Risk Mitigation Tools Off-field

Transcription

1 Risk Mitigation Tools Off-field Burkhard Golla 1, Anne Alix 2 1 Julius Kühn-Institute, Kleinmachnow, Germany 2 Dow AgroSciences, Milton Park, Abingdon, United Kingdom

2 Agenda Definitions and terminology Overview of the toolbox Buffer zones Field margins Compensation areas Conditions of application Mitigation measures for pollinators Conclusions Recommendations What you will see at the visit

3 Cultivated areas Need to define what we see to apply the correct measures

4 Definitions Off-field: area surrounding the in-field area, excluding neighbouring in-field areas Field boundary Farm track Margin strip Unsprayed crop area Off-crop area Off-field area Or, as a function of ownership: Sprayed crop area In-crop-area In-field-area Off-field area In-field-area In-field-area In-field: Cropped area plus the field boundaries, any farm track and any margin strip (planted or bare soil). For risk management purposes at the level of a farmland, the infield area therefore corresponds to the farmland area which is owned by the farmer.

5 SETAC Europe 12 th Special Science Symposium Risk Mitigation Toolbox

6 Buffer / non sprayed zones Very common in risk assessment for non-target arthropods and more recently honey bees Basis: testing using application rates representing spray drift Buffer zones recommended (27 out of 27 feedback, MAgPIE workshop) Connected to recommendations on field margins management

7 Buffer / non sprayed zones Combination of precision farming and GIS mapping facilitates the compliance of no spray zones Systems are already on the market Increases the transparency on non sprayed zones Supports documentation of PPP measures for the farmer

8 SPe phrase for buffer zones Reg (EU) 547/2011 SPe 3: To protect [aquatic organisms / non-target plants / nontarget arthropods / insects] respect an unsprayed buffer zone of (distance to be specified) to [non-agricultural land / surface water bodies].

9 Vegetated Buffer strips/ Field margins Field margins: Evaluation and ranking of multiple benefits of different field margin types: Natural regeneration Grass sown Wildflower sown Pollen and nectar mix Wild bird seed mix Annual Cultivation Conservation headland To: birds, mammals, pollinators, non-target arthropods, nontarget plants, in addition to action on spray drift, run-off etc

10 Natural England Agri-environment scheme (Entry Level Stewardship (ELS)) with financial compensation Range of environmental management options which fits with their farming practices to meet the environmental priorities on the farm Aims and objectives: conserve wildlife including farmland birds (biodiversity); maintain and enhance landscape quality and character by helping to maintain important features such as traditional field boundaries; protect the historic environment, including archaeological features and traditional farm buildings; protect natural resources by improving water quality and reducing soil erosion and surface run-off; respond to climate change by protecting existing soil carbon levels, increasing carbon sequestration and supporting the adaptation of the natural environment to climate change

11 Natural England - measures for birds Locate farm against priority areas for diverse parameters (e.g. birds) If the farm is located on the medium/high priority area for farmland birds, implement the dedicated package

12 Natural England - measures for birds

13 Natural England - measures for birds The 39,550 current ELS agreements (including combined ELS-HLS agreements) are delivering over 185,000 km of environmentally friendly hedgerow management (nearly 115,000 miles), more than 5,000 hectares of bird seed mix and protecting more than 180,000 in-field trees. Monitoring shows that this management is achieving real benefits for wildlife.

14 Implementation in practice: RMMTS Example of bird sown mix Description Beneficial for RMMTS #7 Sown wild bird seed mix These field margins are species that will provide seeds and habitat to birds. The composition of which may be adapted based on the fauna to be sustained. Their location in the farmland is dependent on the benefit that is aimed at (e.g. provide habitat and seeds and provide runoff management, spray drift management, other...). Birds (3 on winter and summer seeds, plants and food, 2 on invertebrate food); Mammals (2 on abundance and diversity); Pollinators (1 on food resources, 2 on species richness abundance and 0 on hibernation sites); Non-target arthropods (1 on parasitic wasps, 2 on spiders, 2 on beetles, and 1 on soil invertebrates); Plants (2 on annual weeds and 1 on perennial flowers, 1 overall); Aquatic organisms (1 on invertebrates and plants); Pest management (1 on invertebrates, 2 on weeds); Runoff (1 on pesticides, sediment, phosphorus and 1 on nitrogen); Spray drift (2 on pesticides); Negative effects on Estimated risk reduction potential Soil (2 on soil erosion) None reported These field margins can provide habitat to birds and therefore contribute to a reduction of the exposure to the crop in providing an alternative food resource and refuges. The efficacy may be function of a good protection from sprayed residues. They may also provide a reduction of drift and runoff as follows.

