State of the Art and alternative approach to indicators Maura Calliera Department Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy OPERA Research Centre Bruxelles, December 15, 2011
Background-The Sustainable Use Directive In September 2009, the Council and the European Parliament adopted the Directive on Sustainable Use of Pesticides (EU128/2009/EC). Risk indicators in the SUD In order to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides, it is necessary use a set of risk indicators defined in the SUD as the result of a method of calculation that is used to evaluate risks of pesticides on human health and/or the environment (art.3)
The role of Browse in developing or improvement of indicators One objective of BROWSE is to give a useful and concrete contribution in developing new and improved risk indicator that meet the new legal requirement. This will be done based on: Previous risk indicator experience on pesticide use Contribution to development of database for harmonized risk indicator Stakeholders consultations
Previous risk indicator experience on pesticide use The Occupational Indicators in Hair - Ghent University The occupational indicator consists of three different indicators: the operator, the re-entry worker and the bystander/resident indicator. The risk is assessed by the use of risk indices. A risk index is the quotient of the estimated human exposure and a toxicological reference dose
Previous risk indicator experience on pesticide use The Occupational Indicators in Hair The set of indicators were tested by Arcadis Belgium on the request of EUROSTAT The scientific accuracy is assessed as being good but the HAIR indicators need to be interpreted. The degree of complexity is such that a policy-maker or end-user will need, if they are no specialists themselves, a backup of a specialist group, to help them to interpret correctly the results/outcomes of the HAIR software. The high amount of data and the complexity of the indicators prohibits the easy interpretation of the results. The indicators do not give an indication of the reason behind a change in risk. (Arcadis Report).
Previous risk indicator experience on pesticide use The Occupational Indicators in Hair 2010 HAir Repair Project/HARP. The new HAIR instrument is intended to be used by DG- EUROSTAT for calculating selected risk indicators and for reporting trends on the basis of sales and use data from EU Member States. According to the Implementation Regulations (Pesticide Statistics Regulation 2009/1185), these data will be retrieved from databases maintained by DG-EUROSTAT
Previous risk indicator experience on pesticide use The Occupational Indicators in Hair However, at present, most of the data again relied on modelling and some data requirements are estimates and based on conservative assumptions in case of lacking data. Occupational HAIR indicators are risk indicators that do not reflect actual risks on the environment or on human health but give an INDICATION of risk while in the most of the case the exposure are calculated on the basis of surrogate data.
Previous risk indicator experience on pesticide use Browse starting point: the occupational basic risk indicators developed in Hair corresponds closely to the first tier regulatory procedures approved by the European Union The occupational risk indicators developed in HAIR are indicators using a risk-ratio, or exposure-toxicity ratio (ETR) approach. Human is considered to be safe only if the specific application scenario examined each time leads to a systemic exposure level lower than the systemic Acceptable Operator Exposure Levels (AOEL).
Previous risk indicator experience on pesticide use In the contest of BROWSE project the most important aspect of this approach is therefore the assessment and calculation of the exposure. Many variables influence the level of occupational exposure: physical state, volume, concentration, the duration and pathway of exposure (dermal, inhalation, ingestion), spraying equipment, weather, protective clothing and hygiene, including environmental conditions, crop and operator technique The accuracy of exposure depends strongly on the exposure data used and on assumptions made.
Previous risk indicator experience on pesticide use The role of Browse in improvement of indicators : The BROWSE review, improvement and extend of the models currently used in the risk assessment of plant protection products (PPPs) to evaluate the exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders will lead to an improvement of input data required by the HAIR indicators
Contribution to development of database for harmonized risk indicator For many plant protection products use patterns field studies exposure have not been generated. In many cases predictive models are used to estimate likely levels of exposure. The available data on exposures are particularly limited. Browse starting point for supporting data base: BROWSE developed a proposal for structure of exposure database including criteria for acceptance of exposure data.
