| Main authors: | Froukje Maria Platjouw, Harriet Moore, Susanne Wuijts, Sandra Boekhold, Susanne Klages, Isobel Wright, Morten Graversgaard and Gerard Velthof |
| FAIRWAYiS Editor: | Jane Brandt |
| Source document: | »Platjouw F. M. et al. (2021) Coherence in EU law and policy for the protection of drinking water resources. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 6.1R 200 pp |
Here we discuss the legal requirements imposed by the Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides on states and/or the farming industry with a focus on ecological, monitoring and reporting, public participation (including farmer organisatons) and coordination requirements. The ecological requirements are subjected to a (vertical) coherence assessment of their contribution to FAIRWAY's objectives of protecting drinking water resources against pollution by nitrates and pesticides from agricultural practices. Finally we subject the Pesticides Directive to a (horizontal) coherence assessment with the Water Framework, Drinking Water and NitratesDirectives to see how well each supports or constrains and counteracts the others.
Details of the analyses are contained in the Appendices of the full report:
1. Overview of the Pesticides Directive
The 2009 Pesticides Directive (PD) provides for a range of actions to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides in the EU by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and promoting the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and of alternative approaches or techniques, such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides.
Member states were required to adopt National Action Plans (NAPs) to implement the (PD) for the first time by November 2012. These plans should contain quantitative objectives, targets, measurements and timetables to reduce the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment.26 The directive identifies specific measures that member states are required to include in their plans for proper implementation. The main actions relate to training of users, advisors and distributors, inspection of pesticide application equipment, the prohibition of aerial spraying, limitation of pesticide use in sensitive areas, and information and awareness raising about pesticide risks. These plans should be reviewed at least every five years.
A cornerstone of the directive is the promotion of IPM, for which general principles are laid down in Annex III to the directive. Article 3 of the directive provides a definition of IPM and Article 14(4) requires member states to describe in their NAPs how they ensure that the general principles of IPM are implemented by all professional users by 1 January 2014.27 IPM has been described as one of the tools for low-pesticide-input pest management. It involves an integrated approach to the prevention and/or suppression of organisms harmful to plants through the use of all available information, tools and plant protection methods. IPM further aims at keeping the use of pesticides and other forms of intervention to only levels that are economically and ecologically justified and that reduce or minimise risk to human health and the environment. Sustainable biological, physical and other non-chemical methods must be preferred to chemical methods if they provide satisfactory pest control.
Member states need to develop clearly defined criteria so that they can assess systematically whether the principles of IPM (PD, annex III) are implemented, and take appropriate enforcement measures if this is not the case. Such tools could confirm that the intended outcome of IPM as specified in the Directive, a reduction of the dependency on pesticide use, is being achieved.
Financial incentives are available, including for buffer zones adjacent to water courses in agro-environmental schemes, capital grants for purchase of low drift nozzles, and construction of bio-beds to capture runoff from sprayer washing.
2. Contribution of the Pesticides Directive's requirements to achieving FAIRWAY's objectives
Table 2.5 Requirements and objectives of the PD
| Label | Requirements and objectives of the Pesticides Directive |
| Establish risk framework | To establish a framework to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticides and promoting the use of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques (art. 1) |
| Adopt national action plans | MS shall adopt National Action Plans to set up their quantitative objectives, targets, measures and timetables to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use. They should encourage the development and introduction of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques in order to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides (art. 4.1) |
| Establish equipment regulations | MS have to establish regulations about use of application equipment (art. 8) |
| Prevent spillage | Storage, mixing spots and packaging of pesticides should be constructed in such a way to prevent spillage (Art.13) |
| Establish risk indicators | Establish harmonised risk indicators (art. 15) |
| Establish measures | Specific measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water from the impact of pesticides shall be established (art. 11.1). Use of pesticides that are not classified as dangerous for the aquatic environment should be given precedence, ways of application where drift is minimised should be used and use of pesticides near water bodies should be limited (Art. 11.2 PD) |
| Prohibit aerial spraying | Aerial spraying, except under strict regulations, shall be prohibited (art. 9) |
The average score across all participants for the interaction between all requirements of the PD and the FAIRWAY objective was positive (M = 2.3). This suggests that respondents believe the PD requirements contribute positively to the protection of drinking water resources against pesticides from agricultural practices. Figure 2.5 demonstrates that respondents perceive that the requirement to establish protection measures (Art. 11 PD) is clearly most contributive. 80% of the respondents believe this requirement is indivisible to the FAIRWAY objective (+3).
Figure 2.5
The requirements to establish a framework (Art. 1 PD), to adopt national action plans (Art. 4.1 PD) are also perceived to be contributive. Respondent scores contained little variability. Overall, 60% and 50% of the respondents respectively believe these requirements are indivisible (+3) with the FAIRWAY objective. The remaining respondents suggested the interaction between these requirements and the FAIRWAY objective is reinforcing (+2).