15 Implementation in practice: RMMTS Example of bird sown mix Implementation and management here we give practical recommendations that are meant to be adapted in MS / Zone Based on the UK ELS handbook (Natural England, 2013), the establishment and management guidance is as follows: EF2 Wild bird seed mixture: This option is available on arable land or temporary grassland (sown to grass for less than five years). This option will provide important food resources for farmland birds, especially in winter and early spring, on arable and mixed farms. The aim is to maximise the production of small seeds suitable as bird food in either annual or annual/biennial mixtures, while also providing a source of invertebrates for birds. This option is a rotational option. This means that it can move around the farm within the normal rotation, but the same total hectarage must be maintained each year. [...] For this option, you must comply with the following: - Sow a balanced combination of at least three small-seed bearing crops chosen from barley, triticale, kale, quinoa, linseed, millet, mustard, fodder radish and sunflower [...]

16 Implementation in practice: RMMTS Example of bird sown mix Implementation and management here we give practical recommendations that are meant to be adapted in MS / Zone For this option, you must comply with the following: To help with weed and pest management, the seed can be sown in separate drill widths or blocks within the option area. On sandy soils, strips must be sown along contours. Retain the crop mixture until at least 1 March before re-establishment in spring, which could be annually or every other year (biennial crops), to maintain sufficient seed production to feed birds during the late autumn/early winter. Fertilisers or manures (but not within 10 m of watercourses) and seed treatments may also be used to aid establishment and ensure sufficient seed production during that period. Only apply herbicides to spot-treat or weed-wipe for the control of injurious weeds (i.e. creeping and spear thistles, curled and broad-leaved docks or common ragwort) or invasive non-native species (e.g. Himalayan balsam, rhododendron or Japanese knotweed). [...]

17 From no-spray zones to Ecological Focus Areas? CAP greening rules: Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) e.g. extensively managed buffer strips are essential elements for biodiversity in agricultural landscape Pesticide and fertilizer applications are restricted on EFA With regard to the ecological function of EFA spray drift should be considered No-spray zones to EFA would possibly be hindrance for implementation In DE a work-around is in discussion in the realm of the National Action Plan (according to 2009/128/EC)

18 From no-spray zones to Ecological Focus Areas? Underlying assumptions Acceptable exposure with regard to the function of EFA = Exposure 1/1000 of application dose for comparison: 90 % drift reduction together with 5m nospray zone reduces exposure to 1/1700 of application dose 50% of the EFA (width) should not be exposed For linear EFA a width of at least 3m should be unexposed under discussion in DE

19 From no-spray zones to Ecological Focus Areas? Recommendation to do without no spray zone to EFA Use of 90% Spray drift reduction Minimal width of 6 m for EFA-strips Use of edge nozzles to avoid overspray in the off-crop (GAP) Flowering plants! Mitigation of bee risk needs to be considered under discussion in DE

20 Efficacy of field management tools to maintain wildlife and biodiversity From monitoring studies in agricultural landscapes, that measured: - Impact of landscape diversity on populations / communities - Impact of landscape features such as field margins, un-cropped areas, conservation areas etc. - Identification of bee-friendly habitats/habitat management - Identification of the critical landscape parameters

21 Farmland management tools: is it working? Natural regeneration Grass sown Wildflower sown Pollen and Nectar mix Wild bird seed mix Annual Cultivation Conservation headland

22 Farmland management tools: feedback to risk assessment For wildlife and farmland fauna/flora: A priori: high tier studies Post registration: monitoring Next step: use the data available to account for the presence of refuges and uncontaminated food resource in the risk assessment

23 New SPe phrases for Vegetated buffer strips New SPe introducing vegetated strips to mitigate transfers via runoff: In countries where a list of risk mitigation measures provided together with an evaluation of their efficacy (into the form of a official guidance or white book), through e.g. a point-system has been developed, the following phrase could be used: New SPe X1: To protect [aquatic organisms / surface water resources] only apply to fields [adjacent / within Y m to surface water] where white book mitigation measures(s) with [X% reduction of runoff potential / XY runoff mitigation points] were implemented. The official reference for whitebook mitigation measures is [detail whitebook reference].

