|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 PAN International Website |
|
|
Report critical of UK watchdogs
In 1996 the UK Environment Agency set up the Pesticides in the Environment Working Group (PEWG) to look at the overall balance of monitoring activities on pesticides in the environment, to identify gaps and make improvements. The Group has now reported with surprising frankness, identifying critical deficiencies in pesticide monitoring and research programmes.
PEWG aims to provide a national forum to consider information on the actual and potential impact of pesticides and similar chemicals on the environment, and to offer advice to statutory regulators, other interested parties and the general public.
The review of monitoring covers four categories of pesticide inputs into the environment: agricultural pesticides, biocides, veterinary medicines and consented discharges. PEWG has identified that the government allocates ‘a large resource’ to the investigation of pesticides in the environment.
The collated data provides, for the first time, information where available on all pesticides used in the UK, and their impact on the environment. Although there are some acknowledged gaps, the review showed that the UK has examples of comprehensive monitoring programmes which are recognised outside the UK. There is also no overall integrated approach to the assessment of the use and impact of pesticides in the environment.
Usage figures not collected
Agricultural pesticides
Surveys show that the weight of active ingredient applied between 1986 and 1996 has decreased by 19% on average for all crops. However, this corresponds to an increase in the area treated with formulated products. This could be a function of the move towards more complex tank mixing at reduced rates, the change to lower dose biologically active substances, or more frequent applications using lower doses.
Non-agricultural pesticides
Very little published information is available on the use of pesticide active ingredients applied in home and garden situations, how waste and rinsings are disposed of, or their fate in the environment. The same goes for forestry use. In amenity situations, data was calculated once in the mid-1990s for the Department of Environment Transport and the Regions, but regular information is not made public.
With the exception of rodenticides, no routinely monitored or strategically collated information is available on the inputs of biocides (industrial preservatives, disinfectants, embalming fluids, germicidal cleaners and non-agricultural insecticides and rodenticides) to the environment. The report criticises the HSE and the different industry associations for not supplying or gathering usage statistics the Environment Agency and others could use to identify and implement pesticide residue and impact assessments.
Veterinary medicines
Historically the veterinary medicines sector has provided little usage information. According to PEWG, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) has finally agreed to share its data, albeit only with other monitoring organisations. A specialist survey carried out on behalf of the Environment Agency quantified the use of sheep dip chemicals, revealing:
- Since 1989, tiered environmental risk assessments must be carried out for new active ingredients, but little information concerning their potential pathways into the environment, such as via manure or wash-off, is made available.
- Organophosphate use declined between 1986 and 1996, while applications of synthetic pyrethroids have increased posing a threat to the aquatic environment.
Consented discharges
Consented discharges comprise officially sanctioned releases into the environment, usually from sewerage or trade effluent. Although sampling and analysis does take place limited data are available on releases of pesticides into the environment. In addition, the significance of veterinary or biocide residues in animal wastes is not known.
Residue impacts
The PEWG review has assessed five environmental compartments – drinking water, food residues, terrestrial systems, aquatic systems and atmospheric systems.
The information prepared in the review provides many examples of pesticide residues being detected in the environment, though evidence to determine their impact is less comprehensive. The current structure of monitoring makes the overall interpretation of the impact of pesticides in the environment difficult to achieve.
The formation of PEWG has facilitated the potential for discussion, exchange of information and combined interpretation, but there is a need to formalise this opportunity in order to improve the value of existing data and provide a more focused approach to determining the impact of a pesticide in the environment. As a result PEWG propose the setting up of a ‘national framework’. It goes on to suggest that monitoring could follow the proposed European Commission Water Framework Directive, which identifies concerns over pesticide contamination of the aquatic environment. It provides the principle and basis for management of all pesticides and environmental compartments within the UK by adopting the concept of the catchment as the fundamental management unit. This monitoring would provide a means of prioritising regulatory action or developing preventative measures. Targeting of vulnerable situations, for example, intensive animal rearing shed, fish farms, discharge locations and aquifer outcrops, would allow a risk based monitoring programme to develop integrating the objectives of all monitoring schemes. The framework could include a mechanism to facilitate the identification of misuse and malpractice.
In order for this framework to succeed, the gaps and deficiencies identified by PEWG need to be addressed so that the overall balance of data is appropriately assessed.
Recommendations
Whilst usage surveys can potentially determine the scale of input of pesticides into the environment, there is insufficient information available to determine their environmental fate.
Some pesticide active ingredients are common to possibly all the use categories referred to above. For example, cypermethrin is an agricultural pesticide, a biocide and a veterinary medicine. Detection of its presence in the environment cannot be directly related to a specific use unless detailed information is available on the pathway of contamination.
For many years public interest groups have been calling for a more integrated approach towards the monitoring of pesticides in the environment. There has been too much emphasis placed on government departments or agencies examining the effects of pesticides in isolation. The government needs to act on the recommendations in this report by collecting more comprehensive pesticide usage data, and by improving the co-ordination of monitoring for pesticides in the environment.
(By David Buffin)
Monitoring of pesticides in the environment, The report of the Pesticides in the Environment Working Group (representatives from a range of government agencies, the Crop Protection Association, the National Office of Animal Health, the National Farmers Union and the National Association of Agricultural Contractors), Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4UD, UK, Fax +44 (0)1454 624409, 2000, 70pp.