlight and water, it might be referred to as a ‘weed’. Weeds might also be poisonous, or produce thorns and other defence mechanisms that have the potential to contaminate harvests, and even poison or injure livestock and humans.

Weeds are often well ecologically adapted to agricultural environments. They have developed traits that increase the chances of survival in an environment without long term stability and frequent human intervention. Key weed survival traits include:

• Seed productivity: Groundsel (Senecio) produces around 1,000 seeds per plant, whilst mayweed can produce in excess of 30,000 per plant;

• Seed volatility: Many seeds have developed highly efficient mechanisms to enable long distance seed dispersal; dandelion (Taraxacum) is a well known example;

• Seed longevity: Some plants produce seeds with the trait of extreme longevity, able to survive for long period of time in the soil, only germinating on exposure to light. The poppy (fam. Papaveraceae) is one example, producing seeds that can survive 80 to 100 years before germination.

Plant DiseasesThe pathogens that cause plant diseases are often fungi (Table 8), but they may also be bacteria or viruses. These organisms share the characteristics of high reproductive potential and mobile and robust reproductive structures (e.g. spores) to ensure wide distribution of offspring by air, water and soil. Fungal infections reduce crop yields by damaging and killing host plants; in warm and moist weather conditions large fields can be infested within a few days.


The apple snail (fam. Ampullariidae) has become a serious pest for rice farmers in southern Europe


Agricultural pests from the freshwater environmentLiver flukeThe liver fluke (Fasciola hepatica) is worm that parasitises the liver of grazing cattle. This leaf shaped flatworm causes symptoms including a reduction in milk production and fertility. A dairy cow infested with liver fluke yields 0.7 kg per day less milk than a healthy cow, and increases the inter-calving interval [68].

The liver fluke produces up to 25,000 eggs a day; these eggs travel to the pasture in the manure of the dairy cow, but rely on puddles and small ponds for the next stage of their development. Hatching larvae swim and bore into host snails (e.g. Galba truncatula), in which the larvae develop. These larvae are finally released by the snail and progress to become encysted in vegetation; where upon the cycle is completed, as cattle ingest the larvae which migrate to the liver [68].

Veterinary medicine can be used to treat infected cattle; to prevent infestation the use of snail habitats for grazing can be avoided [69].

BlackflyBlackflies (fam. Simuliidae) are amongst a variety of blood-sucking flies and midges that pose a threat to livestock. Blackflies lay their eggs in running water; the hatching larvae attach themselves to solid structures (stones, wood etc.) before emerging as flies. Adult males feed on nectar, but females feed on blood. Swarms of feeding blackfly can cause weight loss in cattle and reduced milk production; in extreme cases cattle may die from toxemia or anaphylactic shock brought on by toxins present in fly saliva. Swarms of blackfly have been known to trigger cattle stampedes resulting in the death of calves [70].

Fungal infection Crop/s affected

Powdery mildew (Eryspihe graminis) Wheat, barley, rye

Stripe rust (Puccinia striiformis) Wheat, barley

Ergot (Claviceps purpurea) Wheat, barley, rye

Corn smut (Ustilago zeae) Maize

Bakanae (Fusarium fujikuroi) Rice, cereals

Common bean rust (Uromyces appendiculatus) Beans

Potato blight (Phytophtora infestans) Potato

Black leg disease (Phoma lingam) Rape, cabbage

Black root disease (Pleospora bjoerlingii) Sugar beet

Apple scab disease (Venturia inaequalis) Apple

Table 8: Example fungal infections that impact agricultural productivity [67] )

Alien Species (AS) are species which are introduced outside their natural distribution area and succeed in surviving and subsequently reproducing; Invasive Alien Species (IAS) are Alien Species whose introduction and/or spread threaten local biological diversity [71]. IAS have affected native biodiversity in almost every type of ecosystem on Earth. As one of the greatest drivers of biodiversity loss, they pose a threat to ecosystem integrity and function and therefore, to human well-being [72].


The apple snailThe apple snail (genus Pomatias) is a large freshwater snail native to tropical and subtropical South America. The snail has been intentionally introduced to several countries; for example, in Japan for the control of aquatic weeds, in Taiwan as a food source, and in Europe sold by pet-shops as an attractive addition to aquariums.

In 2010 the apple snail was found to be living in the wild in Europe, having successfully invaded the rice fields of the Ebro delta, Spain [73]. This Invasive Alien Species (IAS) is a serious pest for rice farmers, and threatens to upset entire freshwater ecosystems through the decimation of aquatic plants important for water quality regulation. Populations of the snail continue to spread, with the risk that it becomes established in the rivers and wetlands of southern Europe [74] [75].

While IAS are most commonly cited for their disservices, there are examples where IAS are perceived to have improved local environment. An assessment of perceptions of the impact of dreissenid (zebra and quagga) mussels on coastal ecosystems along Lake Ontario and the western St. Lawrence River in New York State, revealed that local residents valued the clean water resulting from this IAS‘s filter-feeding behaviour [76].


It is a common misconception that organic farming is pesticide free – nearly all forms of agriculture require pest control, and pesticides are used in both organic and conventional farming.

Solutions for protecting harvests and waterSafeguarding agricultural productivity with pesticides

When weeds, pests and diseases damage or destroy agricultural goods, they are in direct competition with humans. This competition would be tolerable if the result was a marginal loss of agricultural productivity; however, losses can be catastrophic. Pesticides are used to mitigate the threat of agricultural pests, and to contribute towards the environmental and socioeconomic goal of efficient and sustainable management of natural resources, including biodiversity, soil and water. Table 9 provides an overview of potential crop losses due to pests and disease for several major global crops.

Pesticides are biologically active compounds, designed and formulated to affect target species; they are used for the control of weeds, plant pathogens and animal pests [67]. The biologically active ingredients of pesticides are obtained from a variety of sources, for example:

• Natural compounds;

• Plant extracts;

• Microbial insect pathogens (including bacteria and fungi, or viruses);

• Synthetic compounds.

Nearly all forms of agriculture require pest control, and pesticides are used in both organic and conventional farming. Organic farming relies primarily on naturally occurring inorganic molecules such as copper, sulphur, and microorganisms like bacteria, and viruses. Conventional farming also uses synthetic compounds, which are optimised for efficient and targeted action, and in terms of protecting against crop losses, out-perform low-input agriculture [8] [77] [78] [79].

There are several classes of pesticides, the most relevant for crop protection being:

• Fungicides – used for the suppression of fungal infections;

• Herbicides – used for the control of weeds;• Insecticides – used for the management

of insect pests.

Crop Actual % crop losses due to: Total % actual

crop loss*

Total % potential

crop loss**Animal pests Weeds Pathogens Viruses

Cotton 12.3 8.6 7.2 0.7 28.8 82.0

Maize 9.6 10.5 8.5 2.7 31.3 68.5

Potatoes 10.9 8.3 14.5 6.6 40.3 74.9

Rice 15.1 10.2 10.8 1.4 37.5 77.0

Soybean 8.8 7.5 8.9 1.2 26.4 60.0

Wheat 7.9 7.7 10.2 2.4 28.2 49.8

Average 10.8 8.8 10.0 2.5 32.1 68.7

* when crop protection measures are employed ** where crop protection measures are not employed

Table 9: The extent of actual global crop losses to crop pest categories for key crop types, including figures on potential crop losses without crop protection practices [80] [81]:


Without crop protection practices wheat crops are subject to a potential global yield loss of around 50% [80] [81]


Environmental variables such as local temperature and weather conditions have influence over the effectiveness of pesticides; however, the three key factors that determine the effectiveness of a pesticide are:

• The intrinsic properties of its active ingredient; • The characteristics of the target organism(s);• The mode of product application and

subsequent activities.

