EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

The European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires a good chemical and ecological status of European surface waters by 2015. Integrated, risk-based management of river basins is presumed to be an appropriate approach to achieve that goal. The approach of focusing on distinct hazardous substances in surface waters together with investment in best available technology for treatment of industrial and domestic effluents was successful in significantly reducing excessive contamination of several European river basins. The use of the concept of chemical status in the WFD is based on this experience and focuses on chemicals for which there is a general agreement that they should be phased out. However, the chemical status, based primarily on a list of 33 priority substances and 8 priority hazardous substances, considers only a small portion of possible toxicants and does not address all causes of ecotoxicological stress in general. Recommendations for further development of this concept are 1) to focus on river basin–specific toxicants, 2) to regularly update priority lists with a focus on emerging toxicants, 3) to consider state-of-the-art mixture toxicity concepts and bioavailability to link chemical and ecological status, and 4) to add a short list of priority effects and to develop environmental quality standards for these effects. The ecological status reflected by ecological quality ratios is a leading principle of the WFD. While on the European scale the improvement of hydromorphological conditions and control of eutrophication are crucial to achieve a good ecological status, on a local and regional scale managers have to deal with multiple pressures. On this scale, toxic pollution may play an important role. Strategic research is necessary 1) to identify dominant pressures, 2) to predict multistressor effects, 3) to develop stressor- and type-specific metrics of pressures, and 4) to better understand the ecology of recovery. The concept of reference conditions to define the ecological status is hard to apply and tends to ignore the fact that ecosystems can be highly dynamic. A better understanding of ecosystem responses to changes as well as early warning systems and concepts sensitive to various stressors to discriminate disturbances from natural variation are required. Because ecosystems are closely interconnected, an integrated monitoring, diagnosis, and stressors-based management of the whole water, sediment, groundwater, soil, and air system is required considering land use and the interaction with a changing climate. Extending this holistic approach beyond a consideration of existing pressures by anticipating on future ones to use and protect the aquatic environment in a sustainable way is one of the big challenges.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

The Mediterranean region has an extensive hydraulic infrastructure and complex socioeconomic interactions among water users. In this region, competition for water among urban, agricultural, industrial, and environmental demands is strongest in times of water scarcity. Allocation of scarce water in the face of multiple demands is a challenging task that requires careful analysis. Precipitation decreases may likely be translated into drought periods in most cases. Nevertheless water scarcity (the shortage of water resources to serve water demands) not only depends on drought or precipitation deficits but also on water management. Adaptation options depend on the strategic contingency planning and management decisions that affect water resources systems. The risk management of water scarcity and drought depends on the level of water scarcity. Therefore, an adequate diagnosis of the water scarcity level is essential to anticipate the possible solutions. This study proposes a methodology for drought risk management based on the evaluation of 4 indicators of water scarcity to be used to define the thresholds of risk management actions. Based on the definition of thresholds, the study proposes the implementation of risk management actions that may be used for responding to each water scarcity situation.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

Flood risk assessment is an essential part of flood risk management, a concept that is becoming more and more popular in European flood policy and is part of the new European Union flood directive. This paper gives a brief introduction into the general concept and methods of flood risk assessment. Furthermore, 3 problems in the practical application of flood risk assessment, particularly on the river basin scale, are discussed: First, uncertainties in flood risk assessment; second, the inclusion of social and environmental flood risk factors; and third, the consideration of the spatial dimension of flood risk. In the 2nd part of the paper a multicriteria risk mapping approach is introduced that is intended to address these 3 problems.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

