Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical for sustainable development and human well-being. However, an unprecedented erosion of biodiversity is observed and the use of plant protection products (PPP) has been identified as one of its main causes. In this context, at the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research, a panel of 46 scientific experts ran a nearly 2-year-long (2020–2022) collective scientific assessment (CSA) of international scientific knowledge relating to the impacts of PPP on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The scope of this CSA covered the terrestrial, atmospheric, freshwater, and marine environments (with the exception of groundwater) in their continuity from the site of PPP application to the ocean, in France and French overseas territories, based on international knowledge produced on or transposable to this type of context (climate, PPP used, biodiversity present, etc.). Here, we provide a brief summary of the CSA's main conclusions, which were drawn from about 4500 international publications. Our analysis finds that PPP contaminate all environmental matrices, including biota, and cause direct and indirect ecotoxicological effects that unequivocally contribute to the decline of certain biological groups and alter certain ecosystem functions and services. Levers for action to limit PPP-driven pollution and effects on environmental compartments include local measures from plot to landscape scales and regulatory improvements. However, there are still significant gaps in knowledge regarding environmental contamination by PPPs and its effect on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. Perspectives and research needs are proposed to address these gaps.

International audience | Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical for sustainable development and human well-being. However, an unprecedented erosion of biodiversity is observed and the use of plant protection products (PPP) has been identified as one of its main causes. In this context, at the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research, a panel of 46 scientific experts ran a nearly 2-year-long (2020-2022) collective scientific assessment (CSA) of international scientific knowledge relating to the impacts of PPP on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The scope of this CSA covered the terrestrial, atmospheric, freshwater, and marine environments (with the exception of groundwater) in their continuity from the site of PPP application to the ocean, in France and French overseas territories, based on international knowledge produced on or transposable to this type of context (climate, PPP used, biodiversity present, etc.). Here, we provide a brief summary of the CSA's main conclusions, which were drawn from about 4500 international publications. Our analysis finds that PPP contaminate all environmental matrices, including biota, and cause direct and indirect ecotoxicological effects that unequivocally contribute to the decline of certain biological groups and alter certain ecosystem functions and services. Levers for action to limit PPP-driven pollution and effects on environmental compartments include local measures from plot to landscape scales and regulatory improvements. However, there are still significant gaps in knowledge regarding environmental contamination by PPPs and its effect on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. Perspectives and research needs are proposed to address these gaps.

Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical for sustainable development and human well-being. However, an unprecedented erosion of biodiversity is observed and the use of plant protection products (PPP) has been identified as one of its main causes. In this context, at the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research, a panel of 46 scientific experts ran a nearly 2-year-long (2020–2022) collective scientific assessment (CSA) of international scientific knowledge relating to the impacts of PPP on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The scope of this CSA covered the terrestrial, atmospheric, freshwater, and marine environments (with the exception of groundwater) in their continuity from the site of PPP application to the ocean, in France and French overseas territories, based on international knowledge produced on or transposable to this type of context (climate, PPP used, biodiversity present, etc.). Here, we provide a brief summary of the CSA’s main conclusions, which were drawn from about 4500 international publications. Our analysis finds that PPP contaminate all environmental matrices, including biota, and cause direct and indirect ecotoxicological effects that unequivocally contribute to the decline of certain biological groups and alter certain ecosystem functions and services. Levers for action to limit PPP-driven pollution and effects on environmental compartments include local measures from plot to landscape scales and regulatory improvements. However, there are still significant gaps in knowledge regarding environmental contamination by PPPs and its effect on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. Perspectives and research needs are proposed to address these gaps.

International audience | Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical for sustainable development and human well-being. However, an unprecedented erosion of biodiversity is observed and the use of plant protection products (PPP) has been identified as one of its main causes. In this context, at the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research, a panel of 46 scientific experts ran a nearly 2-year-long (2020-2022) collective scientific assessment (CSA) of international scientific knowledge relating to the impacts of PPP on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The scope of this CSA covered the terrestrial, atmospheric, freshwater, and marine environments (with the exception of groundwater) in their continuity from the site of PPP application to the ocean, in France and French overseas territories, based on international knowledge produced on or transposable to this type of context (climate, PPP used, biodiversity present, etc.). Here, we provide a brief summary of the CSA's main conclusions, which were drawn from about 4500 international publications. Our analysis finds that PPP contaminate all environmental matrices, including biota, and cause direct and indirect ecotoxicological effects that unequivocally contribute to the decline of certain biological groups and alter certain ecosystem functions and services. Levers for action to limit PPP-driven pollution and effects on environmental compartments include local measures from plot to landscape scales and regulatory improvements. However, there are still significant gaps in knowledge regarding environmental contamination by PPPs and its effect on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. Perspectives and research needs are proposed to address these gaps.

