Table 81.

Possible management measures useful to mitigate the risk for amphibians and reptiles exposed to PPP after their intended uses in agricultural landscapes. Measures, implementation strategies, pros and cons are listed. Measures with higher probability of being implemented in the near future are highlighted in grey

Objective	Mitigation measure	Motivation	Practical implementation	Advantages	Constraints	Chances for implementation (higher impact and probability of success are highlighted)	No.
Specific provisions to lower the exposure of amphibians and reptiles to PPP	Maintain/create higher quality habitat for amphibians and reptiles. For amphibians, this could include buffer strips around breeding ponds, wet spots and forest edges partly used as terrestrial habitat. For reptiles, this may include hedgerows, stone walls, etc. that are protected from spraying	Statutory (CAP)/personal commitment of farmers	Cross compliance for the set up and management of ecological focus areas (EFA) under CAP – minimum ecological status of EFA need to be updated. A literature review (or further research) may be needed to quantify the effectiveness of these measures	Wide application in EU; optimal management of EFA as habitat for amphibians and reptiles is likely possible	Loss of productive land possible and correspondent loss of income. Land share requested by cross compliance is min. 5%. Minimum ecological status of EFA need to be updated in order to support amphibian and reptile populations	Implemented in current CAP schemes. ‘Farmers with arable land exceeding 15 ha must ensure that at least 5% of their land is an ecological focus area with a view to safeguarding and improving biodiversity on farms. Ecological focus areas may include, for example, fallow land, landscape features, afforested areas, terraces, hedges/wooded strips or nitrogen fixing crops such as clover and alfalfa which help to improve soil organic matter. Hedges, trees, ponds, ditches, terraces, stone walls and other landscape features are important habitats for birds and other species and help protect biodiversity, including pollinators.a’ However, not all ‘greening’ measures are likely to support biodiversity and specifically amphibians and reptiles. Update of CAP after 2020 should ensure minimum quality standards for ecological focus areas	1a
		Voluntary	Voluntary participation supported by agro‐environmental schemes. A literature review (or further research) may be needed to quantify the effectiveness of these measures	Providing terrestrial habitats targeted to support amphibians and reptiles	Possibly participation by farmers already interested in lowering environmental impact. Low subsidies and market constraints might hamper further developments	The application of agri‐environment programmes has been compulsory for Member States in the framework of their rural development plans, whereas they remain optional for farmers. Higher financial support would increase farmers’ participation. Further improvement will depend on the CAP developments after 2020	1b
	Convert arable land into grassland	Voluntary	Voluntary participation supported by agro‐environmental schemes	Very low or even no plant protection product application, no soil disturbance	High expenses for funding; recultivation after 5 years	The application of agri‐environment programmes has been compulsory for Member States in the framework of their rural development plans, whereas they remain optional for farmers. Higher financial support would increase farmers’ participation. Further improvement will depend on the CAP developments after 2020	1c
	Decide to waive locally the application of PPP in hot spots of amphibian and reptile presence	Voluntary	Technically possible, local support through authorities needed	No ‘loss’ of arable land	Weed infestation on fertile soils: possible lower yield with poorer quality, dedicated management with possible technical problems	Little chances of implementation due to considerable disadvantages and constraints	1d
	Implement monitoring and shift time of PPP application to minimise coincidence with amphibian migration	Voluntary/provided by administration	Extensive monitoring of amphibian presence is needed to determine when PPP application timing should be altered	Less exposure of amphibians in‐field during main migration periods	Only applicable at the local scale, not translatable to other locations due to differences in amphibian phenology, time shift may benefit one population but may impact others too (‘trade‐off’), not applicable to reptiles inhabiting the field	Implementation possible; but very specific knowledge on amphibians is to be provided to farmers on site. Research and funding is needed to establish appropriate monitoring schemes. Research is needed to develop suitable models. Patchy distributed information on local presence and movements of amphibian species is already available	1e
	Reduce PPP input in non‐target areas occurring via spray drift and run‐off	Statutory	Already widely implemented in PPP management (buffer strips, vegetated buffer strips and drift reducing nozzles)	Accepted risk mitigation at EU level	None	High, legally binding risk mitigation measures	1f
Measures to reduce risk of amphibians and reptiles to plant protection products by lowering toxicity	Replace PPP with expected high toxic impact by less toxic products	Voluntary	Causes higher management effort in farms, but principally applicable	Less temporal coincidence of toxic product applications with migrating amphibian populations; less toxic effects	Replacement may lead to ‘trade offs’ due to higher toxicity for other organism groups	Further scientific investigations on exposure, uptake rate and toxicity of PPP for terrestrial stages of amphibians and reptiles is required. Risk assessment scheme apt at identifying (active substances in) PPP with high toxic potential is needed. Assessment methodologies to identify alternatives for ‘candidates for substitution’ need to further developed	2a
General provisions to lower the amount/discourage the use of PPP in agricultural landscape	Increase organic farming shares	Changed consumer behaviour, personal commitment of farmers, political goals	Personal commitment of farmers/supporting schemes	No synthetic plant protection products applied; sustainable land use configuration and management	There is only partly and/or temporarily awareness in European consumers with currently limited impact on conversion from conventional agricultural to organic farming	Although constantly increasing in market share, it is not expected that organic farming will be increased to a minimum quota by political will in the short range. The Rural Development Programme (2014–2020) supports the conversion to organic farming. Cross compliance under CAP is automatically achieved by organic farmers without changes of management practicesb	3a
	Implement additional taxes on plant protection products	Economic advantages	Toxicity of PPP to amphibians and reptiles can be incorporated into the index for taxation calculation	PPP might be used as last measure if other appropriate and less expensive cultivation measures including crop rotations fail	High uncertainty regarding the degree of implementation due to personal farmer's choices Possible unexpected market movements, less planning security for involved industrial sector	Currently, implemented in some European Member Statesc based on flat taxes, taxes on sold PPP volume or on expected environmental impact. Currently, no political signs indicating a short‐ or a medium‐term implementation in other Member States or an agreed European schemes.	3b
	Apply integrated farming scheme (IF) including integrated pest management (IPM)	Currently statutory (CAP; Sustainable Use Directived)	Cross compliance	Can substantially lower the PPP input in agricultural landscapes	Initially cost and training intensive, substantial production changes might be necessary; failing in cross compliance difficult to control by administration?	Applying the principle of IPM is requested by EU policy. Increasing trend on the practical application of IPM. Medium term higher implementation to be expected	3c
		Voluntary/personal commitment of farmers	Voluntary participation supported by agro‐environmental schemes	Farmers are trained and practise IPM consequently	Possibly participation by farmers already interested in lowering environmental impact. Low subsidies and market constraints might hamper further developments.	The application of agri‐environment programmes has been compulsory for Member States in the framework of their rural development plans, whereas they remain optional for farmers. Higher financial support would increase farmers’ participation. Success will depend on the CAP developments after 2020	3d

CAP: Common Agricultural Policy; PPP: plant protection product; IPM: Integrated Pest Management.

^a https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-payments_en

^b https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en

^cPAN Europe: overview on pesticide taxation scheme in Europe https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BznMpGKv0fAzYkxOTUp0Z3BOOWc

^dDirective 2009/128/EC.