Pesticides can have direct or indirect unwanted effects on biodiversity. For example, the effective use of herbicides to remove weeds can have the secondary effect of reducing forage for pollinators; likewise, the use of insecticide to manage aphids (fam. Aphidoidea) reduces the availability of food for ladybirds (fam. Coccinellidae). Direct unintended effects of pesticides may occur for example, when a fungicide drifts into a freshwater body, thereby exposing and potentially damaging aquatic organisms and affecting water quality.

Farmers are faced with a considerable challenge: to safeguard natural resources and to ensure that agriculture continues to produce ecological services; all whilst maintaining the supply of safe and abundant agricultural goods necessary to satisfy markets [82].

The European Union has developed a regulatory framework that aims to ensure the efficacy, safety and suitability of pesticides. This, in combination with other policy and legislative instruments – such as the Sustainable Use Directive – sets rules for the sustainable use of pesticides, to reduce the risks and impacts of pesticide use on people’s health and the environment.

Organic farming relies primarily on naturally occurring inorganic molecules, such as sulphur

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the keystone of EU risk assessment regarding food and feed safety. In close collaboration with national authorities and in open consultation with its stakeholders, EFSA provides independent scientific advice on existing and emerging risks. EFSA is an independent European agency which although funded by the EU, operates separately from the European Commission, European Parliament and EU Member States [83].


Agriculture and the management of fresh water quantity

All crops require fresh water, but the amount of irrigation required depends on several factors, including:

• Crop type;• Climate;• Water quality; • Soil characteristics;• Cultivation practices.

The complex interaction between these factors and their influences on the management of water quantity, are captured by the DPSIR

framework (Figure 6). DPSIR offers a model for describing interactions between society and the environment; the framework’s components in the context of quantitative water management, are [84]:

• Driving force (of the demand for water);• Pressure (of the consumptive use of water);• State (A quantification of the water resource

situation);• Impact (The impacts of the water resource

situation);• Response (Techniques and practices to reduce

negative impacts on water).

The DPSIR framework illustrates how responses – including policies, farmers’ initiatives and best management practices – can be used to favourably manage water quantity; efficient production implies a favourable use of natural resources.

Driving forces

Pressures

StateImpacts

WATER QUANTITY

INDUCE

AFFECT

ACCELERATE

DIRECT

SHAPE

• Climate change• Population growth• Urbanisation,

industrialisation

• Increase of irrigated areas

• Water efficiency• Water losses

• Consumptive uses (agriculture, industry, drinking water etc.)• Competitive uses

• State of water bodies• Availability of water (location and timing)

• Water scarcity and droughts

• Ecosystem health• Human needs • Water quality

Responses

• Policies• Farmer initiatives• Economic signals• Improvement

of techniques• Better management

practices• Other water sources

Figure 6: Water quantity issues using the DPSIR framework [85]


Agriculture, pesticides, and the management of freshwater quality

Agriculture can deliver unwanted effects, these ‘ecosystem disservices’ include the habitat loss associated with agricultural development, the diversion of rivers, groundwater depletion that can result from cropland irrigation, and the potential contamination of surface waters with fertilisers and pesticides [25].

With few exceptions, pesticides are designated for application on terrestrial areas such as fields and orchards; however, pesticides may unfortunately reach freshwater bodies. An understanding of how this might occur is important in order to take steps to help prevent pollution. Water quality is often strongly influenced by the management of agricultural practices at the watershed level [86]. This frames the challenge for the crop protection industry, regulators, advisors and farmers to manage pesticides, and their application, to avoid ecologically unacceptable impacts.

Pesticides can reach water bodies because of mistakes made during application, or the result of a technical deficiency in application equipment; combinations of local environmental, meteorological and geological conditions can also contribute to increased potential for pesticides to reach water (Figure 7).

Direct exposure routes (referred to as ‘point sources’)• Point sources are Localised pollution sources

which may occur during mixing and loading, the cleaning of application machinery, during transport, or at the point of container disposal.

Indirect exposure routes (also known as ‘diffuse sources’)• Spray drift: During spray application, pesticide

particles can be transported by wind to nearby water bodies if sufficient care is not taken;

• Run-off: After application and in the event of unexpected rainfall, pesticides can be carried away from treated fields and in to water bodies in surface water flows;

• Drainage: After application, pesticides might reach water bodies via drainage channels following rainfall.

Figure 7: Entry points of pesticides to fresh water

Drainage

Run-off

Drift

Point source


Risk assessment for aquatic organisms

The process of risk assessment for aquatic organisms requires two kinds of data:

• Exposure data: To determine the doses to which aquatic organisms may be potentially exposed

• Ecotoxicity data: To determine the doses at which aquatic organism are affected

Exposure is quantified by measuring levels of an active ingredient – or a metabolite – following application, or through modelling based on complex environmental scenarios (for example, pulse exposure in rapidly flowing rivers).

Toxicity data are generated in experiments which are conducted according to accepted scientific principles, many of which follow international guidelines (like those of the OECD).

The standard risk assessment procedure for aquatic organisms requires calculation of the Toxicity-Exposure Ratio (TER) for determining potential risk [87]:

TER =Toxicity Statistic

Predicted Environmental Concentration

The testing principles and protection goals of the Plant Protection Product registration processTesting is carried out with a tiered approach that begins with laboratory tests; based on a system of trigger values, tests potentially culminate in field studies, as illustrated by Figure 8.

Testing schemes and protection goals are closely linked to enable assessment of possible effects on definite protection goals. Tables 10 and 11 respectively provide an overview of scientific protection goals for the ecological threshold option as proposed by EFSA, and an overview of the specific protection goals for the ecological recovery option as proposed by EFSA.

Protection goals for aquatic organisms are divided in to two main categories:

• The ‘Ecological Threshold’ option, where only negligible effects on populations are accepted, and

• The ‘Ecological Recovery’ option, where population-level effects are accepted if ecological recovery takes place within an acceptable time period.

The tiered approach allows for a combination of test types (laboratory or field, and acute or chronic) within the scope of specific protection goals. Trigger values are assigned to each tier level which informs the decision to proceed to the next test level.

Tier 1 testsTier 1 tests employ indicator organisms; i.e. organisms which are representatives of a systematic or ecological group (Table 12). The tests most frequently look for effects in the dose-response curve and can be used for both short (acute) and long-term (chronic) assessments.

In the European Union, the use of pesticides is regulated, and all EU Member States apply the same evaluation procedures and authorisation criteria in order to place a plant protection product on the market. It is the responsibility of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and national authorities to carry out risk assessment for pesticides and to provide the European Commission with scientific support for the decision making processes [88]. Reference to the key legislative documents that form the legal framework for the registration of plant protection products can be found in Annex 1.


