The environmental yardstick for pesticides is a tool for farmers to assess the adverse environmental impacts of their pesticide use. With this yardstick farmers are able to evaluate in what way the environmental impact can be reduced, e.g. by using a non-chemical crop protection method, by choosing a pesticide which is less harmful for the environment, by adapting the way of application or by lowering the dose rate.
The yardstick has also been used to evaluate Dutch pesticides policy, to evaluate the environmental impact of certain farming regimes and to develop standards for a green label for agricultural products. In this short paper the development and practical use of the yardstick will be briefly discussed.
Development of the yardstick
Yardstick for field crops
The first prototype of the environmental yardstick was developed in
1991. It reached its present form in 1993. The yardstick assigns
'environmental impact points' (EIP) to pesticides for three
environmental effects: hazard to water organisms, hazard to soil
organisms and hazard of groundwater pollution. These are the three
criteria which have been given priority in the environmental policy
in the Netherlands. Moreover, accurate methods and models to assess
these hazards were available. To calculate the EIP, the yardstick
takes into account the chemical properties of the chemical (mobility
in soil, persistence in soil, toxicity to non-target organisms),
the way application and the dose rate. The EIP are assigned for a
standard application of 1 kg/ha. If a farmer uses a different dose
rate, the number of EIP should be multiplied by the actual dose
rate. More technical details about the yardstick can be found in
Reus & Pak (1993).
Figure 1 illustrates the relation between environmental impact and dose rate. Conclusion is that pesticides with a high dose rate do not necessarily have an adverse impact on the environment. On the other hand, pesticides with a low dose rate may still have a significant impact on the environment.
Figure 1. Relation between environmental impact and dose rate
(kg a.i./ha)
The Dutch Ministry of Agriculture has financed the development of the yardstick. In the Steering Committee several organizations and institutes were represented:
- the Ministry of Agriculture
- the Ministry of the Environment
- the National Environmental Research Institute
- the Plant Protection Service
- the Agricultural Board and the horticultural farmers' organization
- the extension service
The first prototype of the yardstick was tested in 1992 in several study groups of farmers in co-operation with the extension service. After some small changes, the yardstick has been introduced into practice in 1993 in a pilot project together with the extension service (Information and Knowledge Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture) and tested by some 200 farmers (arable farmers, vegetable growers and fruit growers).
Yardstick for pesticide use in greenhouses
In 1997 a separate yardstick for pesticide use in greenhouses was
developed, financed by the Duthc Ministry for the Environment and
the farmers organization. The yardstick for field crops could not
be used by greenhouse growers. The emission routes of pesticides
used in greenhouses differ completely from the emission routes of
pesticides used in the field. The greenhouse yardstick takes into
account the emission of pesticides to the air, degradation in air,
deposition and the toxicity to water organisms. The greenhouse
yardstick has been introduced in practice in 1998.
Practical use
In 1994 the yardstick for field crops became fully available for
all farmers in the Netherlands. The yardstick is being used as an
advising tool for farmers, as an instrument to develop standards
for green labeling and as an instrument for policy evaluation.
Advising tool
The extension service uses the yardstick in projects where farmers
take record of their pesticide use, calculate their score on the
yardstick and discuss problems and options for improvement. These
projects are usually financed by regional authorities who want to
reduce the use of harmful pesticides in their region or by drinking
water companies who want to reduce the use of pesticides that leach
into groundwater. Farmers who have achieved a reduction in the score
on the yardstick may receive a premium (result rewarding).
The extension service also uses the yardstick to give environmental information to individual farmers. Furthermore, the yardstick is used in agricultural schools and in compulsory training courses for farmers. Also in agricultural magazines, the yardstick is often used to illustrate the differences in environmental impact between pesticides. Table 1 to 3 give examples of scores on the yardstick under different farming regimes in winter wheat.
