Franz Streissl

Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides

General protection goals for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of plant protection products are stated in European legislation but specific protection goals (SPGs) are often not precisely defined. These are however crucial for designing appropriate risk assessment schemes. The process followed by the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as well as examples of resulting SPGs obtained so far for environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides is presented. The ecosystem services approach was used as an overarching concept for the development of SPGs, which will likely facilitate communication with stakeholders in general and risk managers in particular. It is proposed to develop SPG options for 7 key drivers for ecosystem services (microbes, algae, non target plants (aquatic and terrestrial), aquatic invertebrates, terrestrial non target arthropods including honeybees, terrestrial non-arthropod invertebrates, and vertebrates), covering the ecosystem services that could potentially be affected by the use of pesticides. These SPGs need to be defined in 6 dimensions: biological entity, attribute, magnitude, temporal and geographical scale of the effect, and the degree of certainty that the specified level of effect will not be exceeded. In general, to ensure ecosystem services, taxa representative for the key drivers identified need to be protected at the population level. However, for some vertebrates and species that have a protection status in legislation, protection may be at the individual level. To protect the provisioning and supporting services provided by microbes it may be sufficient to protect them at the functional group level. To protect biodiversity impacts need to be assessed at least at the scale of the watershed/landscape.

Towards a landscape scale management of pesticides: ERA using changes in modelled occupancy and abundance to assess long-term population impacts of pesticides.

Pesticides are regulated in Europe and this process includes an environmental risk assessment (ERA) for non-target arthropods (NTA). Traditionally a non-spatial or field trial assessment is used. In this study we exemplify the introduction of a spatial context to the ERA as well as suggest a way in which the results of complex models, necessary for proper inclusion of spatial aspects in the ERA, can be presented and evaluated easily using abundance and occupancy ratios (AOR). We used an agent-based simulation system and an existing model for a widespread carabid beetle (Bembidion lampros), to evaluate the impact of a fictitious highly-toxic pesticide on population density and the distribution of beetles in time and space. Landscape structure and field margin management were evaluated by comparing scenario-based ERAs for the beetle. Source-sink dynamics led to an off-crop impact even when no pesticide was present off-crop. In addition, the impacts increased with multi-year application of the pesticide whereas current ERA considers only maximally one year. These results further indicated a complex interaction between landscape structure and pesticide effect in time, both in-crop and off-crop, indicating the need for NTA ERA to be conducted at landscape- and multi-season temporal-scales. Use of AOR indices to compare ERA outputs facilitated easy comparison of scenarios, allowing simultaneous evaluation of impacts and planning of mitigation measures. The landscape and population ERA approach also demonstrates that there is a potential to change from regulation of a pesticide in isolation, towards the consideration of pesticide management at landscape scales and provision of biodiversity benefits via inclusion and testing of mitigation measures in authorisation procedures.

Optimising environmental risk assessments Accounting for ecosystem services helps to translate broad policy protection goals into specific operational ones for environmental risk assessments

Regulated products such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), plant protection products (PPPs) or feed additives for livestock are subject to an environmental risk assessment before they can be approved for use in agriculture. This assessment aims to evaluate any possible risk that the deployment of such products may pose to the environment. Robust environmental risk assessments require an explicit formulation of potential problems to identify plausible and relevant exposure scenarios and potential adverse effects from predicted exposures. The actual risk is then characterised by testing specific hypotheses about the likelihood and severity of these adverse effects [1], [2], [3], [4]. The ultimate decision on what is an acceptable level of risk, and thus whether a GMO, PPP or feed additive can be commercialised, is taken by risk managers—policymakers and regulators—who have to weigh different policy options to accept, minimise or reduce the risks that were characterised through the environmental risk assessment. The first step of an environmental risk assessment is to establish the context for the assessment by identifying which components of the environment—species, habitats, services, etc.—are valued by civil society and/or protected by relevant laws or policies. This exercise establishes the so‐called environmental policy protection goals: environmental components that should be protected and taken into account when conducting environmental risk assessments to support regulatory decision‐making. These protection goals can vary between jurisdictions, but their overall aim is to minimise harm to the environment, including biodiversity and ecosystems, caused by human activities. However, policy protection goals, such as protecting biodiversity, are often too generic and vague to be useful for scientific risk assessment, and need to be translated into specific, operational ones. Because protecting everything, everywhere, forever is not always tenable, operational protection goals, also termed specific protection goals, have to delineate …

Peer review of the targeted hazard assessment of the pesticide active substance quinoxyfen

Abstract The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, the United Kingdom, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Austria, for the pesticide active substance quinoxyfen are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of information targeted at the assessment of the potential persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) and persistent organic pollutant (POP) properties of quinoxyfen according to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in these regulatory hazard cut off assessments are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. The concern is identified that quinoxyfen may be considered to exhibit the hazard properties of both a PBT and vPvB substance considering the triggers specified in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance pethoxamid

Abstract The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Austria, and co‐rapporteur Member State, the Czech Republic, for the pesticide active substance pethoxamid are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of pethoxamid as a herbicide on maize and soya bean. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance mepanipyrim

Abstract The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Belgium, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Greece, for the pesticide active substance mepanipyrim are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of mepanipyrim as a fungicide on table and wine grapes, and in field and protected strawberries and tomatoes. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

Linking pesticide marketing authorisations with environmental impact assessments through realistic landscape risk assessment paradigms

Each year, the European Food Safety Authority, supported by a network of experts in the EU Member States, assesses and publishes the environmental risks of 30–40 pesticides active substances. The assessments support hundreds of national risk evaluations for marketing (re-)authorisations of Plant Protection Products. These prospective regulatory evaluations are based on worst-case scenarios in order to provide the high level of protection required by the EU legislations, and establishes the conditions for a correct use of the products including risk mitigations options. However, recent publications suggest that the desired high level of protection may not be achieved with the current risk assessment paradigm. The consideration of larger spatial scales and multiple stressors, including different pesticide uses, could improve the risk assessment process. A next step is the use of these larger spatial scales for evidence-based assessments, evaluating the overall impact of pesticide use on the European environment and biodiversity. Reaching this level would provide science-based support to the National Plans on sustainable use of pesticides and to the broader EU policies defined in the EU Environmental Action Programmes. Recent technological developments, as well as policy efforts, have solved two of the key issues blocking this progress in the past. Data availability and technical capacity for handling Big Data are no longer an unaffordable obstacle. The current proposal presents an alternative environmental risk assessment paradigm, integrating use patterns and pesticides properties with landscape ecotypes and eco-regions, covering the variability of the European agro-environmental conditions. The paradigm is suggested to be implemented in a spatially explicit conceptual model, using the ecosystem services approach and vulnerable key driver species to represent the service providing units. This approach would allow mapping the likelihood and magnitude of the impact of pesticide use on ecosystems functions, environmental resources, and biodiversity at the EU scale.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance azadirachtin (Margosa extract)

Abstract The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, Germany, for the pesticide active substance azadirachtin are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the additional representative use of azadirachtin as an acaricide on greenhouse ornamentals. Conclusions are also represented for the representative use evaluated for the approval of azadirachtin, which was as an insecticide on potatoes. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03

Abstract The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State the Netherlands, for the pesticide active substance Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of B. subtilis strain IAB/BS03 as a fungicide on field lettuce, orchards and protected cucurbits. The reliable endpoints appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance tolclofos‐methyl

Abstract The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Sweden, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Denmark, for the pesticide active substance tolclofos‐methyl are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of tolclofos‐methyl as a fungicide on potatoes, lettuce and ornamentals. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.