Tier 1 tests are conducted in the laboratory under highly controlled conditions

Figure 8: Schematic presentation of the tiered approach within the acute (left part) and chronic (right part) effect assessment for plant protection products (PPPs) and aquatic organisms [89]

Field studies and landscape

level models

Population and community level experiments and

models

Acute lab tests with additional species and/or

refined exposure

Chronic lab tests with additional species and/or

refined exposure

Core acute toxicity data Core chronic toxicity data

Tier 4

Tier 3

Tier 2

Tier 1

COMPLEXITY

EC

OLO

GIC

AL

RE

ALI

SM

Acute effect assessment Chronic effect assessment

Specific protection

goal

Acute risk assessment looks at short-term risk

(for example, the occurance of mortality within 48 hours)

Chronic risk assessment looks at long-term risk

(for example, the occurance of effects on sexual

reproduction)

Higher tier levels aim at being more realistic than lower tier levels

All tiers aim to assess the same protection goal

In each tier level all available scientific information is used

Lower tier levels are more conservative than higher tier levels


Organism group Ecological entity Attribute Magnitude Time

Algae Population Abundance/biomass

Negligible effect

Not applicable

Aquatic plants PopulationSurvival/growthAbundance/biomass

Aquatic invertebrates Population Abundance/biomass

VertebratesIndividual Survival

Population Abundance/biomass

Aquatic microbes Functional group Process (e.g. litter breakdown)

Risk Assessment will not be developed since tier 1 data

requirements are not defined

Table 10: Overview of scientific protection goals for the ecological threshold option as proposed by EFSA [89]

Tier 1 tests are conducted in the laboratory under highly controlled conditions – where factors including temperature, water quality, the age of test organisms, illumination regime, and the exposure of test organisms to test compounds, are all carefully controlled. The high level of standardisation that characterises Tier 1 tests ensures that tests can be reproduced, and results corroborated in different laboratories.

The long-term and constant exposure of test organisms achieved at Tier 1 ensures that worst-case and complex exposure scenarios can be tested. The controlled conditions allow for analysis of exposure to compounds during their degradation, and in scenarios that bring rapidly changing exposure, which is possible in fast flowing water bodies (pulse exposure).

The limitations of lab tests are to be found in the number of species tested, the trophic level occupied by test species, and the assessment of impact on ecological interactions. Lab tests are conducted on considerably fewer species than are found in a natural ecosystem, and tests do not examine effects on ecological interactions or on groups such as top level predators.

Higher tier testsThere is no testing system available that can accommodate the specific complexity of all aquatic ecosystems in Europe. The aim of higher tier risk assessment is to achieve an approximation of ecological reality in order to deliver a satisfactory degree of confidence for risk

management ‘in the field’. Some of the methods used for higher tier tests include mesocosm, bioconcentration and biomagnification studies, and Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) curves.

Mesocosm studiesMesocosm studies use an artificial pond, normally containing natural water, sediment, and a community consisting of at least micro-organisms, plankton, macrophytes and macro-invertebrates, and sometimes small fish [90]. A mesocosm allows for the study of effects of test compounds on communities of organisms,

Daphnia pulex, the most common species of water flea. EC Regulation 283/2013 Tier 1 data must demonstrate that this species is protected at the population level


Table 11: Overview of the specific protection goals for the ecological recovery option as proposed by EFSA [89]

Organism group Ecological entity Attribute

Effect allowable on most sensitive/vulnerable population

Magnitude (effect)* Duration

Algae Population Abundance/biomass

SmallMedium

Large

MonthsWeeksDays

Aquatic plants** PopulationSurvival/growthAbundance/biomass

SmallMedium

MonthsWeeks

Aquatic invertebrates* Population Abundance/

biomass

SmallMedium

Large

MonthsWeeksDays

Vertebrates No recovery option

Aquatic microbes Functional group Processes RA will not be developed since Tier 1 data requirements are not defined

* None of the direct effects should lead to unacceptable indirect effects

** The recovery option will not be applicable in case organisms with a long life cycle could be affected and short-term (days) large effects generally will be acceptable only for short-cyclic organisms that have a high reproduction capacity.

Table 12: The aquatic key drivers and their ecological entity to be protected as proposed by EFSA and the current standard aquatic test species related to these key drivers [89]

Key Driver Ecological entity to be protected

Tier 1 taxa mentioned in data requirements (EC Regulation 283/2013)

Aquatic algae Populations • Green algae (e.g. Pseudokirchneriella subcapita)• Other taxonomic groups

(e.g. the diatom Navicula pelliculosa)

Aquatic vascular plants

Populations • Monocotyledons, e.g. Lemna gibba/minor (Lemna is a genus of free-floating aquatic plants from the duckweed family), Glyceria maxima (a perennial grass)

• Dicotyledons, e.g. Myriophyllum (a genus of aquatic plants, sometimes referred to as water weeds)

Aquatic invertebrates

Populations • Crustaceans: Daphnia magna/pulex, Americamysis bahia

• Insects: Chironomus riparius• Oligochaets: Lumbriculus spp.

(worm species within the order Lumbriculidae, of the Annelida subclass, Oligochaeta)

Aquatic vertebrates Individuals (In acute risk assessment to avoid possible mortality)

Populations (In chronic risk assessment)

• Fish, e.g. Oncorhynchus mykiss (trout)

Aquatic microbes Functional groups • No standard test species


and takes into account indirect effects such as those experienced by predators where prey populations are reduced, and the potential effects on water pH where the pH regulating services of plants and microorganisms might be affected.

Mesocosm studies can be run for more than a year to determine long-term effects, and they can be managed as static or ‘flow’ water bodies in order to mimic still water and stream or river conditions.

Bioconcentration and biomagnification testsBioconcentration is the process in which the chemical concentration in an aquatic organism exceeds that in water as result of direct exposure to waterborne chemical; bioconcentration occurs because of absorption of chemicals through respiratory surfaces and skin [91].

Biomagnification is the process in which the chemical concentration in an organism achieves a level that exceeds that in the organism’s diet due to dietary absorption [91]. Biomagnification is exhibited through the detection of higher chemical concentrations with the increased trophic status of organisms sampled [92]. Tissue concentrations of bioaccumulated chemicals

increase as these materials pass up the food chain [93] (Figures 9 and 10). In risk assesment for aquatic organisms, EFSA defines the biomagnification factor (BMF) as the relative concentration (of a relevent compund) in a predatory animal compared with the concentration in its prey [89].

The bioaccumulation of a substance is not an adverse effect or hazard in itself; however bioaccumulation and biomagnification can lead to unacceptable environmental impact within food chains. Therefore, the challenge for industry and regulators during the risk assessment process is to screen for the potential of substances to bioconcentrate and/or bioaccumulate, and in a next step to assess if effects due to bioaccumulation or biomagnification after prolonged exposure occur [94]. As bioaccumulation processes often are slow and substances may be persistent, a long-term assessment is appropriate [95].

Testing and assessment for bioconcentration follows a stepwise approach. At first, compounds are evaluated for their potential to bioconcentrate; if bioconcentration potential is confirmed, then a second stage of testing sees the controlled

In July 2013 EFSA issued revised guidance for assessing the risks posed by pesticides to aquatic organisms – such as fish, amphibians, invertebrates and plants – living in ponds, ditches and streams next to fields that are treated with these substances. The guidance document outlines methods to evaluate the extent to which exposure to pesticides affects populations of aquatic organisms, including aquatic plants and algae. This risk assessment scheme is designed to help risk assessors and decision-makers at national and EU level ensure that aquatic organisms are protected when pesticides are placed on the market [96].

