Aquatic risks of pesticides, ecological protection goals, and common aims in european union legislation

Authors

  • Theo CM Brock,

    Corresponding author
    1. Alterra, Centre for Water and Climate, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
    • Alterra, Centre for Water and Climate, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Gertie HP Arts,

    1. Alterra, Centre for Water and Climate, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lorraine Maltby,

    1. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Paul J Van den Brink

    1. Alterra, Centre for Water and Climate, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands
    2. Department of Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management, Wageningen University, PO. Box 8080, 6700 DD Wageningen, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

This discussion paper presents a framework for spatiotemporal differentiation in ecological protection goals to assess the risks of pesticides in surface waters. It also provides a proposal to harmonize the different scientific approaches for ecotoxicological effect assessment adopted in guidance documents that support different legislative directives in the European Union (Water Framework Directive and Uniform Principles). Decision schemes to derive maximum permissible concentrations in surface water are presented. These schemes are based on approaches recommended in regulatory guidance documents and are scientifically underpinned by critical review papers concerning the impact of pesticides on freshwater organisms and communities. Special attention is given to the approaches based on standard test species, species sensitivity distribution curves, and model ecosystem experiments. The decision schemes presented here may play a role in the “acceptability” debate and can be used as options in the process of communication between risk assessors and risk managers as well as between these risk experts and other stakeholders.

Ancillary