First Stakeholders consultations Browse starting point: as a result of the previous consultation, stakeholders have indicated preference for a mix of direct and indirect indicators as the suitable solution for the purpose of SUD. Participants recognise that is important to include also risk indicators that are able to monitor the effect of the mitigation measures adopted. Risk indicators able to monitor mitigation measures should be focussed on the most effective ones.
SUD requirement: To define a system to measure step-by-step improvements made from an initial assessment, at national level (to be included in the National Action Plans (art.4), and at community level (to be decided by the Commission) towards the final objective Indicators in the SUD perspective would neither be used to substitute existing procedures nor to quantify pesticide risks in a strict sense but they are expected to help national regulatory institutions to estimate general trends in pesticide risk reduction in a dynamic perspective and to judge the effectiveness of their programmes.
The role of Browse in developing or improvement of indicators To give a real and valuable contribution to the SUD development BROWSE should also develop a set of indicators that is a combination of different types of more pragmatic indicators to collect data for and integrate with the HAIR modelling to obtain a more realistic image of the risk and able to evaluate the impact of several risk reduction measures
Indicators and Quantitative Targets to meet SUD objectives (OPERA approach) Working method: expert working group consultation Membership: Experts from the fields of agriculture, industry, trade, academia, environmental and consumer protection. Mandate: Develop simple and pragmatic recommendations which are harmoniously perceived and interpreted by all the actors involved. Prioritise strategies and Risk Indicators that can be pragmatically implemented and achievable by all stakeholders Structural approach with the purpose to provide Member States, and all involved in implementing the SUD, with a functional, simple but robust toolbox of criteria.
The approach of the working group Minimising potential exposure of people to pesticides has been a key objective of SUD. Once the risk factors have been identified, it may be necessary to reduce exposure levels by defining appropriate mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are linked to the risk indicators selected. Therefore, risk indicators and mitigating measures - have to be addressed in parallel. MEASURE RISK INDICATOR
The approach of the working group One particular risk associated with the use of PPPs can be reduced by using a number of different measures but Due to the complex nature of the agricultural activity, it is extremely difficult to identify indicators which reflect only one aspect of the use of the plant protection products or one aspect of the farming practices. One indicator may often measure the risk reduction result of more than one mitigation measure
A stepwise approach Define goal in the NAP Redefine goals after implementation Identification of the possible mitigation measures which can be applied Identification of the associated indicators Set up of risk reduction targets based on the indicators chosen Goals should be set in relation to the policy priorities in the MS to address the risks identified prior to the application of the NAP The targets for each measure shall vary from MS to MS, even if the overall quantitative target of the plan is the same.
Link indicators to the risk reduction measure In minimizing the risks for people related to: Bystander Resident Operator Workers Exposure the approach taken was to measure progress with indirect indicators, linked to risk reduction measures like: Traning to farmers, Training to advise the operators on both acute and long term risks, Better application techniques that can avoid incident during the use phase Procedure for pesticide handling.
Example: Risk reduction measure: Training of farmers and operators in application techniques and equipment maintenance Balanced set of indicators Examples of Quantitative Targets Attendance of designated training courses Participation in recognized professional bodies Skill tests for operators 1000 farmers participating every year to designated training courses Increase by 10% in 3 years the number of farmers adhering to professional bodies Over 80% of the tested operators pass the examination Financial impact for users No target required Environmental Social Economic
Example: Risk reduction measure: Specialized training courses for sprayer operators. Balanced set of indicators Examples of Quantitative Targets Attendance to designated courses Number of accidents involving sprayer operators Skills testing for operators 1000 operators participating every year to designated training courses Reduce by 30% the number of accidents Over 80% of the tested operators pass the examination Cost of specialized PPE No target required Environmental Social Economic
Second Stakeholders consultations The quantitative targets suggested are a hypothetical example of how MS s may consider achieving a certain level of risk reduction through the measure taken and its corresponding indicator. This consultation process will be very important to help us to select indicators able to measure progress linked to risk reduction measures
Thank you for your attention