Environmental risk assessment is typically uncertain due to different perceptions of the risk problem and limited knowledge about the physical, chemical, and biological processes underlying the risk. The present paper provides a systematic overview of the implications of different types of uncertainty for risk management, with a focus on risk-based management of river basins. Three different types of uncertainty are distinguished: 1) problem definition uncertainty, 2) true uncertainty, and 3) variability. Methods to quantify and describe these types of uncertainty are discussed and illustrated in 4 case studies. The case studies demonstrate that explicit regulation of uncertainty can improve risk management (e.g., by identification of the most effective risk reduction measures, optimization of the use of resources, and improvement of the decision-making process). It is concluded that the involvement of nongovernmental actors as prescribed by the European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD) provides challenging opportunities to address problem definition uncertainty and those forms of true uncertainty that are difficult to quantify. However, the WFD guidelines for derivation and application of environmental quality standards could be improved by the introduction of a probabilistic approach to deal with true uncertainty and a better scientific basis for regulation of variability.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) of the European Union requires member states to attain a good ecological status for all water bodies by the year 2015. This implies that the bioecological protection endpoint itself is upfront, next to abiotic chemical quality standards, as tools to protect those endpoints. Within the requirements of the Directive, ecological status and abiotic conditions will be monitored extensively. Based on the analysis of the monitoring data, authorities are required to derive Programs of Measures (PoMs) for impacted sites. Optimization of these programs requires diagnosis, to provide site-specific or catchment-specific information on the causes of observed deviations from a good ecological status. This article shows one pilot analysis of monitoring data (Scheldt River, Belgium) compiled in the scope of the EU MODELKEY project. Ecological, ecotoxicological, and statistical models are combined to quantify local ecological impact magnitudes and to identify site-specific factors that are associated with those impacts. Results show significant ecological effects in terms of taxa loss at study sites, which are highly variable among sites, with variable combinations of environmental factors associated with those effects. The results of the diagnostic approach are discussed, which appear to be complementary to the assessment of chemical status required by the Directive. Both types of assessment are useful to assist in the derivation of optimized PoMs. In addition, it could be concluded that the acute toxic pressure parameter relates to reduced taxon abundance for more than half of the studied taxa and that this parameter relates to the fraction of taxa lost under field conditions. Finally, various lessons for the execution of monitoring programs are derived because the Scheldt (bio)monitoring data set has its weaknesses, although it can be seen as typical for current monitoring programs.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

Here, recommendations to improve ecological and chemical status assessments in accordance with the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) are made on the basis of experience gained from the MODELKEY project database, linking existing biological and chemical monitoring data of 3 case study river basins (Elbe, Scheldt, and Llobregat). The data analysis within and across river basins revealed major obstacles to be tackled, including scarcity of matching ecological and chemical monitoring sites for cause–effect relationships as well as a general lack of stressor-specific metrics for single biological quality elements (BQE) to enable a comprehensive risk assessment of all predominant stressors, including toxicity. An example of such a metric, which is recommended for the BQE of benthic macroinvertebrates, is the trait-based species-at-risk index (SPEAR) that correlated well with a respective measure for toxic stress, referred to as toxic units, based on simple mixture toxicity concepts. Surprisingly, the assessment of chemical status of a total of 695 monitoring sites for 2000 to 2004 showed that environmental quality standards (EQSs) were exceeded for at least 1 of the currently 41 priority pollutants (PPs) in 92% to 98% of the cases in all 3 of the river basins, which, according to definition, indicates potential effects on ecological status. A comparison of compliance with EQSs for 41 PPs with a respective effect threshold (derived for benthic macroinvertebrates) revealed that the rather conservative concept of chemical status is most likely not protective in all cases. Furthermore, to account for the many other compounds that are detected frequently in European surface waters and that may also have ecotoxicological effects, we introduced a provisional predicted no-effect concentration that is in accordance with the EQS methodology and is suggested to identify potential emerging compounds for which no or insufficient toxicity data exist. In conclusion, this study aims to support the implementation of the WFD by drawing conclusions from the analysis of heterogeneous data sets of various member states and by introducing new tools to move toward an integrated European assessment of ecological and chemical status.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

Mixture exposure against several stressors is what organisms in the environment typically experience, and combined effects resulting from this are well documented. Risk management often still focuses on the assessment of individual priority compounds. Because of the large number of possible mixtures and their variability in time, experimental investigation of every conceivable mixture for their adverse effects is not a viable option. Instead, during the past decade, modeling approaches have been discussed in ecotoxicology that allow the prediction of expected combination effects based on the knowledge of the biological activity of the individual components. This contribution summarizes mixture exposure situations where consensus has been achieved about extrapolation techniques. In particular, for simultaneous exposure and for sequential exposure with no intervening recovery, currently available evidence demonstrates reasonable predictability of combined effects from the information of the individual mixture components. By contrast, when organisms are exposed to pulsed exposure with recovery periods or when nonchemical stressors interfere, there is still an open research field as how to account for these types of interaction.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

The procedure for the risk assessment of pesticides in Germany is currently further developed from a deterministic to a geodata-based probabilistic risk assessment (GeoPRA) approach. As the initial step, the exposure assessment for spray drift in permanent crops, such as vineyards, fruit orchards, and hops, is considered. In our concept, geoinformation tools are used to predict distribution functions for exposure concentrations based mainly on spatial information regarding the neighbourhood of crops and surface waters. A total number of 23 factors affecting the drift into surface waters were assessed and suggestions for their inclusion into the approach developed. The main objectives are to base the exposure estimation on a realistic representation of local landscape characteristics and on empirical results for the impact of each feature on the drift deposition. A framework for the identification of high-risk sites (active management areas [AMAs]) based on protection goals and ecological considerations was developed in order to implement suitable risk mitigation measures. The inclusion of active mitigation measures at sites with identified and verified risk is considered a central and important part of the overall assessment strategy. The suggested GeoPRA procedure itself is comprised of the following 4 steps, including elements of the extensive preliminary work conducted so far: 1) nationwide risk assessment, preferably based only on geodata-based factors; 2) identification of AMAs, including the spatial extension of contamination, the level of contamination, and the tolerable effect levels; 3) refined exposure assessment, using aerial photographs and field surveys; and 4) mitigation measures, with a focus on landscape-level active mitigation measures leading to effective risk reductions. The suggested GeoPRA procedure offers the possibility to actively involve the farming community in the process of pesticide management. Overall, the new procedure will aim at increased flexibility of pesticide application regulations and a high level of protection of surface waters.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

Following the 2000 European Water Framework Directive and recent insights into sediment management on a river basin scale, we discuss in this paper an exposure model aiming to support a risk assessment for chemicals on a basin-wide scale. It establishes spatial relations between causes (pollution sources) and effects (ecological risk), taking into account the geometry, hydrology, and fine sediment dynamics of European river basins. The model, called EXPOBASIN, explicitly takes into account the interaction of chemicals with fine sediment particles, which is important for many policy-relevant chemicals, such as trace metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and it addresses the potential release of historically polluted sediments as a result of extreme floods, which is a major concern in different European river basins. Bioavailability and bioaccumulation are included in the assessment. As a result, the exposure can be quantified not only in terms of water concentrations, but also in terms of sediment concentrations and concentrations in biota. The primary question to be answered by EXPOBASIN is how chemicals, pollution sources, or both rank quantitatively and objectively on a basin-wide scale. Near the end of 2009, the tool will become available to all European water managers and their technical advisors, as a result of the European Union 6th Framework Programme project MODELKEY. The calibration and validation of EXPOBASIN has only just started and will be completed in 2008/2009. Applications to 3 case study areas are planned in this respect. This paper presents the key building blocks of EXPOBASIN and shows some sample results illustrating the raking of pollution sources and chemicals. At the end of the paper, some perspectives for future developments are outlined.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

An extensive amount of literature on linkages between the in-stream physical environment and river benthic macroinvertebrates reports a number of relationships across multiple spatial scales. We analyzed data on different spatial scales to elucidate the linkages between different measurements of hydromorphological degradation and commonly used macroinvertebrate indices. A regression analysis of 1049 sites from 3 countries revealed that the strongest relationship between a biotic metric—average score per taxon—and physiochemical variables (R² = 0.61) was obtained with a multiple regression model that included concentration of total phosphorus and percent arable land in the catchment, as well as hydromorphological quality variables. Analyses of 3 data sets from streams primarily affected by hydromorphological degradation showed an overall weak relationship (max R² = 0.25) with the River Habitat Survey data of 28 Swedish streams, whereas moderate (R² ≈ 0.43) relationships with more detailed measurements of morphology were found in 2 Danish studies (39 and 6 streams, respectively). Although evidence exists in the literature on the importance of physical features for in-stream biota in general and macroinvertebrates specifically, we found only relatively weak relationships between various measures of hydromorphological stress and commonly used macroinvertebrate assessment tools. We attribute this to a combination of factors, including 1) the mixed nature of pressures acting on the majority of river reaches, 2) scaling issues (spatial and temporal) when relating habitat surveys to macroinvertebrate assessments, and 3) the scope of commonly used macroinvertebrate assessment systems (mainly focusing on water chemistry perturbation, such as eutrophication and acidification). The need is urgent to develop refined and updated biological assessment systems targeting hydromorphological stress for the use of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) and national water-related policies.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

Stream risk assessment and restoration requires understanding of the controlling factors and the scale at which they act. The role of hydromorphology, along with physicochemistry, was for a long time neglected, and scale issues were barely tackled. In this study, both the role of hydromorphology and the relevance of scale are studied. For this purpose, the macroinvertebrate community of the stream is used as the scale of the target biota. Next, the following research question is dealt with: At which scale, and to what extent, do hydrology and morphology along with physicochemistry explain stream macroinvertebrate distribution? Three data sets were used: The European AQEM study, the Dutch streams study, and an extensive habitat-preference study. Ordination was used to relate the macroinvertebrate species composition to the (hydromorphological) environment for both the European study and the Dutch stream study data. To explore the strength of one or more variables in explaining the macroinvertebrate distribution over the sampling sites, the fraction of the sum of canonical eigenvalues was used as a measure. To determine the preference for a specific habitat type of each macroinvertebrate species in the habitat preference study, the index of representation was calculated. The European study showed that streams within a more limited geographic area tend to carry macroinvertebrates whose distribution is better explained by stream stretch and in-stream variables. However, even within stream type catchment and stream valley, variables almost equally add to the explanation of the macroinvertebrates distribution. The explanatory power of hydrological and physicochemical variables increased toward smaller scales, and morphological variables showed an equal explanatory power over the different scales. In the Dutch streams study, stream level was much better explained in comparison to the habitat level. Geographical, morphological, and physicochemical variables were strong explanatory variables. For both habitat and stream, the stream stretch variables contributed most to the explanation of macroinvertebrate distribution, whereas microhabitat variables were less explanatory. The habitat preference study supported the observation that habitat provided less explanation than stream stretch. Only 15% of the macroinvertebrate species showed a clear habitat preference; none showed an obligatory one. In conclusion, stream macroinvertebrates distribution is best explained by local stream–stretch variables, provided those variables are contained within a catchment and stream valley context. Differences in vulnerability and biotic capacity between macroinvertebrate species determine the assemblage present. Applying this knowledge in water management means that any risk assessment and restoration effort needs a hydromorphological context.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale.

Over the past century, the potential for aquatic species to expand their ranges in Europe has been enhanced both as a result of the construction of new canals and because of increased international trade. A complex network of inland waterways now connects some previously isolated catchments in southern (Caspian, Azov, Black, Mediterranean seas) and northern (Baltic, North, Wadden, White seas) Europe, and these waterways act as corridors for nonnative species invasions. We have developed a conceptual risk assessment model for invasive alien species introductions via European inland waterways, with specific protocols that focus on the development of environmental indicators within the socioeconomic context of the driving forces–pressures–state–impact–response framework. The risk assessment protocols and water quality indicators on alien species were tested for selected ecosystems within 3 main European invasion corridors, and these can be recommended for application as part of the Common Implementation Strategy of the European Commission Water Framework Directive, which aims to provide a holistic risk-based management of European river basins. The conceptual structure of the online Risk Assessment Toolkit for aquatic invasive alien species is provided and includes 3 main interlinked components: online risk assessment protocols, an early warning system, and an information transmitter for risk communication to end users.

New substances destined for import into, or manufacture in, Canada must be reported to Environment Canada and Health Canada under the New Substances Notification Regulations (Chemicals and Polymers) (NSNR). With the use of information provided by the notifier, and other complementary information available to the 2 departments, the New Substances Program conducts ecological and human health risk assessments. Over the past 10 y, more than 750 ecotoxicity studies have been submitted to the New Substances Program of Environment Canada under the NSNR. Most of these experimental studies are not publicly available but are useful in the ecological risk assessment of new substances and for the development of Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships (QSARs). In this paper, we describe the development and validation of a computer-based scoring system and our approach in the development of scoring methods used to assess the quality and usability of ecotoxicity studies with fish, Daphnia spp., and green algae. Results of ranking exercises conducted with these methods are described and discussed, together with the potential use of these results in a regulatory context. In addition, the methods are discussed in comparison with other similar evaluation schemes described in the literature.

Bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and biota–sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs) are frequently used to predict contaminant bioaccumulation in risk assessments. Development of these parameters is often hindered by uncertainty regarding the spatial scale of contaminant transfer from sediments to biota. We present a simple statistical method for optimizing bioaccumulation parameters (BAF and BSAF) in aquatic species, such as fish, whose exposure history may occur over broad spatial scales. For 6 finfish species sampled in San Francisco Bay, San Diego Bay, or the Southern California Bight, California, USA, the spatial scale of correlation was optimized using regression analysis. The ranges identified for pairing biota and sediment observations generally corresponded to the known life histories of the species and with laboratory tests comparing relationships observed for 28-d Macoma spp. This procedure may be useful for identifying appropriate species and spatial scales to predict bioaccumulation and for developing data sets of corresponding sediment and tissue residues.

Long term protection and maintenance of ecological communities and populations must consider the effect of atmospheric pollutants in addition to stressors that occur on the ground. We describe a technique for identifying species ranges and ecosystems across the landscape where there could be potential effects from air toxics releases. We modified the ranking equations for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the Chemical Scoring and Ranking Assessment Model (SCRAM) to come up with a weighted relative toxicity value. The model combines toxicity rankings from SCRAM, chemical ambient air concentration data from the Assessment System for Population Exposure Nationwide model, and species richness data from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project. The final output was a 30-m pixel grid of potential vulnerability to HAP exposures. We found that the model, in general, resulted in a circular pattern around major urban areas with vulnerability decreasing with distance from the urban center. Those areas having high acreage of federal, state, and locally protected lands were also highlighted by the models added weight for species richness. Since the final toxicity maps were in a raster format the data can be aggregated into any number of assessment units for use by multiple levels of decision makers including federal and state entities who want to compare relative toxicity exposures across a region and local groups who want to evaluate the vulnerability of lands under their management.

A lot of initiatives for improving water quality have been developed over the last 15 y in Brittany in response to degradation induced by intensive farming and under the pressure of European policy and environmental organizations. This has involved the partnerships of farmer organizations, organizations in charge of rural affairs, research and formation institutes, and environmental nongovernmental organizations. In this paper, we present 2 complementary aspects of an original, and possibly efficient, water policy within the framework of water management in a medium-sized watershed, including 1) development of new methods of diagnostic and decision support based on participative approaches and 2) development of new methods to assess the current status and effect of alternative scenarios, taking into account the complexity of a system with strong agricultural and hydrological variability and a relatively long response time. The 1st series of methods, which deals with the buffering capacity of landscape structures, is close to a social learning approach; the 2nd illustrates the importance, for policy makers, of a precisely defined protocol for data monitoring and analysis and of the use of spatially distributed and dynamic models when water policy is based on an obligation of results. In spite of the coexistence of all the necessary constituents of a coherent policy, it seems difficult to build. The state of current water quality illustrates the importance and limitations of incentive policy.

This brief communication reports on the main findings of the LEMTOX workshop, held from 9 to 12 September 2007, at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) in Leipzig, Germany. The workshop brought together a diverse group of stakeholders from academia, regulatory authorities, contract research organizations, and industry, representing Europe, the United States, and Asia, to discuss the role of ecological modeling in risk assessments of pesticides, particularly under the European regulatory framework. The following questions were addressed: What are the potential benefits of using ecological models in pesticide registration and risk assessment? What obstacles prevent ecological modeling from being used routinely in regulatory submissions? What actions are needed to overcome the identified obstacles? What recommendations should be made to ensure good modeling practice in this context? The workshop focused exclusively on population models, and discussion was focused on those categories of population models that link effects on individuals (e.g., survival, growth, reproduction, behavior) to effects on population dynamics. The workshop participants concluded that the overall benefits of ecological modeling are that it could bring more ecology into ecological risk assessment, and it could provide an excellent tool for exploring the importance of, and interactions among, ecological complexities. However, there are a number of challenges that need to be overcome before such models will receive wide acceptance for pesticide risk assessment, despite having been used extensively in other contexts (e.g., conservation biology). The need for guidance on Good Modeling Practice (on model development, analysis, interpretation, evaluation, documentation, and communication), as well as the need for case studies that can be used to explore the added value of ecological models for risk assessment, were identified as top priorities. Assessing recovery potential of exposed nontarget species and clarifying the ecological relevance of standard laboratory test results are two areas for which ecological modeling may be able to provide considerable benefits.