Table 1. Conventional crop protection in winter wheat (Reus 1995;
with update for carbendazim and benomyl).
| PEST | PESTICIDES | DOSE RATE (kg a.i. /ha) |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POINTS | ||
| water organisms | soil organisms | groundwater | |||
| grass | diflufenican/ | 0,22 | 350 | 7 | 53 |
| isoproturon | 1,75 | ||||
| cleavers | mecoprop-p | 1,20 | 0 | 0 | 360 |
| broad leaf weed | MCPA | 1,00 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| aphids | pirimicarb | 0,13 | 56 | 110 | 0 |
| yellow rust/ mildew |
triadimenol | 0,13 | 0 | 7 | 11 |
| other fungal diseases |
carbendazim | 0,25 | 6 | 205 | 5000 |
| fenpropimorph | 0,75 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| anilazine | 1,92 | 104 | 4 | 0 | |
| total | 7,35 | 518 | 333 | 5432 | |
Table 2. Crop protection scenario in winter wheat aimed at reduction of kilogrammes of active ingredient (Reus 1995; with update for carbendazim and benomyl).
| PEST | PESTICIDES | DOSE RATE (kg a.i. /ha) |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POINTS | ||
| water organisms | soil organisms | groundwater | |||
| grass | fenchlorazole-ethyl/ | 0,04 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| fenoxaprop-p-ethyl | 0,07 | ||||
| cleavers | fluroxypyr | 0,20 | 1 | 8 | 18 |
| broad leaf weed | MCPA | 1,00 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| aphids | esfenvalerate | 0,005 | 1320 | 580 | 0 |
| other fungal diseases |
tebuconazole/ | 0,25 | 2 | 560 | 24 |
| triadimenol | 0,13 | ||||
| benomyl | 0,25 | 250 | 205 | 0 | |
| yellow rust/ mildew |
cyproconazole | 0,06 | 6 | 114 | 420 |
| other fungal diseases |
tebuconazole/ | 0,25 | 2 | 560 | 24 |
| triadimenol | 0,13 | ||||
| benomyl | 0,25 | 250 | 205 | 5000 | |
| total | 2,01 | 1580 | 1467 | 5470 | |
| difference compared with table 1 | -73% | +205% | +341% | +0,7% | |
Table 3. Crop protection scenario in winter wheat aimed at reduction of environmental impact points (Reus 1995; with update for carbendazim and benomyl).
| PEST | PESTICIDES | DOSE RATE (kg a.i. /ha) |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POINTS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| water organisms | soil organisms | groundwater | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PEST | PESTICIDES | DOSE RATE (kg a.i. /ha) |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POINTS | ||
| water organisms | soil organisms | groundwater | |||
| grass | fenchlorazole-ethyl/ | 0,04 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| fenoxaprop-p-ethyl | 0,07 | ||||
| cleavers | fluroxypyr | 0,20 | 1 | 8 | 18 |
| broad leaf weed | MCPA | 1,00 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| aphids | dimethoate | 0,2 | 1 | 32 | 20 |
| yellow rust/ mildew |
propiconazole | 0,13 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| other fungal diseases |
prochloraz | 0,45 | 50 | 23 | 0 |
| carbendazim | 0,25 | 6 | 205 | 5000 | |
| total | 2,34 | 59 | 269 | 5046 | |
| difference compared with table 1 | -68% | -89% | -19% | -7% | |
| difference compared with table 2 | +16% | -96% | -82% | -8% | |
In 1998 a more tailor-made version of the yardstick will be introduced in arable farming. Farmers do not have to calculate the scores on the yardstick themselves, but they receive a card with which they can record their pesticide use and which includes the scores on the yardstick for the recommended dose rate. The most harmful pesticides are marked in red. This card will be distributed by the Dutch farmers organization LTO.
Green labelling
The yardstick is used to assess whether a certain pesticide
is allowed for products under a green label (Agromilieukeur).
This green label allows the use of some pesticides, only if they
comply with strict environmental standards. Standards for a green
label have been developed for potatoes, winter wheat, onions,
apples, pears, peppers and other greenhouse vegetables. Under
development are standards for sugar and outdoor vegetables.