Non-point source pollution is a cause of major concern within the European Union. This is reflected in increasing public and political focus on a more sustainable use of pesticides, as well as a reduction in diffuse pollution. Climate change will likely to lead to an even more intensive use of pesticides in the future, affecting agriculture in many ways. At the same time, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and associated EU policies called for a “good” ecological and chemical status to be achieved for water bodies by the end of 2015, currently delayed to 2021–2027 due to a lack of efficiency in policies and timescale of resilience for hydrosystems, especially groundwater systems. Water managers need appropriate and user-friendly tools to design agro-environmental policies. These tools should help them to evaluate the potential impacts of mitigation measures on water resources, more clearly define protected areas, and more efficiently distribute financial incentives to farmers who agree to implement alternative practices. At present, a number of reports point out that water managers do not use appropriate information from monitoring or models to make decisions and set environmental action plans. In this paper, we propose an integrated and collaborative approach to analyzing changes in land use, farming systems, and practices and to assess their effects on agricultural pressure and pesticide transfers to waters. The integrated modeling of agricultural scenario (IMAS) framework draws on a range of data and expert knowledge available within areas where a pesticide action plan can be defined to restore the water quality, French “Grenelle law” catchment areas, French Water Development and Management Plan areas, etc. A so-called “reference scenario” represents the actual soil occupation and pesticide-spraying practices used in both conventional and organic farming. A number of alternative scenarios are then defined in cooperation with stakeholders, including socio-economi

Non-point source pollution is a cause of major concern within the European Union. This is reflected in increasing public and political focus on a more sustainable use of pesticides, as well as a reduction in diffuse pollution. Climate change will likely to lead to an even more intensive use of pesticides in the future, affecting agriculture in many ways. At the same time, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and associated EU policies called for a “good” ecological and chemical status to be achieved for water bodies by the end of 2015, currently delayed to 2021–2027 due to a lack of efficiency in policies and timescale of resilience for hydrosystems, especially groundwater systems. Water managers need appropriate and user-friendly tools to design agro-environmental policies. These tools should help them to evaluate the potential impacts of mitigation measures on water resources, more clearly define protected areas, and more efficiently distribute financial incentives to farmers who agree to implement alternative practices. At present, a number of reports point out that water managers do not use appropriate information from monitoring or models to make decisions and set environmental action plans. In this paper, we propose an integrated and collaborative approach to analyzing changes in land use, farming systems, and practices and to assess their effects on agricultural pressure and pesticide transfers to waters. The integrated modeling of agricultural scenario (IMAS) framework draws on a range of data and expert knowledge available within areas where a pesticide action plan can be defined to restore the water quality, French “Grenelle law” catchment areas, French Water Development and Management Plan areas, etc. A so-called “reference scenario” represents the actual soil occupation and pesticide-spraying practices used in both conventional and organic farming. A number of alternative scenarios are then defined in cooperation with stakeholders, including socio-economic conditions for developing alternative agricultural systems or targeting mitigation measures. Our integrated assessment of these scenarios combines the calculation of spatialized environmental indicators with integrated bio-economic modeling. The latter is achieved by a combined use of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) modeling with our own purpose-built land use generator module (Generator of Land Use version 2 (GenLU2)) and an economic model developed using General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) for cost-effectiveness assessment. This integrated approach is applied to two embedded catchment areas (total area of 360,000 ha) within the Charente river basin (SW France). Our results show that it is possible to differentiate scenarios based on their effectiveness, represented by either evolution of pressure (agro-environmental indicators) or transport into waters (pesticide concentrations). By analyzing the implementation costs borne by farmers, it is possible to identify the most cost-effective scenarios at sub-basin and other aggregated levels (WFD hydrological entities, sensitive areas). Relevant results and indicators are fed into a specifically designed database. Data warehousing is used to provide analyses and outputs at all thematic, temporal, or spatial aggregated levels, defined by the stakeholders (type of crops, herbicides, WFD areas, years), using Spatial On-Line Analytical Processing (SOLAP) tools. The aim of this approach is to allow public policy makers to make more informed and reasoned decisions when managing sensitive areas and/or implementing mitigation measures.