A laboratory test simulates the exposure of Chironomidae insect larvae to pesticides in a water body. Chironomidae live in sediment and are indicators of the effects of test compounds on other sediment-dwelling organisms.


exposure of fish to the compound to determine the effects of exposure to the compound at different concentration levels. Several parameters are measured, including compound uptake rate, excretion, and the formation of metabolites.

Both bioconcentration and biomagnification have relevance for pesticide risk assessment; however, as top level predators (e.g. eagles, otters) are often rare or endangered, direct testing is neither desirable nor practical. Therefore, data is required which shows the extent to which a compound has the potential to bioaccumulate (compound specific factors) and other data are required (by comparing concentration levels found within test fish compared to concentrations found within surrounding water [89] ) for risk assessment for some fish, and for fish-eating predators.

Bioconcentration referrs to the uptake and accumulation of a substance from water alone.

Bioaccumulation refers to uptake from all sources (dietary and other environmental exposure).

Biomagnification is the process in which the chemical concentration in an organism achieves a level that exceeds that in the organism’s diet due to dietary absorption.

Eagle

Trout

Perch

Water flea

Algae

Figure 9: An example food chain

Figure 10: Increasing exposure of organisms to a bioaccumulative compound in an aquatic food chain

HighLow

High

POSITION IN FOOD CHAIN (RELATIVE TROPHIC LEVEL)

EXPOSURE

Algae

Water flea

Fish

Fish eagle


Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD)Species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) are used in ecological risk assessment; when used correctly they can give a greater statistical confidence to the risk assessment process as compared to traditional quotient and assessment factor approaches [97] (Figure 11).

An SSD curve can be used to describe the marked differences in sensitivity to test compounds exhibited between species [89]. SSD curves make use of data from laboratory tests which provide specific endpoints for individual species; the species specific endpoints can be plotted to an SSD curve for each tested compound. The aim of a SSD analysis is to establish the dose-related risk-potential of exposure of particular species to particular compounds [97], it allows for the extrapolation of effects on non tested species, based upon the known effects on tested species.

The specific end point may, for example, be set to the ‘ED50’, i.e. the amount of agent required to produce a pre-determined response in test organisms at the median (50%) level [98]. Based on ED50 data, the ‘HC5’ (Hazardous Concentration for 5% of the species) value is frequently estimated, and used to represent a concentration that would materially impact 5% of the species while not seriously impacting the other 95% [98].

HC5 offers a conservative assessment of risk, and with a high degree of confidence it is often used to determine safe exposure scenarios for pesticides in relation to specific species. HC5 is not intended as an ‘all or nothing’ threshold. The conservative nature of HC5 is also to be found in the fact that ecological community structures would likely sustain structure with a higher proportion of loss – than experienced in a HC5 scenario – through ecological processes such as adaptation and immigration [99].

Complex exposure scenariosThe constant exposure scenarios normally used during 1st tier tests do not reflect the kind of exposure that is perhaps experienced out in the real world. For example, compounds will degrade over time and produce metabolites which may themselves possess toxicological profiles of interest for risk assessment. It is possible for compounds and their metabolites to become enriched in the sediment of water bodies before finally entering the food chain.

In Europe, complex exposure scenarios in surface water are modelled using FOCUS (FOrum for the Co-ordination of pesticide fate models and their Use) modelling tools which were developed specifically for this purpose [100].

100

50

0

Median

90% confidence interval

Species specific data representing individual species EC50

Lower, median and upper limit hazardousconcentration to 5 % of the species (HC5)

A B C

HC5

Log concentration of substance subject to risk assessment

Percentage of individuals

responding

A B C

Figure 11: Graphical presentation of a species sensitivity distribution curve with example lower, median and upper species sensitivity curve and lower, median and upper limit hazardous concentration to 5% of the species (HC5) [89]


Risk management and best management practices for the use of Plant Protection ProductsThe risk assessment process may identify the need for specific risk mitigation measures to be applied during the use of a product in order to protect surface water. A high degree of knowledge of exposure routes and exposure reduction measures means that today European farmers have access to technical solutions, products, and application strategies that deliver a high degree of safety and protect aquatic organisms.

Risk mitigation measures are described on pesticide product labels and it is obligatory for pesticide users to follow these approved safety instructions. In addition to safety instructions, best management practices can contribute to the protection of surface water, including measures to reduce diffuse source losses such as spray drift, run-off and point source pollution which can result for example from a spillage or during the cleaning of equipment.

Many farmers – aware of the risks associated with crop protection products and the importance of maintaining water quality – utilise various best management practices and adhere to product label requirements.

Risk mitigation measures are described on pesticide product labels; it is obligatory for users to follow these instructions

Figure 12: Direct and indirect measures to protect surface water from drift [101] )

Cropped area

Fixedbuffer zones

Adjustable buffer zones (depending on spray application

technology)

Water body

No-spray zones

Direct measures(reducing drift at source)

Indirect measures(reducing exposure to drift)

Use of Spray Drift Reduction Technology (SDRT)

Natural vegetation, windbreaks,

hail nets, etc.


Spray drift reductionSpray drift occurs when air currents move pesticides outside of the treatment area during their application. To prevent spray drift reaching surface waters, direct and indirect measures can be taken (Figure 12). Direct measures include the use of spray drift reducing nozzles that minimise the quantity of super-fine droplets which are vulnerable to drift. Indirect measures include the use of buffer strips to enlarge the distance between treated areas and water bodies, and the addition of structural elements such as hedges, windbreaks or high vegetation which help capture drifting spray.

Local weather conditions – and in particular wind speed and wind direction – are important parameters to consider in any effort to minimise spray drift; some EU countries include wind speed limits in their management guidance.

Run-off (and erosion) reductionRun-off occurs when rain intensity exceeds the water infiltration capacity of a soil. Run-off is relevant for erosion prevention, and should be considered as a potential route for the translocation of pesticides outside of fields. There are several factors which can be taken into account when considering mitigation of the problems associated with run-off (and the associated erosion of soil), including:

• The characteristics of the soil, including water holding capacity;

• Knowledge of normal rain intensity and average rainfall levels, and the likelihood of severe weather events with high precipitation;

• The characteristics of the field, including information on field slope and distance between the field and surface water;

• The particular management practices that take place within or near the field, and adjacent to water bodies.

While many of the factors which influence run-off and erosion are not under the control of farmers, there are certain practices which if adopted can reduce the likelihood and/or impact of run-off and erosion (Table 13).

Table 13: Example best management practices to prevent or minimise run-off and/or erosion

Type of management practice Examples

Soil management Contour tillingReduced tillageReduced soil compactionIncreased organic matter

Cropping practices Crop rotationCover cropsStrip cropping

Vegetative buffers Edge of field and riparian bufferHedge and woodland buffers

Retention structures Edge of field bundsArtificial wetlands/ponds

Adapted use of PPPs Adapted timing of useProduct rotationModified rate of application

Optimised irrigation Use of modern technologies


Woodland buffer

Clover is an excellent cover crop with high nitrogen fixing potential

Evidence of soil erosion on a wheat field following snow-melt and heavy rain

Vegetative buffers help to prevent and minimise run-off and erosion to water bodies

Overuse of heavy farm machinery can result in soil compaction which elevates the risk of run-off and erosion


Reducing point source pollutionPoint source pollution is entirely manageable by farmers, and has until relatively recently been overlooked as a significant source of water pollution. In fact, point sources typically contribute between 50-80% of total pesticide pollution of surface waters [102].

