This position paper intends to stimulate a profound rethinking of contemporary agricultural practice. We criticise the current intensity of chemical plant protection in Germany as ecologically unsustainable and thus threatening the achievement of key targets of environmental protection and nature conservation policies. In the first part of the paper, we provide background information on the use of plant protection products (PPP) in German agriculture, the role of agricultural policy, European pesticide legislation, the principles of and framework for environmental risk assessment and risk management of PPP, as well as environmental effects of PPP. The second part is presented against the backdrop of the European “Sustainable Use Directive” (2009/128/EC). This directive requires that “Member States shall adopt National Action Plans to set up their quantitative objectives, targets, measures, and timetables to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and to encourage the development and introduction of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides.” Reflecting on the corresponding debate in Germany, we suggest the following five key principles for a sustainable use of PPP and provide recommendations for their implementation: (1) minimising use; (2) identifying, quantifying, and communicating risks; (3) optimising risk management; (4) compensating for unavoidable effects; (5) internalising external costs.

The procedure for the risk assessment of pesticides in Germany is currently further developed from a deterministic to a geodata-based probabilistic risk assessment (GeoPRA) approach. As the initial step, the exposure assessment for spray drift in permanent crops, such as vineyards, fruit orchards, and hops, is considered. In our concept, geoinformation tools are used to predict distribution functions for exposure concentrations based mainly on spatial information regarding the neighbourhood of crops and surface waters. A total number of 23 factors affecting the drift into surface waters were assessed and suggestions for their inclusion into the approach developed. The main objectives are to base the exposure estimation on a realistic representation of local landscape characteristics and on empirical results for the impact of each feature on the drift deposition. A framework for the identification of high-risk sites (active management areas [AMAs]) based on protection goals and ecological considerations was developed in order to implement suitable risk mitigation measures. The inclusion of active mitigation measures at sites with identified and verified risk is considered a central and important part of the overall assessment strategy. The suggested GeoPRA procedure itself is comprised of the following 4 steps, including elements of the extensive preliminary work conducted so far: 1) nationwide risk assessment, preferably based only on geodata-based factors; 2) identification of AMAs, including the spatial extension of contamination, the level of contamination, and the tolerable effect levels; 3) refined exposure assessment, using aerial photographs and field surveys; and 4) mitigation measures, with a focus on landscape-level active mitigation measures leading to effective risk reductions. The suggested GeoPRA procedure offers the possibility to actively involve the farming community in the process of pesticide management. Overall, the new procedure will aim at increased flexibility of pesticide application regulations and a high level of protection of surface waters.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract