Search

Chaque année, entre 55000 et 70000 tonnes de substances actives phytopharmaceutiques, incluant celles utilisables en agriculture biologique et de biocontrôle, sontvendues sur le territoire français métropolitain et d’outre-meret sont utilisées pour la protection des cultures ou l’entretien des jardins, espaces végétalisés et infrastructures (JEVI). Dans le même temps, le rapport sur l’évaluation mondiale de la biodiversité et des services écosystémiques établi en 2019 par la Plateforme intergouvernementale scientifique et politique sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques(IPBES) dresse le bilan alarmant d’une érosion sans précédent de la biodiversité. La pollution chimique générée par les activités humaines, incluant les produits phytopharmaceutiques (PPP), est identifiée parmi les causes de cette érosion. Cette pollution s’ajoute à d’autres pressions, comme les destructions d’habitats causées par l’urbanisation, l’intensification des pratiques agricoles et sylvicoles, et les conséquences duchangement climatique. Face à ce constat, la réglementation européenne en matière de mise sur le marché des PPP vise un degré élevé de protection, avec en particulier pour principe d’éviter tout effet inacceptable sur l’environnement. Toutefois, elle ne parvient pas complètement à atteindre cet objectif, en raison notamment d’une prise en compte insuffisante dela diversité des interactions telles qu’elles se produisent dans l’environnement (entre substances, entre organismes, avec une variété de facteurs physico-chimiques, etc.). C’est dans ce contexte que les ministres chargés de l’Environnement, de l’Agriculture et de la Recherche ont sollicité INRAE et l’Ifremer pour réaliser un état des lieux des connaissances scientifiques relatives aux impacts des PPP sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques. La précédente expertise scientifique collective (ESCo) portant sur Pesticides, agriculture et environnement avait été réalisée en 2005. Le présent exercice consiste

Chaque année, entre 55000 et 70000 tonnes de substances actives phytopharmaceutiques, incluant celles utilisables en agriculture biologique et de biocontrôle, sontvendues sur le territoire français métropolitain et d’outre-meret sont utilisées pour la protection des cultures ou l’entretien des jardins, espaces végétalisés et infrastructures (JEVI). Dans le même temps, le rapport sur l’évaluation mondiale de la biodiversité et des services écosystémiques établi en 2019 par la Plateforme intergouvernementale scientifique et politique sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques(IPBES) dresse le bilan alarmant d’une érosion sans précédent de la biodiversité. La pollution chimique générée par les activités humaines, incluant les produits phytopharmaceutiques (PPP), est identifiée parmi les causes de cette érosion. Cette pollution s’ajoute à d’autres pressions, comme les destructions d’habitats causées par l’urbanisation, l’intensification des pratiques agricoles et sylvicoles, et les conséquences duchangement climatique. Face à ce constat, la réglementation européenne en matière de mise sur le marché des PPP vise un degré élevé de protection, avec en particulier pour principe d’éviter tout effet inacceptable sur l’environnement. Toutefois, elle ne parvient pas complètement à atteindre cet objectif, en raison notamment d’une prise en compte insuffisante dela diversité des interactions telles qu’elles se produisent dans l’environnement (entre substances, entre organismes, avec une variété de facteurs physico-chimiques, etc.). C’est dans ce contexte que les ministres chargés de l’Environnement, de l’Agriculture et de la Recherche ont sollicité INRAE et l’Ifremer pour réaliser un état des lieux des connaissances scientifiques relatives aux impacts des PPP sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques. La précédente expertise scientifique collective (ESCo) portant sur Pesticides, agriculture et environnement avait été réalisée en 2005. Le présent exercice consiste

Several sustainable development goals cannot be achieved without implementing a new generation of environmental measures to better preserve or restore biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, understanding and addressing biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation is a challenging problem that is not solvable without integrating the best and latest science. It is crucial to enhance the legibility of this knowledge for decision-makers and policymakers following good-practice standards of scientific assessment. This is the main objective of collective scientific assessments (CSAs), as carried out by the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (INRAE) since the early 2000s following a documented procedure to inform public policy and foster public debate on complex interdisciplinary issues. This article describes the main steps of the CSA procedure designed by INRAE’s Directorate for Collective Scientific Assessment, Foresight and Advanced Studies, from formulation of the initial question asked by public or para-public bodies (typically ministry divisions or environmental agencies) to wider dissemination of the results and conclusions. This process description is then illustrated through the example of a CSA recently commissioned by three French Ministries (for Ecology, for Research, and for Agriculture) regarding (i) contamination of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems by plant protection products (PPPs); (ii) the resulting effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services; and (iii) possible prevention and mitigation strategies. The capacity of this kind of CSA to inform public debate and policymaking is then exemplified through a description of the main outcomes generated by the latest CSA dealing with the adverse effects of PPPs. We also provide a short overview of some key expectations from the current CSA, with a focus on the recent development of the ecosystem service approach in ecological risk assessments of PPP