Point source pollution is usually the result of failure to carefully handle the product and because of the use of inappropriate or malfunctioning equipment. Point source pollution can occur at any point during the working process, beginning with transportation of the product, through the mixing and loading stages, and ending in the disposal of remnants and the cleaning of machinery and used containers (Figure 13).

Whilst mandatory regulations exist to minimise the occurrence of point source pollution, there are also voluntary initiatives that can provide farmers with training and guidance on best practices, and advice on the selection and use of pesticide application and cleaning equipment.

Out of care for their land, many farmers and land managers are engaged in initiatives that aim to prevent pollution.

Figure 13: Key stages in the use-phase of a crop protection product with potential to generate point source pollution [102]

For more than 10 years, ECPA has been engaged stewardship projects to prevent pesticide pollution of water. Focusing on the prevention of point source pollution and minimising drift, run-off and erosion, ECPA currently works with 22 partner organisations in 24 European countries to roll-out guidance for best management practices during the use of pesticides to safeguard freshwater resources. For more information about the ‘TOPPS’ projects, visit www.ecpa.eu and www.topps-life.org

Mixing and loading over a sealed surface allows for the safe capture and clean-up of any crop protection product spillage

Proper rinsing and disposal of empty crop protection containers helps prevent point source pollution

After spraying Remnant and container

management

During sprayingBefore sprayingStorageTransport


Home, garden and amenities – a brief look at non-agricultural pesticide usesCertain plant protection products are made for non-agricultural use; for example, for use in private gardens and amenities, and for municipalities in order to maintain public spaces such as parkland and transport infrastructure including roads and railways.

In most EU countries plant protection products authorised for amateur use must have low human and environmental toxicological profiles, and easy-to-follow label instructions, including recommendations for buffer zones to protect water; they are also sold in small pack sizes to discourage excessive use. In general, the non-professional use of commonly used pesticides around the home and garden is found to have relatively minor contribution to the contamination of drain flow [103].

Non-agricultural pesticide use also offers an important means to manage invasive alien species. The controls of IAS around homes, in gardens and public spaces can help protect biodiversity by preventing the dominance of aggressively invasive species.

Municipalities typically use herbicides to control weeds on hard surfaces, including roadsides, pavements, parking lots and public squares. Characterised by their efficient drainage of rainwater, these hard surfaces present an additional challenge in the avoidance of contamination of drainage waters. To compliment label instructions and best management practices, in 2002 a sustainable weed management system for pavements (SWEEP) was first developed, and extensive field tests have demonstrated that pesticide use guidelines are effective at reducing hard surface run-off to drainage flows. Tailored for policy makers and pesticide users, SWEEP provides information and guidance on herbicide selection and appropriate control methods, and if applicable, herbicide use registration [104].

In most EU countries pesticides authorised for amateur use must have low human and environmental toxicological profiles and easy-to-follow label instructions.


The Water Framework Directive and the Common Agricultural PolicyThe EU has some of the strictest water protection legislation to be found anywhere in the world, the backbone of which is the Water Framework Directive (WFD) which protects water resources for human use and the environment. Adopted in the year 2000, this directive is in-part a European Commission response to public concern over water pollution [105]. Furthermore, the new Common Agricultural Policy and Rural Development programme include cross compliance and other methods that will help ensure the quality and quantity of Europe’s freshwater systems.

Setting out a precise timetable for action – with 2015 as the target date for getting all EU surface waters into good condition – the WFD adopts an innovative approach to water management, based on natural geographical and hydrological formations: river basins; rather than national administrative or political boundaries [106].

Under the WFD, Member States of the EU are required to draw up River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) that serve as the coordinated plan for each River Basin District. Where these River Basins cross national borders, the responsibility becomes shared among the different member states who must draw up these plans with extensive consultation from the public. As the different RBMPs are created on the basis of the great variety that exists within Europe’s waterways, these 6-year plans will be able to take regional variety and agricultural needs into account.

The main goal of the new Water Framework Directive will be the achievement of ‘good ecological status’ and ‘good chemical status’. Good ecological status is defined in terms of the quality of the biological community that can be expected under conditions of minimal human impact. Under these guidelines, Member States must construct their RBMP in such a way as to establish the particular chemical and hydro-morphological standards that will ensure the right quality.

Good chemical status is defined as compliance with existing European quality standards for chemical substances such as crop protection products – there can thus be no lessening of the protection of water quality.

With regards to the Common Agricultural Policy, the main mechanism that protects surface water is cross-compliance, under which farmers and Member States are required to pay special attention to water quantity and quality. Both the Water Framework Directive as well as the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive are part of the compliance required for farmers to receive CAP funding. To further protect surface water, the EU has implemented the Nitrates Directive to prevent the eutrophication of water through fertiliser and other nitrate runoff.

Additionally, under the new CAP’s greening measures, farmers will be required to maintain Ecological Focus Areas (EFA), which may consist of managing buffer strips in riparian zones as as well as implementing additional management practices that help shield surface water from accidental contamination by crop protection products or nitrates.

The EU’s renewed efforts under both the WFD and the CAP show that there is a commitment on part of regulators as well as farmers and other parties to improve and maintain the status of Europe’s waterways and water bodies.

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy‘ or, in short, the EU Water Framework Directive (or WFD) was adopted on the 23rd of October, 2000. The WFD aims for good condition for all EU surface waters by 2015, which includes achieving ‘good ecological status’ and ‘good chemical status [107].


Ways forward

Meeting the challengeGlobal agriculture is faced with many challenges. It has to produce more raw materials to satisfy the increasing and diversifying demands of a growing world population, it has to contribute to economic prosperity and social wellbeing in rural areas, and it has to preserve natural resources such as land, biodiversity and fresh water.

A more productive and resource efficient agriculture mitigates the problems associated with these challenges, because it enables us to have more of everything – more food, more feed, more non-food crops, more biodiversity and natural habitats [8].

Bio-physical improvements to reduce the impact of food production on local and global biodiversity include reducing pressure on global land use, reducing losses of inputs (including pesticides) and emissions, and improving local biodiversity and land and water management.

Likewise, by increasing the output of crop products per hectare, improvements in food security and natural area protection can be combined [10].

If we wish to maintain and improve yields, make efficient use of natural resources and feed the planet, the use of plant protection products must be part of a toolbox of agricultural technologies and best practices that is readily accessible for farmers. When the global need for agricultural productivity is considered, there are currently no practical alternatives to pesticide use in either conventional or organic farming.

Efficient production technologies are imperative to allow us to close yield gaps and ensure productivity; however, society must use these technologies in an appropriate way to ensure that agriculture plays a central role in delivering sustainable solutions. These can be achieved through risk management, innovation, and best management practices.


Managing the risksScience, research and development have given us sophisticated crop protection solutions. Used professionally, pesticides play a key role in delivering an abundant supply of safe, healthy and affordable food. While their use is certainly not without risk, a sensible, risk-based approach to EU legislation ensures a safe, healthy environment in addition to the reliable supply of food and other agricultural goods.

The biologically active characteristics of pesticides that can pose risk to non-target species are acknowledged and accommodated in European pesticide regulation; in fact, pesticides are one of the most regulated product classes on the European market.