[Departement_IRSTEA]Territoires [TR1_IRSTEA]DTAM [Axe_IRSTEA]DTAM-QT2-ADAPTATION [TR2_IRSTEA]SYNERGIE | International audience | Non-point source pollution is a cause of major concern within the European Union. This is reflected in increasing public and political focus on a more sustainable use of pesticides, as well as a reduction in diffuse pollution. Climate change will likely to lead to an even more intensive use of pesticides in the future, affecting agriculture in many ways. At the same time, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and associated EU policies called for a “good” ecological and chemical status to be achieved for water bodies by the end of 2015, currently delayed to 2021–2027 due to a lack of efficiency in policies and timescale of resilience for hydrosystems, especially groundwater systems. Water managers need appropriate and user-friendly tools to design agro-environmental policies. These tools should help them to evaluate the potential impacts of mitigation measures on water resources, more clearly define protected areas, and more efficiently distribute financial incentives to farmers who agree to implement alternative practices. At present, a number of reports point out that water managers do not use appropriate information from monitoring or models to make decisions and set environmental action plans. In this paper, we propose an integrated and collaborative approach to analyzing changes in land use, farming systems, and practices and to assess their effects on agricultural pressure and pesticide transfers to waters. The integrated modeling of agricultural scenario (IMAS) framework draws on a range of data and expert knowledge available within areas where a pesticide action plan can be defined to restore the water quality, French “Grenelle law” catchment areas, French Water Development and Management Plan areas, etc. A so-called “reference scenario” represents the actual soil occupation and pesticide-spraying practices used in both conventional and organic farming. A number of alternative scenarios are then defined in cooperation with stakeholders, including socio-economic conditions for developing alternative agricultural systems or targeting mitigation measures. Our integrated assessment of these scenarios combines the calculation of spatialized environmental indicators with integrated bio-economic modeling. The latter is achieved by a combined use of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) modeling with our own purpose-built land use generator module (Generator of Land Use version 2 (GenLU2)) and an economic model developed using General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) for cost-effectiveness assessment. This integrated approach is applied to two embedded catchment areas (total area of 360,000 ha) within the Charente river basin (SW France). Our results show that it is possible to differentiate scenarios based on their effectiveness, represented by either evolution of pressure (agro-environmental indicators) or transport into waters (pesticide concentrations). By analyzing the implementation costs borne by farmers, it is possible to identify the most cost-effective scenarios at sub-basin and other aggregated levels (WFD hydrological entities, sensitive areas). Relevant results and indicators are fed into a specifically designed database. Data warehousing is used to provide analyses and outputs at all thematic, temporal, or spatial aggregated levels, defined by the stakeholders (type of crops, herbicides, WFD areas, years), using Spatial On-Line Analytical Processing (SOLAP) tools. The aim of this approach is to allow public policy makers to make more informed and reasoned decisions when managing sensitive areas and/or implementing mitigation measures.

Non-point source pollution is a cause of major concern within the European Union. This is reflected in increasing public and political focus on a more sustainable use of pesticides, as well as a reduction in diffuse pollution. Climate change will likely to lead to an even more intensive use of pesticides in the future, affecting agriculture in many ways. At the same time, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and associated EU policies called for a “good” ecological and chemical status to be achieved for water bodies by the end of 2015, currently delayed to 2021–2027 due to a lack of efficiency in policies and timescale of resilience for hydrosystems, especially groundwater systems. Water managers need appropriate and user-friendly tools to design agro-environmental policies. These tools should help them to evaluate the potential impacts of mitigation measures on water resources, more clearly define protected areas, and more efficiently distribute financial incentives to farmers who agree to implement alternative practices. At present, a number of reports point out that water managers do not use appropriate information from monitoring or models to make decisions and set environmental action plans. In this paper, we propose an integrated and collaborative approach to analyzing changes in land use, farming systems, and practices and to assess their effects on agricultural pressure and pesticide transfers to waters. The integrated modeling of agricultural scenario (IMAS) framework draws on a range of data and expert knowledge available within areas where a pesticide action plan can be defined to restore the water quality, French “Grenelle law” catchment areas, French Water Development and Management Plan areas, etc. A so-called “reference scenario” represents the actual soil occupation and pesticide-spraying practices used in both conventional and organic farming. A number of alternative scenarios are then defined in cooperation with stakeholders, including socio-economic conditions for developing alternative agricultural systems or targeting mitigation measures. Our integrated assessment of these scenarios combines the calculation of spatialized environmental indicators with integrated bio-economic modeling. The latter is achieved by a combined use of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) modeling with our own purpose-built land use generator module (Generator of Land Use version 2 (GenLU2)) and an economic model developed using General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) for cost-effectiveness assessment. This integrated approach is applied to two embedded catchment areas (total area of 360,000 ha) within the Charente river basin (SW France). Our results show that it is possible to differentiate scenarios based on their effectiveness, represented by either evolution of pressure (agro-environmental indicators) or transport into waters (pesticide concentrations). By analyzing the implementation costs borne by farmers, it is possible to identify the most cost-effective scenarios at sub-basin and other aggregated levels (WFD hydrological entities, sensitive areas). Relevant results and indicators are fed into a specifically designed database. Data warehousing is used to provide analyses and outputs at all thematic, temporal, or spatial aggregated levels, defined by the stakeholders (type of crops, herbicides, WFD areas, years), using Spatial On-Line Analytical Processing (SOLAP) tools. The aim of this approach is to allow public policy makers to make more informed and reasoned decisions when managing sensitive areas and/or implementing mitigation measures.