Assessing in-field pesticide effects under European regulation and its implications for biodiversity: a workshop report.

Background: Biodiversity loss is particularly pronounced in agroecosystems. Agricultural fields cover about one-third of the European Union and are crucial habitats for many species. At the same time, agricultural fields receive the highest pesticide input in European landscapes. Non-target species, including plants and arthropods, closely related to targeted pests, are directly affected by pesticides. Direct effects on these lower trophic levels cascade through the food web, resulting in indirect effects via the loss of food and habitat for subsequent trophic levels. The overarching goals of the European pesticide legislation require governments to sufficiently consider direct and indirect effects on plants and arthropods when authorising pesticides. This publication provides an overview of a workshop's findings in 2023 on whether the current pesticide risk assessment adequately addresses these requirements. Results: Effects due to in-field exposure to pesticides are currently not assessed for plants and inadequately assessed for arthropods, resulting in an impairment of the food web support and biodiversity. Deficiencies lie within the risk assessment, as defined in the terrestrial guidance document from 2002. To overcome this problem, we introduce a two-step assessment method feasible for risk assessors, that is to determine (i) whether a pesticide product might have severe impacts on plants or arthropods and (ii) whether these effects extend to a broad taxonomic spectrum. When each step is fulfilled, it can be concluded that the in-field exposure of the pesticide use under assessment could lead to unacceptable direct effects on non-target species in-field and thus subsequent indirect effects on the food web. While our primary focus is to improve risk assessment methodologies, it is crucial to note that risk mitigation measures, such as conservation headlands, exist in cases where risks from in-field exposure have been identified. Conclusions: We advocate that direct and indirect effects caused by in-field exposure to pesticides need to be adequately included in the risk assessment and risk management as soon as possible. To achieve this, we provide recommendations for the authorities including an evaluation method. Implementing this method would address a major deficiency in the current in-field pesticide risk assessment and ensure better protection of biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]