Pesticide regulations are designed to ensure the safety and safe use of pesticides, so that farmers are equipped with the right tools for sustainable productivity. In addition, EU pesticide regulation allows European consumers a high degree of confidence in the safety, availability and affordability of food.


Improving through science and innovation

Technical developments and innovative solutions – such as satellite guided precision agriculture – continue to help minimise the exposure of surface water to pesticides.

There are also down-to-earth technical solutions, such as filters for application devices which guard against the release of dust when drilling treated

seeds. Application nozzles have been developed which optimise drift reduction; and, orchards and vineyards often make use of physical barriers – such as hail nets – to prevent drift reaching water bodies. Agricultural innovations equip farmers with new possibilities and greater flexibility in decision making.

Supporting Best Management Practices, working together

To protect freshwater biodiversity in the long term, a mixture of strategies is recommended; strategies that include measures to protect key, biodiversity-rich water-bodies and their catchments, as well as species or habitat based plans that reconcile the need to protect biodiversity and the need for societal use of water [49].

More generally, sustainable agricultural practices can contribute to protecting and preserving the freshwater resource. For agriculture to be sustainable it must be efficient, productive and contribute to a resilient natural environment. Society’s demands challenge farmers to ‘produce more, with less’, but this can only be achieved if farmers have access to appropriate technology and best management practices.

At the global scale, lack of access to markets, inputs, capital, technology, and limited exposure to the best agronomic practices, results in large regional differences in crop yields [10].

Precision farming uses GPS-driven tools to offer fine control over product application rate, to accommodate field-level variations such as areas of high or low weed infestation


Even in the prosperous EU the latest technological developments take time to be widely adopted; however, a range of easy-to-implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) offer scope to improve pesticide risk management and provide solutions that protect human health and the environment – including water – without jeopardising essential agricultural productivity.

Farmers and landowners engage in the management of agricultural land, and stewardship initiatives from industry and farmers’ associations provide outreach and expert support to European farmers. These initiatives help with crop protection, risk management, and biodiversity protection.

Strong public support for biodiversity protection, a knowledgeable and passionate community of famers, and the engaged expertise of industry can be combined to make the rural environmental ‘greener’ and more productive. With careful management and reasoned discussion between land managers, public, and policy makers, we can help ensure a sustainably productive future.


Annex I. Legislative framework for Plant Protection ProductsThe PPP registration process comprises both EU-wide and national legislation and guidance documents; some of the key EU references are listed below.

These documents – together with others to which they refer – detail requirements for product registrations. This includes information on requirements for study design, validity criteria, and test organism specifications. Different categories of compounds are also addressed, such as active ingredients (the primary active molecules in a product), products (which may contain more than one active ingredient), and metabolites (the products of the degradation of active ingredients in the natural environment).

PPP registration in the EU in general:• Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of The European

Parliament and of The Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directions 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC.

Official Journal of The European Union reference: OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1–50

Details for PPP registrations in EU:• Commission Regulation (EU) No 283/2013

of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements for active substances, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of The European Parliament and The Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.


• Commission Regulation (EU) No 284/2013 of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements for plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of The European Parliament and the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.


EU Guidance document for the risk assessment of aquatic organisms:• Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant

protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters

EFSA Journal reference: EFSA Journal 2013;11(7):3290 [268 pp.]

Sustainable Use Directive• Directive 2009/128/EC of The European

Parliament and of The Council Establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides.

Official Journal of The European Union reference: OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 71


References

[1] International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), “Water Facts and Figures,” IFAD, [Online]. Available: http://www.ifad.org/english/water/key.htm. [Accessed 3 July 2014].

[2] Copa-Cogeca, “Copa-Cogeca climate change series: Info Sheet – Water and agriculture under a changing climate,” Copa-Cogeca, [Online]. Available: http://www.copa-cogeca.be/Factsheets.aspx. [Accessed 3 July 2014].

[3] J. S. Baron and N. L. Poff, “Sustaining healthy freshwater ecosystems,” Water Resources Update, no. 127, pp. 52-58, 2004.

[4] WWF, “Living Planet Report 2012: Biodiversity, biocapacity and better choices,” WWF, 2012.

[5] K. Chopra, R. Leemans, P. Kumar and H. Simons, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy responses, volume 3 (The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Series), Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005.

[6] A. Balmford, R. Green and B. Phalan, “What conservationists need to know about farming,” Proceeding of the Royal Society, vol. 279, p. 2714–2724, 2012.

[7] FAO, “High Level Expert Forum – How to Feed the World in 2050,” in Global Agriculture Towards 2050, Rome, 2009.

[8] S. Noleppa, H. von Witzke and M. Cartsburg, “The social, economic and environmental value of agricultural productivity in the European Union,” HFFA working paper 03/2013, HFFA, 2013..

[9] European Environment Agency, “Towards Efficient Use of Water Resources in Europe,” EEA, Copenhagen, 2012.

[10] PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, “How sectors can contribute to sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity – CBD Technical Series No.79,” Secretariat of the Convention on Biodlogical Diversity, 2014.

[11] OECD, “Sustainable Management of Water Resources in Agriculture,” OECD, 2010.

[12] OECD/FAO, “OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2012-2021,” OECD Publishing and FAO, 2012.

[13] TEEB, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands,” TEEB, 2013.

[14] B. Phalan, A. Balmford, R. E. Green and J. P. W. Scharlemann, “Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally,” Food Policy, Vols. Volume 36, Supplement 1, p. S62–S71, 2011.

[15] H. C. Lukaski, “Methods for the assessment of human body composition: traditional and new,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 537-556, 1987.

[16] A. G. Lowndes, “Percentage of Water in Jelly-Fish,” Nature, vol. 150, pp. 234-235, 1942.

[17] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), “Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing – Synthesis,” Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005.

[18] European Commission, Communication from The Commission to The Parliament, The Council, The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, Brussels: European Commission, 2011.

[19] European Environment Agency, “Water use by sectors,” EEA, [Online]. Available: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/water-resources/water-use-by-sectors. [Accessed 2 July 2014].

[20] E. G. Nisbet and N. H. Sleep, “The habitat and nature of early life,” Nature, vol. 409, pp. 1083-1091, 2001.

[21] S. J. Mojzsis, G. Arrenius, K. D. McKeegan, T. M. Harrison, A. P. Nutman and C. R. L. Friend, “Evidence for life on Earth before 3,800 million years ago,” Nature, vol. 7, pp. 55-59, 1996.

[22] D. S. Heckman, D. M. Geiser, B. R. Eidell, R. L. Stauffer, N. L. Kardos and S. B. Hedges, “Molecular evidence for the early colonization of land by fungi and plants,” Science, vol. 293, pp. 1129-1133, 2001.

[23] W. E. Duellman and L. Trueb, Biology of Amphibians, Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press, 1994.

[24] S. M. Swinton, F. Lupi, G. P. Robertson and S. K. Hamilton, “Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits,” Ecological Economics, vol. 64, pp. 245-252, 2007.

[25] European Environment Agency, “Use of freshwater resources (CSI 018) – Assessment published Dec 2010,” 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/use-of-freshwater-resources/use-of-freshwater-resources-assessment-2. [Accessed 2 July 2014].

[26] P. A. Harrison, “Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems,” Biodiversity Conservation, vol. 19, p. 2791–2821, 2010.

