Agnieszka D. Hunka

Stakeholders' Perspective on Ecological Modeling in Environmental Risk Assessment of Pesticides : Challenges and Opportunities

The article closely examines the role of mechanistic effect models (e.g., population models) in the European environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides. We studied perspectives of three stakeholder groups on population modeling in ERA of pesticides. Forty-three in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders from regulatory authorities, industry, and academia all over Europe. The key informant approach was employed in recruiting our participants. They were first identified as key stakeholders in the field and then sampled by means of a purposive sampling, where each stakeholder identified as important by others was interviewed and asked to suggest another potential participant for our study. Our results show that participants, although having different institutional backgrounds often presented similar perspectives and concerns about modeling. Analysis of repeating ideas and keywords revealed that all stakeholders had very high and often contradicting expectations from models. Still, all three groups expected effect models to become integrated in future ERA of pesticides. Main hopes associated with effect models were to reduce the amount of expensive and complex testing and field monitoring, both at the product development stage, and as an aid to develop mitigation measures. Our analysis suggests that, although the needs of stakeholders often overlapped, subtle differences and lack of trust hinder the process of introducing mechanistic effect models into ERA.

Visions of Nature in Eastern Europe: A Polish Example

Visions of nature are defined as public views on what nature is, what values are carried by nature and what is the appropriate relationship between humans and nature. They were studied in Lubelski region, Poland. With respect to the first, respondents expressed that human influence and naturalness do not exclude each other. One result of the values survey was that respondents acknowledged natures intrinsic value. The study into the relationship between humans and nature showed that the respondents adhered strongly to a steward type of relationship, and that more ecocentric images were adhered to for a lesser, but substantial degree.

Ecological risk assessment of pesticides in the EU: what factors and groups influence policy changes?

For the last couple of years, European environmental risk assessment (ERA) regulations have undergone significant changes. The new 1107/2009 directive which came into effect in 2011 has triggered an on-going debate on defining specific protection goals for ERA. During this period, we conducted a study on policy change among the most influential ERA stakeholders from Europe. We interviewed 43, purposively sampled, participants from the European safety authorities, plant protection product industry and academia. Transcribed interviews underwent thematic analysis conducted separately by two coders. As we followed the advocacy coalition framework, our findings focus on stakeholders’ processes, interrelations and values behind the ERA policy change. The main challenges emerging from our analysis turned out to be the slow uptake of scientific developments into ERA and very broadly defined protection goals. The use of safety factors and cut-off criteria left risk assessors with many uncertainties. With ERA in its current form it turned out to be impossible to determine whether the current scheme is over- or under-protective. Still, the study shows that the problem of over- or under-protectiveness lies deep in the perception of stakeholders and depends greatly on their priorities. Academics strive for better ecological relevance as a priority. They have concerns that ERA is oversimplified. Regulators worry that ERA relies too much on risk mitigation and is possibly not protective enough, but at the same time, the majority believes that the assessment is well established and straightforward to follow. Industry representatives would like to see ERA based more on probabilistic risk assessment. Recent changes, according to risk assessment and management practitioners have led to an inevitable increase in complexity, which is not perceived as a positive thing, and does not necessarily translate into better risk assessment.

Effective environmental risk communication—Success stories or urban legends?

Intent. The intent of Learned Discourses is to provide a forum for open discussion. These articles reflect the professional opinions of the authors regarding scientific issues. They do not represent SETAC positions or policies. And, although they are subject to editorial review for clarity, consistency, and brevity, these articles are not peer reviewed. The Learned Discourses date from 1996 in the North America SETAC News and, when that publication was replaced by the SETAC Globe, continued there through 2005. The continued success of Learned Discourses depends on our contributors. We encourage timely submissions that will inform and stimulate discussion. We expect that many of the articles will address controversial topics, and promise to give dissenting opinions a chance to be heard. Rules. All submissions must be succinct: no longer than 1000 words, no more than 6 references, and at most one table or figure. Reference format must follow the journal requirement found on the Internet at http:\\www. setacjournals.org. Topics must fall within IEAM’s sphere of interest. Submissions. All manuscripts should be sent via email as Word attachments to Peter M Chapman (peter_chapman@golder.com). e: im ly Sien tfic O p in io Learned Discourses Editor Peter M. Chapman Chapema Environmental Strategies Ltd. 1324 West 22nd Avenue North Vancouver, BC V7P2G4 peter@chapmanenviro.com