The remaining requirements (art. 8, 9 and 15 PD) related to application equipment, aerial spraying, and harmonised risk indicators, are also perceived to be positive. However, there was much greater variability in responses. For example, only 40% of the respondents considered the requirement to establish harmonised risk indicators to be indivisible (+3), while 60% considered that the requirement is reinforcing (+2), enabling (+1) or neutral (0).
Responses to open-ended survey items give some explanation about the overall positive scores, and variability between scores for different articles. Overall, the requirements are considered to be closely connected to the aim to protect drinking water resources. However, the Pesticides Directive might be considered to be more narrowly designed to reduce pesticide use by implementing a set of prohibitions and a control system based on certification. It is suggested that it might not address drinking water quality specifically enough. Some respondents also highlighted that the requirements related to the risk indicators (Art. 15) and equipment regulations (Art.8) are not specifically contributive to the FAIRWAY objective, which explains the variable scores. For example, some risk indicators may be more suitable for ecological water quality standards, rather than for drinking water quality.
One respondent suggested that the prohibition on aerial spraying (Art. 9) could perhaps be more nuanced by taking into consideration site specific conditions and geographical characteristics. It might be worthwhile to examine the ‘strict regulations’ under which aerial spraying could be permitted. Thus, consistent with the GWD and ND, respondent perspectives about the contribution 46 of the PD to achieving the overarching FAIRWAY objective also reiterates the limitations of ‘blanket’ approaches to setting limits, thresholds, regulations across diverse geographical landscapes.
3. Coherence of the Pesticides Directive with other directives
The PD contains several requirements and objectives related to aquatic environments and improving water quality. For the purpose of this assessment, we asked respondents to score four key requirements related to establishing a framework, national action plans, measures, and regulations. These four requirements have been assessed and scored in terms of their coherence with key requirements of the WFD, GWD, DWD, and ND.
Table 3.4 Four key requirements of the Pesticides Directive
| Label | PD Article |
| Establishing frameworks | To establish a framework to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticides and promoting the use of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques (PD, art. 1). |
| National Action Plans | To adopt National Action Plans to set up their quantitative objectives, targets, measures and timetables to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use. To encourage the development and introduction of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques in order to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides (PD, art. 4.1) |
| Measures | To establish specific measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water from the impact of pesticides (art. 11.1). Use of pesticides that are not classified as dangerous for the aquatic environment should be given precedence, ways of application where drift is minimised should be used and use of pesticides near water bodies should be limited (Art. 11.2 PD) |
| Regulations | To establish regulations about use of application equipment (PD, art. 8). Aerial spraying, except under strict regulations, shall be prohibited (PD, art. 9). |
Establishing frameworks
Art.1 PD requires member states to establish a framework to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticides and promoting the use of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques. It has been assessed to what extent the requirements of the WFD, GWD, DWD, and ND are coherent with this, and whether there are any requirements that impede the attainment of the requirement to establish frameworks.
Overall, the scores given by project partner suggests that they believe that the directives contribute very positively to establishing frameworks under the PD (M = 2). However, the average of all scores for requirements related to each directive vary. On average, the DWD is considered to be most contributive and indivisible (+3). Similarly, the WFD was considered to be enabling (+2), and the GWD was considered to be indivisible (+3) to the requirement to establish frameworks.
The requirements considered to be of particular importance are: those related to the progressive reduction of pollution (WFD, art. 4.1(a)(iv)), institutional requirements (WFD, Art. 3.1, 7, 11.1, and 13.1), protection against contamination of water (Art.1 DWD), micro-organisms and parasites (Art.2, annex 1 DWD), prevention of deterioration (Art.4 DWD), threshold levels for nitrates and pesticides and need for stricter values (GWD, Annex I), the requirement to establish programmes of measures (GWD, art.6), and the need for remedial action (Art. 8 DWD). All these have been scored as indivisible (+3) from establishing frameworks under the PD.
For the purpose of the requirement to establish a framework to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides, no negative interactions have been identified. These results vary from earlier analyses which suggest that project partners view interactions with institutional requirements, such as establishing frameworks, more negatively compared to requirements related to protection and prevention of pollution. This may reflect genuine differences in coherence between institutional and protection/prevention requirements within each directive. However, the views expressed by project contributors are subjective and may also reflect variable perspectives about biophysical processes and how environmental policy is implemented in practice. The varying cohesion of institutional arrangements related to achieving the objectives of protection and prevention requirements should be investigated further. In particular, it would be helpful to identify elements of more coherent directives, compared to those with greater disconnect between objectives to protect resources and prevent pollution, and institutional arrangements.
Figure 3.13
National Action Plans
Art. 4 PD requires member states to adopt National Action Plans to set up their quantitative objectives, targets, measures and timetables to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use, and to encourage the development and introduction of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques in order to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides (PD, art. 4.1). It has been assessed to what extent the requirements of the WFD, GWD, DWD, and ND are coherent with this, and whether there are any requirements that impede the adoption of National Action Plans and to introduce integrated pest management.
