Search

Current farm systems rely on the use of Plant Protection Products (PPP) to secure high productivity and control threats to the quality of the crops. However, PPP use may have considerable impacts on human health and the environment. A study protocol is presented aiming to determine the occurrence and levels of PPP residues in plants (crops), animals (livestock), humans and other non-target species (ecosystem representatives) for exposure modelling and impact assessment. To achieve this, we designed a cross-sectional study to compare conventional and organic farm systems across Europe. Environmental and biological samples were/are being/will be collected during the 2021 growing season, at 10 case study sites in Europe covering a range of climate zones and crops. An additional study site in Argentina will inform the impact of PPP use on growing soybean which is an important European protein-source in animal feed. We will study the impact of PPP mixtures using an integrated risk assessment methodology. The fate of PPP in environmental media (soil, water and air) and in the homes of farmers will be monitored. This will be complemented by biomonitoring to estimate PPP uptake by humans and farm animals (cow, goat, sheep and chicken), and by collection of samples from non-target species (earthworms, fish, aquatic and terrestrial macroinvertebrates, bats, and farm cats). We will use data on PPP residues in environmental and biological matrices to estimate exposures by modelling. These exposure estimates together with health and toxicity data will be used to predict the impact of PPP use on environment, plant, animal and human health. The outcome of this study will then be integrated with socio-economic information leading to an overall assessment used to identify transition pathways towards more sustainable plant protection and inform decision makers, practitioners and other stakeholders regarding farming practices and land use policy. EEA Balcarce Fil: Silva, Vera. Wageningen University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Alaoui, Abdallah. University of Bern. Institute of Geography. Centre for Development and Environment; Suiza. Fil: Schlünssen, Vivi. Aarhus University. Department of Public Health; Dinamarca. National Research Centre for the Working Environment; Dinamarca. Fil: Vested, Anne. Aarhus University. Department of Public Health; Dinamarca. Fil: Graumans, Martien. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Países Bajos. Fil: Van Dael, Maurice. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Países Bajos. Fil: Trevisan, Marco. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Department for Sustainable Food Process; Italia. Fil: Suciu, Nicoleta. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Department for Sustainable Food Process; Italia. Fil: Mol, Hans. Wageningen University and Research. Wageningen Food Safety Research; Países Bajos. Fil: Beekmann, Karsten. Wageningen University and Research. Wageningen Food Safety Research; Países Bajos. Fil: Figueiredo, Daniel. Utrecht University. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences; Países Bajos. Fil: Harkes, Paula. Wageningen University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Hofman, Jakub. Masaryk University. Faculty of Science. Research Centre for Toxic Compounds in the Environment; Republica Checa. Fil: Kandeler, Ellen. University of Hohenheim. Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation; Alemania. Fil: Abrantes, Nelson. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies and Department of Environment and Planning; Portugal. Fil: Campos, Isabel. University of Aveiro. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies and Department of Environment and Planning; Portugal. Fil: Martínez, María Ángeles. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas; España. Fil: Pereira, Joana Luísa. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies and Department of Environment and Planning; Portugal. Fil: Goossens, Dirk. Wageningen University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group. Países Bajos. KU Leuven Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences; Belgica. Fil: Gandrass, Juergen. Institute of Coastal Environmental Chemistry; Alemania. Fil: Debler, Freya. Institute of Coastal Environmental Chemistry; Alemania. Fil: Huerta Lwanga, Esperanza. Wageningen University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Jonker, Marlot. Dutch Mammal Society; Países Bajos. Fil: Van Langevelde, Frank. Wageningen University and Research. Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Sorensen, Martin. Aarhus University. Department of Animal Science; Dinamarca. Fil: Wells, Jerry. Wageningen University and Research. Host-Microbe Interactomics, Animal Sciences Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Boekhorst, Jos. Wageningen University and Research. Host-Microbe Interactomics, Animal Sciences Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Huss, Anke. Utrecht University. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences; Países Bajos. Fil: Mandrioli, Daniele. Ramazzini Institute. Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center; Italia. Fil: Sgargi, Daria. Ramazzini Institute. Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center; Italia. Fil: Nathanail, Paul. Land Quality Management; Reino Unido. Fil: Nathanail, Judith. Land Quality Management; Reino Unido. Fil: Tamm, Lucius. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture; Suiza. Fil: Fantke, Peter. Technical University of Denmark. Department of Technology, Management and Economics; Dinamarca. Fil: Mark, Jennifer. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture; Suiza. Fil: Grovermann, Christian. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture; Suiza. Fil: Larsen, Ana Frelih. Ecologic Institute; Alemania. Fil: Herb, Irina. Ecologic Institute; Alemania. Fil: Chivers, Charlotte Anne. University of Gloucestershire. Countryside and Community Research Institute; Reino Unido. Fil: Mills, Jane. University of Gloucestershire. Countryside and Community Research Institute; Reino Unido. Fil: Alcon, Francisco. Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena; España. Fil: Contreras, Josefina. Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena; España. Fil: Baldi, Isabelle. Bordeaux University. INSERM U1219; Francia. Fil: Pasković, Igor. Institute of Agriculture and Tourism, Department of Agriculture and Nutrition; Croacia. Fil: Matjaz, Glavan. University of Ljubljana. Biotechnical Faculty; Eslovenia. Fil: Norgaard, Trine. Aarhus University. Department of Agroecology; Dinamarca. Fil: Aparicio, Virginia Carolina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina. Fil: Ritsema, Coen. Wageningen University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Geissen, Violette. University and Research. Soil Physics and Land Management Group; Países Bajos. Fil: Scheepers, Paul. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Países Bajos.

The paper presents results of a spatial analysis of agri-environmental (A-E) measures in Slovenia. Spatial targeting and spatial patterns of A-E schemes are analyzed by a combination of exploratory spatial data analysis and spatial econometrics. Results suggest that A-E schemes in Slovenia are poorly spatially targeted against environmental priorities and needs in terms of water and biodiversity protection. This can be attributed to the fact that the most widely implemented A-E schemes in the country are implemented horizontally, with no spatially explicit criteria. Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis reveals spatial clusters of participation in A-E schemes, which is additionally confirmed by the results of the spatial econometric analysis. Participation in A-E schemes in general decreases with the average farm size of the area, and increases with per hectare CAP Pillar I payment rights and EAFRD payments. On the other hand, results of the spatial econometric analysis suggest that participation in organic farming appears to be a rational choice in areas with prevailing extensive, grassland-based farming. Results therefore suggest that farms maximize revenues from A-E schemes. Spatial clustering of areas with respect to the participation in A-E schemes occurs also in the absence of explicit spatial targeting and is closely linked with potential revenues from this source.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 2000/60/EC) requires new ecological standards for rivers, lakes and coastal waters by 2015. In the United Kingdom the English Catchment Sensitive Farming Initiative has identified 40 catchments which are at risk of failing the European Commission WFD targets for good ecological status of water bodies because of a range of issues. The river Axe catchment situated in south-west part of the UK, with a mixture of diffuse and point sources of pollution, is one of these priority sites, as intensive dairy farming and cultivation of high risk crops (maize), cause problems with enhanced suspended sediment, nitrate and phosphorus levels in the river. For the purpose of this research the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT-2005) and ArcView GIS 3.2 interface AVSWAT-X were used. SWAT has been found to be a useful tool in numerous EU and UK studies addressing the objectives of the EU WFD, which requires identification of pollution sources, their influences and solutions for the studied catchment. The base scenario was based on field observation and interviews with the Environment Agency and farmers; it was run with and without point sources. Model was performing well; achieving hydrological calibration for Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (ENS) of 0.62. Three different scenarios, field buffer strips (FBS), extensive land use management (ELUM) and sheep land use management (SLUM), were used to evaluate the ability of SWAT to represent the proposed mitigation methods and assess the effectiveness of the measures in reducing nutrient loads in the Axe. SWAT was found to be able to represent the proposed mitigation methods which were included in these three management scenarios. Management scenarios reduced the average annual loads at the main catchment outlet by 21.21% (FBS), 37.32% (ELUM) and 45.02% (SLUM), for total nitrogen; 47.72% (FBS), 60.58% (ELUM) and 62.41% (SLUM) for total phosphorus; and 3.49% (FBS), 7.34% (ELUM) and 5.58% (SLUM) for annual average sediment yield. To deliver the necessary water quality improvements for the river Axe both diffuse and point sources of pollution will have to be addressed as results show that reduction only in one type of source does not achieve the Environment Agency’s Environmental Quality Standard target values which were set to meet the objectives of the EU WFD.