24 New SPe phrase for Multi Functional Field Margins New SPe to introduce field margins to protect one or several groups of organisms and mitigate transfers via runoff (multi functional field margins): To protect [birds / mammals / aquatic organisms / non-target arthropods / non-target plants] and limit risks related to situations of runoff, respect an unsprayed non-cropped vegetated buffer zone of (distance to be specified) to [the edge of the field / surface water bodies] which should consist of [wild bird seed mix / wild flower mix / pollen and nectar mix/sown grass] in order to provide the requested benefits.

25 Compensation areas CAP (EC, 2013) requires at least 5% of the arable area of a farms i.e. field margins, hedges, trees, fallow land, landscape features, biotopes, buffer strips, afforested area From 5% to 7% after a Commission report in 2017 and a legislative proposal Implementation of Ecological Focus Area will increase the recovery and compensation area in the landscape Spray drift should not hinder ecological function Risk management can take the amount of semi natural habitats in the agricultural landscape into account Landscape dependant buffer zones (Germany)

26 Landscape dependant buffer zones Risk mitigation depends on the amount of semi natural habitats in the agricultural landscape The approach bases on the ecological concept of recovery and recolonization Applied in DE since 2002, presently updated (data, underlying assumptions) Respective municipalities are published in official register Requires GIS-database on habitats in agricultural landscapes CAP greening provides EFA-(GIS)Layer

27 New SPe phrase for Landscape-dependant buffer zones Additional text to be added to a SPe aiming at introducing field margins to protect wildlife: An implementation of this buffer zone for the purpose of wildlife protection may not be needed if recovery area that provide a habitat are already present in the farmland and represent (percentage to be specified) of the farmland surface.

28 Conditions of application Adaptation of the application timing or period of application Adaption of the application dose Adaptation of the application frequency and interval between applications Exclusion of some application techniques Adaptation of Good Agricultural Practices = easy to implement on the labelling benefit can be taken into account in the risk assessment.

29 New SPe phrase for Conditions of application New SPe proposing adapted Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) to reduce exposure of wildlife and/or transfers via runoff: To protect [birds / mammals / aquatic organisms / pollinators / nontarget arthropods / non-target plants/ limit risks related to situations of runoff] respect an application rate of maximum (application rate to be specified) / do not apply this product more than (time period or frequency to be specified)/ do not apply during the bird breeding period (dates may be proposed at MS level)/ restrict applications to (dates or growth stages to be specified).

30 Bee management In addition to FM and recovery areas: Essential: early provision of information to beekeepers about applications Practical: Bee hive removal or protection As well as application periods Flower removal: more cons than pros and overall not recommended MS to decide All of these imply communication between farmers and beekeepers

31 Example for communication support Web-based tools can support the communication between farmers and bee keepers Safeguarding sensitive information (e.g exact hive location, address, ppp) is essential Example are available (e.g. geobee in DE)

32 SPe phrase for pollinators Reg (EU) 547/2011 SPe 8: Dangerous to bees./ To protect bees and other pollinating insects do not apply to crop plants when in flower./ Do not use where bees are actively foraging./ Remove or cover beehives during application and for (state time) after treatment./ Do not apply when flowering weeds are present./ Remove weeds before flowering./ Do not apply before (state time).

33 Conclusions A number of tools are available and already in use, that contribute to reduce exposure of off-field areas and protect organisms The databases supporting the quantified efficacy of these tools are building, although their influence on the pesticide component maybe tricky to isolate from the overall effect on organisms and biodiversity However their benefits to off field (and in-field) areas is established and advocate for their implementation, in line with other environmental policies (e.g. CAP)

34 ...and recommendations Promote the implementation of buffer zones Further develop the multi-functionality of field margins Further develop the standardization of seed mixtures for field margins and certification systems Promote the implementation of spray and dust drift reducing technologies Develop guidelines for monitoring in the farmland Develop an abacus of spray drift reduction provided by the different types of field margins

35 ... some more Develop simple indices to measure the benefits of risk mitigation measures in the farmland Develop GIS based databases to appreciate the environmental status of a landscape Develop a mapping of apiaries e.g. through national inventories Develop a cooperation system for farmers and beekeepers to exchange relevant information partners Enable and promote the link to the regulatory framework of the CAP

36 Field visit Hedges for drift reduction as well as protecting beneficials, pollinators etc