Overall, the scores indicate that the directives are perceived to contribute positively to adopting National Action Pans under the PD (M= 1.3). While the WFD, DWD, and the GWD are considered to be generally enabling the requirement (+1), the ND is on average scored as neutral (0).
Amongst the respondent scores, several requirements stood out as being indivisible (+3). Of particular importance are the requirements to progressively reduce pollution (WFD, art. 4.1(a)(iv)), 84 to establish a framework under the WFD (Art. 1 WFD), to establish stricter threshold values (Annex 1 WGD), and to establish a programme of measures under the GWD (Art.6 GWD).
For the purpose of adopting National Action Plans and introducing integrated pest management, no negative interactions have been identified. Similar to the requirement to establish frameworks, these results contrast from scores related to institutional arrangements under other directives, such as the DWD.
Figure 3.14
Measures
Art. 11.1 PD requires member states to establish specific measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water from the impact of pesticides. Use of pesticides that are not classified as dangerous for the aquatic environment should be given precedence, ways of application where drift is minimised should be used and use of pesticides near water bodies should be limited (Art. 11.2 PD). It has been assessed to what extent the requirements of the WFD, GWD, DWD, and ND are coherent with this, and whether there are any requirements that impede the attainment of the requirement to establish specific measures.
Overall, the scores assigned by the project partner suggests that the directives are perceived to contribute highly positive to the requirement to establish specific measures (M = 2.1). Both the WFD and the DWD are considered to be indivisible (+3), and the respondent scores contained no variability. All requirements of these directives were scored as +3. The GWD was perceived to be less contributive, though still reinforcing (+2). Among the GWD requirements and objectives, the requirements to establish more strict values where threshold values from Annex II (0,1 µg/L for pesticides) are not sufficient to prevent damage to environment or safety of humans (Annex 1 GWD), and to establish programmes of measures (Art. 6 GWD), are considered to be most contributive and indivisible (+3).
The ND is perceived to be least contributive, yet still positive, with an average score of M=0,75. Most requirements of the ND are considered to be neutral (0), except for the duty to identify vulnerable zones (Art.3.2 ND) and establish action programmes for those (Art.5.1-5.4 ND). While the scores 85 given by project partners are subjective, this may also indicate some challenges associated with translating certain requirements from policy to on ground practice, and possible complex governance arrangements where interactions between PD and ND may appear. Thus, these observations require further investigation.
For the purpose of establishing specific measures, no negative interactions have been identified between the PD and the WFD, GWD, DWD and ND.
Figure 3.15
Regulations
Art. 8 PD requires to establish regulations about use of application equipment (PD, art. 8). Aerial spraying, except under strict regulations, shall be prohibited (PD, art. 9). It has been assessed to what extent the requirements of the WFD, GWD, DWD, and ND are coherent with this, and whether there are any requirements that impede the attainment of these requirements.
Overall, scores assigned indicate that the directives are perceived to be less coherent with the requirement, compared to other requirements under the PD (M=0,7). Average scores for requirements under each directive varied between 0,2, such as for ND, and 1,2, such as for DWD. The scores for individual requirements were also variable. While most requirements were scored either as neutral (0) or enabling (1), a few requirements are considered to be indivisible (+3) to the attainment of Art. 8 and 9 PD.
The requirement to progressively reduce pollution (WFD, art. 4.1(a)(iv)), and to ensure that measures taken do not cause any deterioration or increasing pollution of waters used for drinking water (DWD, art. 4) are considered to be most contributive and scored as indivisible (+3).
For the purpose of establishing regulations and prohibit aerial spraying, no negative interactions have been identified between the PD and the WFD, GWD, DWD and ND. However, it is noteworthy that the scores given by project partner about establishing regulations are much lower than the scores pertaining to other requirements. These low scores related to establishing regulations are more consistent with the assessments of institutional requirements under other directives, such as 86 the DWD. Further, these scores are also much lower than scores given for other institutional requirements under the PD, such as establishing frameworks. Further investigation may be worthwhile to identify factors that explain these perceptions, particularly with regards to lower cohesion between establishing regulations and requirements related to protecting resources and preventing pollution.
Figure 3.16
Conclusion
Overall, many positive interactions have been identified. The WFD, DWD and GWD are generally considered to contribute positively to the achievement of the PD directive. The ND is least relevant, as in general the ND does not apply to pesticides. No negative interactions have been detected.
Unlike other directives (such as the DWD), the project partner indicates that they believe there is much greater coherence between most institutional arrangements and the objectives of requirements related to protecting resources, preventing pollution, and establishing thresholds. There may be several explanations for this variability. Firstly, the scores assigned to interactions reflect the subjective judgements of project partners. Thus, variability may be due to opposing perspectives. In this instance, it would be worthwhile to further investigate the rationale underpinning these opposing perspectives. Secondly, the variability may reflect genuine differences in cohesion between institutional and environmental requirements under different directives. In this instance it would be worthwhile to identify factors that facilitate greater cohesion in some instances and impede cohesion in others.
Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see