Also the leading Dutch supermarket demands from its suppliers
that the agricultural products they deliver are grown without
the use of environmentally dangerous chemicals.
These applications have the highest impact, because farmers risk losing a share of the market if they do not comply with these market demands.
Policy evaluation
The official policy of the Dutch government (laid down in the
Multi-Year Crop Protection Plan) is to reduce the use and
emissions of pesticides expressed in the amount of
kilogrammes of active ingredient.
In co-operation with the Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA) of the Ministry of Transport and Public Works, the yardstick has been used to evaluate the pesticide policy of the Dutch government with regard to the reduction of environmental impact.
CLM has published several reports and articles to illustrate what the environmental results are of the Dutch pesticide policy (Reus et al. 1995, Reus & Faasen 1995). Main conclusions are:
- the reduction in kilogrammes of active ingredient between 1984 and 1993 has led to a proportional reduction in the environmental impact points for groundwater and soil organisms. The environmental impact points for water organisms have increased between 1984 and 1989 and are now on the same level as in 1984. This is in line with the claim of the water authorities that pollution of surface water with pesticides has not decreased (see figure 2). The analysis could not be extended to later years because of lack of data on sales per active ingredient.
- Only a few pesticides are responsible for most of the environmental impact. Figure 2 shows for example that ten pesticides (5% of the sales) are responsible for 88% of the potential pollution of groundwater.
Figure 2. Sales and environmental impact points for pesticides in the Netherlands between 1984 and 1994.
Figure 3. Relation between sales of a small group of pesticides and their hazard for groundwater.
International activities
CLM is co-ordinating a concerted action of European researchers
working on pesticide environmental risk indicators (CAPER).
Aim is to compare various methodologies which have been
developed in the various Member States of the European Union
(see CAPER newsletter). The indicators will be compared using
a standardised data set of pesticides and crop protection
scenarios in four crops. The results of the concerted action
will be published on the CLM web site (http:/www.clm.nl).
Future work
CLM continues to promote the environmental yardstick for pesticides
as an extension instrument and information tool for farmers
and as a policy evaluation tool. Currently we work on
extending the yardstick with risk of pesticides by
atmospheric deposition, as most part of the pesticides
used in the field evaporate and are distributed by air.
References
Reus, J.A.W.A. & Pak, G.A. (1993). An environmental yardstick for
pesticides. Mededelingen Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen
Rijksuniversiteit Gent 58/2a: 249-255.
Reus, J.A.W.A. (1995). Minder kilo's. minder milieubelasting? (Fewer kilogrammes, les environmental impact?). Gewasbescherming 26 (2): 53-57.
Reus, J.A.W.A., H. Janssen & G.J.H. de Vries 1995. Kilo's of milieubelasting? - De betekenis van het verminderde bestrijdingsmiddelengebruik voor het milieu. Centrum voor Landbouw en Milieu, Utrecht.
Reus, J.A.W.A. & R. Faasen 1995. Kilo's of milieubelasting? II - Berekening van doelgerichte reductiepercentages voor bestrijdingsmiddelen. Centrum voor Landbouw en Milieu, Utrecht.
Dr. Joost Reus
Address:
Centre for Agriculture and Environment (CLM)
Amsterdamsestraatweg 877
P.O. Box 10015
3505AA Utrecht
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 3024 41301
Fax: +31 3024 41381
E-Mail: jreus@clm.nl
Web Page: http://www.clm.nl
Joost Reus graduated from Wageningen University in entomology and nematology. In 1990, he joined the Centre for Agriculture and Environment in the Netherlands where he worked on environmental effects of pesticides and pesticide policy. He developed the Environmental Yardstick for pesticides and is now coordinator of a concerted action within the European Union on pesticide indicators. His current position at the Centre for Agriculture and Environment is research coordinator in agricultural biodiversity and water management.