Risk Mitigation Tools A shortlist of tools ready to go
Transcript Of Risk Mitigation Tools A shortlist of tools ready to go
Risk Mitigation Tools A shortlist of tools ready to go
Objective
• Shortlist of the RMM “ready to go” from the workshop point of view
• Discussion to reveal:
• Practical questions • Remaining hurdles • Potential solutions
Ground water & drainage
Risk mitigation concept for drainage: what can be implemented now?
• Reduced application rate is already in place throughout the EU.
• Restrictions to application timing are in place in many MS. No legal change should be required – just the means to enforce the restriction.
• Simple modifications to application through e.g. banded spraying are less widely implemented. This might require a new S-phrase as well as the means to enforce the restriction.
Risk mitigation concept for drainage: what can be implemented now?
• The other mitigation measure that can be implemented relatively easily is a restriction based on soil type
Restriction based on soil type
Case study: Cherwell catchment (tributary of the Thames with known vulnerability to pesticide contamination)
Area of agricultural land (ha)
Broad soil types and drainage status
25000 20000 15000
Undrained Drained
10000
5000
0 Clay Medium Medium Light Light silt Sand loam silt loam
Baseline PECsw for three example pesticides
Compound
Use
Baseline PECsw (µg/L)
Mecoprop Chlorotoluron Metazachlor
Winter wheat
10.5
Winter wheat
3.8
Winter oilseed rape 0.11
Assumes usage at GAP on all soils cropped with the target crop
Simplified PEC calculation for demonstration purposes – NOT regulatory modelling
Details in Defra report for project PS2218
Impact of regulatory action preventing applications to clay soils
Compound
Baseline PECsw with Reduction
PECsw restriction in area
(µg/L) (µg/L)
treated
Reduction in PECsw
Mecoprop
10.5
1.9
23%
82%
Chlorotoluron 3.8
1.4
23%
62%
Metazachlor 0.11
0.04
22%
64%
Risk mitigation concept for drainage: what can be implemented now?
• Restriction based on soil type. • S-phrase is already in place. • Implementation by MS requires:
• A framework to demonstrate the effect on PECsw. FOCUS SWS and other surface water modelling tools provide a good start.
• National labelling frameworks that allow the restriction to be imposed.
• Means to enforce the restriction.
Some Questions to the Audience
As these measures are already implemented in at least some member states: • What what prevents wider adoption? • What could be done to improve acceptance?
Objective
• Shortlist of the RMM “ready to go” from the workshop point of view
• Discussion to reveal:
• Practical questions • Remaining hurdles • Potential solutions
Ground water & drainage
Risk mitigation concept for drainage: what can be implemented now?
• Reduced application rate is already in place throughout the EU.
• Restrictions to application timing are in place in many MS. No legal change should be required – just the means to enforce the restriction.
• Simple modifications to application through e.g. banded spraying are less widely implemented. This might require a new S-phrase as well as the means to enforce the restriction.
Risk mitigation concept for drainage: what can be implemented now?
• The other mitigation measure that can be implemented relatively easily is a restriction based on soil type
Restriction based on soil type
Case study: Cherwell catchment (tributary of the Thames with known vulnerability to pesticide contamination)
Area of agricultural land (ha)
Broad soil types and drainage status
25000 20000 15000
Undrained Drained
10000
5000
0 Clay Medium Medium Light Light silt Sand loam silt loam
Baseline PECsw for three example pesticides
Compound
Use
Baseline PECsw (µg/L)
Mecoprop Chlorotoluron Metazachlor
Winter wheat
10.5
Winter wheat
3.8
Winter oilseed rape 0.11
Assumes usage at GAP on all soils cropped with the target crop
Simplified PEC calculation for demonstration purposes – NOT regulatory modelling
Details in Defra report for project PS2218
Impact of regulatory action preventing applications to clay soils
Compound
Baseline PECsw with Reduction
PECsw restriction in area
(µg/L) (µg/L)
treated
Reduction in PECsw
Mecoprop
10.5
1.9
23%
82%
Chlorotoluron 3.8
1.4
23%
62%
Metazachlor 0.11
0.04
22%
64%
Risk mitigation concept for drainage: what can be implemented now?
• Restriction based on soil type. • S-phrase is already in place. • Implementation by MS requires:
• A framework to demonstrate the effect on PECsw. FOCUS SWS and other surface water modelling tools provide a good start.
• National labelling frameworks that allow the restriction to be imposed.
• Means to enforce the restriction.
Some Questions to the Audience
As these measures are already implemented in at least some member states: • What what prevents wider adoption? • What could be done to improve acceptance?