Spanish National Environmental Health Center, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
French Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE), Functional Ecology and Ecotoxicology of Agroecosystems, ECOSYS, Palaiseau, France.
Environ Int. 2024 Sep;191:108999. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108999. Epub 2024 Sep 10.
While pesticide use is subject to strict regulatory oversight worldwide, it remains a main concern for environmental protection, including biodiversity conservation. This is partly due to the current regulatory approach that relies on separate assessments for each single pesticide, crop use, and non-target organism group at local scales. Such assessments tend to overlook the combined effects of overall pesticide usage at larger spatial scales. Integrative landscape-based approaches are emerging, enabling the consideration of agricultural management, the environmental characteristics, and the combined effects of pesticides applied in a same or in different crops within an area. These developments offer the opportunity to deliver informative risk predictions relevant for different decision contexts including their connection to larger spatial scales and to combine environmental risks of pesticides, with those from other environmental stressors. We discuss the needs, challenges, opportunities and available tools for implementing landscape-based approaches for prospective and retrospective pesticide Environmental Risk Assessments (ERA). A set of "building blocks" that emerged from the discussions have been integrated into a conceptual framework. The framework includes elements to facilitate its implementation, in particular: flexibility to address the needs of relevant users and stakeholders; means to address the inherent complexity of environmental systems; connections to make use of and integrate data derived from monitoring programs; and options for validation and approaches to facilitate future use in a regulatory context. The conceptual model can be applied to existing ERA methodologies, facilitating its comparability, and highlighting interoperability drivers at landscape level. The benefits of landscape-based pesticide ERA extend beyond regulation. Linking and validating risk predictions with relevant environmental impacts under a solid science-based approach will support the setting of protection goals and the formulation of sustainable agricultural strategies. Moreover, landscape ERA offers a communication tool on realistic pesticide impacts in a multistressors environment for stakeholders and citizens.
虽然农药的使用受到全球范围内的严格监管监督,但它仍然是环境保护的主要关注点,包括生物多样性保护。这在一定程度上是由于当前的监管方法依赖于对每个单一农药、作物用途和非目标生物群体在当地尺度上的单独评估。这种评估往往忽略了在更大空间尺度上整体农药使用的综合影响。综合景观方法正在出现,使人们能够考虑农业管理、环境特征以及在同一地区或不同作物中应用的农药的综合影响。这些发展为提供有关不同决策背景的信息风险预测提供了机会,包括将其与更大的空间尺度联系起来,并将农药的环境风险与其他环境胁迫因素的风险结合起来。我们讨论了为前瞻性和回顾性农药环境风险评估 (ERA) 实施基于景观的方法的需求、挑战、机会和可用工具。从讨论中得出的一组“构建块”已被整合到一个概念框架中。该框架包括促进其实施的要素,特别是:灵活性,以满足相关用户和利益相关者的需求;解决环境系统固有复杂性的手段;连接以利用和整合来自监测计划的数据;以及验证选项和促进在监管背景下未来使用的方法。概念模型可应用于现有的 ERA 方法学,促进其可比性,并突出景观层面的互操作性驱动因素。基于景观的农药 ERA 的好处不仅限于监管。通过基于坚实科学的方法将风险预测与相关环境影响联系起来并进行验证,将有助于确定保护目标和制定可持续农业战略。此外,景观 ERA 为利益相关者和公民提供了一个关于多胁迫环境中现实农药影响的沟通工具。