[27] M. A. Altieri, “The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 74, p. 19–31, 1999.

[28] TEEB, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food – Concept Note,” TEEB, 2014.

[29] R. de Groot, L. Brander, S. van der Ploeg, R. Costanza, F. Bernard, L. Braat, M. Christie, N. Crossman, A. Ghermandi, L. Hein, S. Hussain, P. Kumar, A. McVittie, R. Portela, L. C. Rodriguez, P. ten Brink and P. van Beukering, “Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units,” Ecosystem Services, vol. 1, pp. 50-61, 2012.

[30] TEEB, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB,” TEEB, 2010.


[31] European Environment Agency (EEA), “Status and monitoring — overview (Water),” EEA, [Online]. Available: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/status-and-monitoring/. [Accessed 11 August 2014].

[32] B. Collen, M. Böhm, R. Kemp and J. Baillie, “Spineless: status and trends of the world’s invertebrates,” Zoological Society of London, London, 2012.

[33] L. Cheng, Marine Insects, North Holland Publishing Company, San Diego, 1976.

[34] R. Fitter and R. Manual, “A field guide to Freshwater life in Britain and North-West Europe”, Collins Field Guide, Collins, 1986.

[35] H. Streble and D. Krauter, Das Leben im Wassertropfen, Stuttgart: Frankh’sche Verlagshandlung, 1981.

[36] R. S. de Groot, M. A. Wilson and R. M. J. Boumans, “A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services,” Ecological Economics, vol. 41, pp. 393-408, 2002.

[37] C. Revenga, J. Brunner, N. Henninger, K. Kassem and R. Payne, Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: Freshwater ecosystems, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2000.

[38] European Commission, “Facts and Figures on the Common Fisheries Policy – 2014 Edition,” Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2014.

[39] G. D. S. (UK), “Policy: Managing freshwater fisheries,” Government Digital Service, 20 March 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/managing-freshwater-fisheries. [Accessed 1 July 2014].

[40] A. Brown, N. Djohari and P. Stolk, “Fishing for Answers – The Final Report of the Social and Community Benefits of Angling Project,” Substance, Manchester, 2012.

[41] European Anglers Alliance (EAA), “About us,” HGMedia, [Online]. Available: http://www.eaa-europe.org/. [Accessed November 2013].

[42] J. Freyhof and E. Brooks, “European Red List of Freshwater Fishes,” Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2011.

[43] F. Markwardt, Hirudin as alternative anticoagulant – a historical view, Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, vol. 28, no. 5, p. 405-414 (2002).

[44] V. J. Kalkman, J. p. Boudot, R. Bernard, K.-J. Conze, G. De Knijf, E. Dyatlova, S. Ferreira, M. Jović, J. Ott, E. Riservato and G. Sahlén, “European Red List of Dragonflies,” Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2010.

[45] J. Geist, “Integrative freshwater ecology and biodiversity conservation,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 11 (6), p. 1507–1516, 2011.

[46] D. L. Strayer and D. Dudgeon, “Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges,” Journal of the North American Benthological Society, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 344–358, 2010.

[47] M. Miracle, B. Oertli, R. Cereghino and A. Hull, “Preface: conservation of european ponds-current knowledge and future needs,” Limnetica, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2010.

[48] R. Cereghino, J. Biggs, B. Oertli and S. Declerck, “The ecology of European ponds: defining the characteristics of a neglected freshwater habitat,” Hydrobiologia, vol. 597, p. 1–6, 2008.

[49] D. Dudgeon, A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z. I. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Leveque, R. J. Naiman, A.-H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M. L. J. Stiassny and C. A. Sullivan, “Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges,” Biological Reviews, vol. 81, p. 163–182, 2006.

[50] IUCN, “Overview of the IUCN Red List,” International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), [Online]. Available: http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/overview. [Accessed 16 October 2014].

[51] W. Darwall, K. Smith, D. Allen, M. Seddon, G. Mc Gregor Reid, V. Clausnitzer and V. Kalkman, “Freshwater biodiversity – a hidden resource under threat – Review of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,” IUCN, Gland, 2008.

[52] P. Boon and P. Raven, River conservation and management, John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

[53] A. Cuttelod, M. Seddon and E. Neubert, “European Red List of Non-marine Molluscs,” Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2011.

[54] IUCN, “Radix balthica – The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,” IUCN, [Online]. Available: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/155647/1. [Accessed 20 October 2014].

[55] H. Temple and N. Cox, “European Red List of Amphibians,” Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2009.

[56] IUCN, “Mesotriton alpestris – The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,” IUCN, [Online]. Available: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/59472/1. [Accessed 20 October 2014].

[57] IUCN, “Aeshna cyanea – The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,” IUCN, [Online]. Available: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/165524/1. [Accessed 20 October 2014].

[58] R. R. Dunn, “Global Mapping of Ecosystem Disservices: The Unspoken Reality that Nature Sometimes Kills Us,” BIOTROPICA – The Journal of Tropical Biology and Conservation, vol. 42, no. 5, p. 555–557, 2010.

[59] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “GEO 5: Global Environmemtal Outlook – Environment for the Future We Want,” UNEP, Valletta, 2012.


[60] World Heatlh Organisation (WHO), “World Malaria Report: 2013,” World Health Organisation, 2013.

[61] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Malaria,” CDC, 12 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/. [Accessed 3 July 2014].

[62] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Onchocerciasis (also known as River Blindness),” CDC, 21 May 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/onchocerciasis/gen_info/faqs.html. [Accessed 3 July 2014].

[63] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Schistosomiasis,” CDC, 12 November 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/schistosomiasis/. [Accessed 3 July 2014].

[64] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Lymphatic Filariasis,” CDC, 14 June 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lymphaticfilariasis/gen_info/faqs.html. [Accessed 3 July 2014].

[65] World Health Organisation (WHO), “Diarrhoeal disease: Fact sheet N°330,” WHO, April 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/. [Accessed 3 July 2014].

[66] B. Poulin, “Indirect effects of bioinsecticides on the nontarget fauna: The Camargue experiment calls for future research,” Acta Oecologica, vol. 44, pp. 28-32, 2012.

[67] R. de Graeff, C. Künast and G. Whitmore, “Pesticides and Biodiversity – Agricultural Productivity and Biodiversity Conservation,” ECPA, Brussels, 2013.

[68] D. Armstrong, “Liver fluke in cattle – Costs and control,” [Online]. Available: http://www.eblex.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Liver-fluke-in-cattle-costs-and-control.pdf. [Accessed 14 July 2014].

[69] TheCattleSite, “Cattle Diseases – Liver Fluke,” 5m Publishing, [Online]. Available: http://www.thecattlesite.com/diseaseinfo/182/liver-fluke. [Accessed 14 July 2014].

[70] Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, “Blackfly,” Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, [Online]. Available: http://livestockvetento.tamu.edu/insectspests/black-fly-simuliidae/. [Accessed 14 July 2014].

[71] European Commission, “Communication from The Commission to The Council, The European Parliament, The European Economic and Social Committee, and The Committee of the Regions: Towards and EU Strategy on Invasive Species: Impact Assessment – Executive Summary,” European Commission, Brussels, 2008.

[72] Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), “Invasive Alien Species – A Threat to Biodiversity,” Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Quebec, 2009.

[73] K. Mathiesen, “Spanish rice farmers fight invasive snail,” The Guardian, 19 February 2014.