Several sustainable development goals cannot be achieved without implementing a new generation of environmental measures to better preserve or restore biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, understanding and addressing biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation is a challenging problem that is not solvable without integrating the best and latest science. It is crucial to enhance the legibility of this knowledge for decision-makers and policymakers following good-practice standards of scientific assessment. This is the main objective of collective scientific assessments (CSAs), as carried out by the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (INRAE) since the early 2000s following a documented procedure to inform public policy and foster public debate on complex interdisciplinary issues. This article describes the main steps of the CSA procedure designed by INRAE’s Directorate for Collective Scientific Assessment, Foresight and Advanced Studies, from formulation of the initial question asked by public or para-public bodies (typically ministry divisions or environmental agencies) to wider dissemination of the results and conclusions. This process description is then illustrated through the example of a CSA recently commissioned by three French Ministries (for Ecology, for Research, and for Agriculture) regarding (i) contamination of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems by plant protection products (PPPs); (ii) the resulting effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services; and (iii) possible prevention and mitigation strategies. The capacity of this kind of CSA to inform public debate and policymaking is then exemplified through a description of the main outcomes generated by the latest CSA dealing with the adverse effects of PPPs. We also provide a short overview of some key expectations from the current CSA, with a focus on the recent development of the ecosystem service approach in ecological risk assessments of PPP

Over the decades libraries have encountered challenges in the constantly changing information environment. Libraries adapted quickly, embracing information technology as an opportunity that enables them to offer efficient and modern library services to patrons. Physical library spaces and traditional library services were complemented by digital, thus forming a hybrid library. Although libraries were on their way towards virtual libraries, no one expected that physical space would be closed one day so abruptly and unexpectedly. Libraries around the world were forced to close their doors to the public overnight due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to find out whether EURASLIC libraries were ready for this challenge and how they were coping with the COVID-19 pandemic and whether it was the only disaster they had to deal with in recent times, the EURASLIC Board decided to take a survey. The results of the survey are presented in this paper.

With an overarching goal of addressing global and regional sustainability challenges, Long Term Socio-Ecological Research Platforms (LTSER) aim to conduct place-based research, to collect and synthesize both environmental and socio-economic data, and to involve a broader stakeholder pool to set the research agenda. To date there have been few studies examining the output from LTSER platforms. In this study we enquire if the socio-ecological research from 25 self-selected LTSER platforms of the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network has produced research products which fulfil the aims and ambitions of the paradigm shift from ecological to socio-ecological research envisaged at the turn of the century. In total we assessed 4983 publically available publications, of which 1112 were deemed relevant to the socio-ecological objectives of the platform. A series of 22 questions were scored for each publication, assessing relevance of responses in terms of the disciplinary focus of research, consideration of human health and well-being, degree of stakeholder engagement, and other relevant variables. The results reflected the diverse origins of the individual platforms and revealed a wide range in foci, temporal periods and quantity of output from participating platforms, supporting the premise that there is a growing trend in socio-ecological research at long-term monitoring platforms. Our review highlights the challenges of realizing the top-down goal to harmonize international network activities and objectives and the need for bottom-up, self-definition for research platforms. This provides support for increasing the consistency of LTSER research while preserving the diversity of regional experiences.

With an overarching goal of addressing global and regional sustainability challenges, Long Term Socio-Ecological Research Platforms (LTSER) aim to conduct place-based research, to collect and synthesize both environmental and socio-economic data, and to involve a broader stakeholder pool to set the research agenda. To date there have been few studies examining the output from LTSER platforms. In this study we enquire if the socio-ecological research from 25 self-selected LTSER platforms of the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network has produced research products which fulfil the aims and ambitions of the paradigm shift from ecological to socio-ecological research envisaged at the turn of the century. In total we assessed 4983 publically available publications, of which 1112 were deemed relevant to the socio-ecological objectives of the platform. A series of 22 questions were scored for each publication, assessing relevance of responses in terms of the disciplinary focus of research, consideration of human health and well-being, degree of stakeholder engagement, and other relevant variables. The results reflected the diverse origins of the individual platforms and revealed a wide range in foci, temporal periods and quantity of output from participating platforms, supporting the premise that there is a growing trend in socio-ecological research at long-term monitoring platforms. Our review highlights the challenges of realizing the top-down goal to harmonize international network activities and objectives and the need for bottom-up, self-definition for research platforms. This provides support for increasing the consistency of LTSER research while preserving the diversity of regional experiences.

pp. 105-110

pp. 105-110