[74] “Scientific opinion of the environmental risk of the apple snail for Europe”, EFSA Journal, vol. 12, no. 4, 3641, 2014.

[75] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), “Apple snail poses a serious threat to south European wetlands,” News story, 30th April 2014 [Online]. Available: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/140430a.htm [Accessed 24 February 2014]

[76] K. E. Limburg, V. A. Luzadis, M. Ramsay, K. L. Schulf and C. M. Mayer, “The Good, the Bad, and the Algae: Perceiving Ecosystem Services and Disservices Generated by Zebra and Quagga Mussels,” Journal of Great Lakes Research, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 86-92, 2010.

[77] V. Seufert, N. Ramankutty and J. A. Foley, “Comparing the yields of conventional and organic agriculture,” Nature, vol. 485, pp. 229-234, 2012.

[78] T. de Ponti, B. Rijk and M. K. van Ittersum, “The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture,” Agricultural Systems, vol. 108, p. 1–9, 2012.

[79] H. L. Tuomisto, I. D. Hodge, P. Riordan and D. W. Macdonald, “Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? – A meta-analysis of European research,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 112, pp. 309-320, 2012.

[80] E. C. Oerke, “Crop losses to pests,” The Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 144, pp. 31-43, 2006.

[81] G. S. Dhaliwal, V. Jindal and A. K. Dhawan, “Insect pest problems and crop losses: Changing trends,” Indian Journal of Ecology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1-7, 2010.

[82] Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (IAD), “Agriculture 2050 Starts Here and Now,” IAD, Paris, 2011.

[83] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), “About EFSA,” EFSA, [Online]. Available: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/aboutefsa.htm. [Accessed 21 October 2014].

[84] Ecologic Institute and SERI, “Establishing Environmental Sustainability Thresholds and Indicators,” Ecologic Institute and SERI, 2010.

[85] BIO Intelligence Service, “Water saving potential in agriculture in Europe: Findings from the existing studies and application to case studies. Final report prepared for the European Commission DG ENV,” BIO Intelligence Service, 2012.

[86] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, “Payments for Ecosystem Services and Food Security,” FAO, Rome, 2011.

[87] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), “Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant health, Plant protection products and their Residues on a request from EFSA related to the assessment of the acute and chronic risk to aquatic organisms with regard to the possibility of lowering the uncertainty...,” The EFSA Journal, vol. 301, pp. 1-45, 2005.

[88] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), “Pesticides,” EFSA, [Online]. Available: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/panels/pesticides.htm. [Accessed 18 July 2014].


[89] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters, EFSA Journal, vol. 7, no. 12, 1438, 2009.

[90] IMARES Wageningen UR, “Mesocosms,” IMARES Wageningen UR, [Online]. Available: https://www.wageningenur.nl/en/show/Mesocosms.htm. [Accessed 30 July 2014].

[91] D. Mackay and R. S. Boethling, Handbook of property estimation methods for chemicals, CRC Press, 2000.

[92] S. E. Jorgensen and B. Fath, Encyclopedia of Ecology, Five-Volume Set: Online version, Volume 1, Newnes, 2008.

[93] R. A. Kimerle and L. L. Marking, Aquatic Toxicology: Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium on Aquatic Toxicology, ASTM International, 1979.

[94] ECETOC, “The role of bioaccumulation in environmental risk assessment: the aquatic environment and related food webs,” ECETOC, Brussels, 1995.

[95] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), “Guidance Document on Risk Assessment for Birds & Mammals on request from EFSA,” EFSA Journal vol. 7, no. 12, 1438, 2009.

[96] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), “Pesticides and aquatic organisms – EFSA publishes new guidance,” EFSA, 18 July 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130718.htm?wtrl=01. [Accessed 18 July 2014].

[97] J. R. Wheeler, E. P. M. Grist, K. M. Y. Leung, D. Morritt and M. Crane, “Species sensitivity distributions: data and model choice,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 45, p. 192–202, 2002.

[98] E. L. Melnick and B. S. Everitt, Encyclopedia of Quantitative Risk Analysis and Assessment, Volume 1, John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

[99] J. Rougier, S. Sparks and L. J. Hill, Risk and Uncertainty Assessment for Natural Hazards, Cambridge University Press, 2013.

[100] FOCUS, “FOCUS Surface Water Scenarios in the EU Evaluation Process under 91/414/EEC”. Report of the FOCUS Working Group on Surface Water Scenarios, EC Document Reference SANCO/4802/2001-rev.2.,” 2001.

[101] P. Balsari, P. Marucco, G. Doruchowski, H. Ophoff and M. Roettele, “Best Management Practices to Reduce Spray Drift,” ECPA, Brussels, 2013.

[102] M. Röttele and P. Jaeken, “Train Operators to Prevent Point Sources – An EU Life and ECPA funded project,” 2010. [Online]. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/ppps/pdf/3-TOPPS_PJaeken.pdf. [Accessed 6 August 2014].

[103] C. T. Ramwell, M. Kah and P. D. Johnson, “Contribution of household herbicide usage to glyphosate and its degradate aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface water drains,” Pest Management Science, vol. 70, no. 12, p. 1823–1830, 2014.

[104] W. UR, “SWEEP – Sustainable weed control on pavements,” Wageningen UR, [Online]. Available: http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Research-Results/Projects-and-programmes/SWEEP/Introduction.htm. [Accessed 26 November 2014].

[105] European Commission, “Introduction to the new EU Water Framework Directive,” 18 June 2014. [Online]. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm. [Accessed 1 July 2014].

[106] European Commission, “Water is for life: How the Water Framework Directive helps,” Publications Office of the European Union, 2010.

[107] European Commission, Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) – Strategic Document, European Commission, 2001.


For more information, please contact:

ECPA aisbl

6 Avenue E. Van Nieuwenhuyse1160 Brussels – BelgiumTel: +32 2 663 15 50Fax: +32 2 663 15 60E-mail: [email protected]

www.ecpa.eu

Twitter: @cropprotectionFacebook: croprotection

ELO asbl

67 rue de Trèves1040 Brussels – BelgiumTel: +32 2 234 30 00Fax: +32 2 234 30 09E-mail: [email protected]

ww.elo.org

Twitter: @EULandownersOrgFacebook: EuropeanLandowners

The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) represents the crop protection industry at the European level. Its members include all major crop protection companies and national associations across Europe. ECPA promotes modern agricultural technology in the context of sustainable development; to protect the health of humans and the environment, and to contribute towards an affordable healthy diet, competitive agriculture and a high quality of life. ECPA members support fair, science-based regulation as a guarantee to the consumer, and the crop protection user, of high standards and safe products.

March 2015

The ELO is a European organization representing more than 54 national associations of private landowners across the EU 27. It is a non-profit organization committed to promoting a sustainable and prosperous countryside and to increase awareness relating to environmental and agricultural issues.

By engaging various stakeholders, ELO develops policy recommendations and programmes of action targeted to European policy makers.

ELO also organizes interdisciplinary meetings, gathering together key actors from the rural sector and policy makers at local, regional, national and European level.

FSC logo here

Pesticides and Freshwater Biodiversity · Foreword 2 Introduction: Water, and life on Earth 3 The...

Documents

Transcript of Pesticides and Freshwater Biodiversity · Foreword 2 Introduction: Water, and life on Earth 3 The...