Go to content

4. Objective 2: Climate-sensitive parameters and an evaluation of their effects on the risk assessment of plant protection products (GAP-analysis)

4.1 Environmental fate studies

Environmental fate studies are laboratory or field studies and usually described by OECD or EFSA guidance. Please find a more detailed evaluation of relevant topics in Appendix 3.
The laboratory tests are standardised and performed under artificial / optimised conditions and e.g. degradation parameters are normalised for modelling. Most studies for PPPs consider an optimum temperature condition of around 20 ± 2 °C or 25 ± 2 °C. Since normalisation to actual temperatures is done within the modelling process these laboratory temperatures do not have a significant impact.
Due to climate change some studies may become more relevant than they used to be. In certain regions anaerobic degradation may occur more frequently if soils are flooded regularly, and soil photolysis may become more or less important depending on if more sunshine days are expected or not.
Extended drought periods or frequent flooding may also directly impact the degradation behaviour of pesticides in laboratory soil studies, if, for example, samples are taken shortly after a drought period or a flooding event. The effects of these events on soil parameters and microbial organisms could lead to different results as under the conditions considered as “standard” at the moment or even to non-reliable studies. The current guidance gives no information, how sampling and pre-incubation after drought or flooding events should be handled or how study results could be interpreted for the risk assessment. 
Similarly, also terrestrial field dissipation studies can be impacted by longer drought periods and flooding. While longer drought periods may lead to reduced degradation of PPPs in the field, flooding could lead to longer periods of anaerobic conditions or even result in a destruction of the trial site. Current guidance gives recommendations on how to perform irrigation and to evaluate the validity of terrestrial field dissipation studies in case of droughts (e.g. EFSA, 2014). It should be reviewed if recommendations for irrigation are still valid and if the exclusion criteria are sufficient. Potentially more trials would need to be performed because the probability risk of invalid trials is increasing. On the other hand, strategies could be developed how to handle data of affected trials as their number is expected to increase. Furthermore, it could be useful to consider testing regarding microbial biomass for field trials as well to ensure an active microbial community throughout the trial periods.
Currently in the risk assessment for soil and groundwater anaerobic metabolites are often not considered relevant. More frequent flooding may make anaerobic metabolites more important in affected areas.
Groundwater- and surface water monitoring programs may become more relevant in the future as a higher tier refinement. In some countries publicly available monitoring data is available. But also specific monitoring from applicants might be considered. As Gimsing et al. (2019) and EFSA (2023) describe, the selection of suitable realistic worst case groundwater monitoring sites is important but difficult. EFSA (2023) concludes that “well-conducted monitoring studies provide more realistic exposure assessments and can therefore overrule results from lower tier studies. Groundwater monitoring studies involve a high workload for both regulators and applicants. Standardised procedures and monitoring networks could help to reduce this workload.” Currently the use of monitoring data in the regulatory process is limited but is expected to increase. The impact of climate change on monitoring data and the selection of monitoring sites needs to be further assessed. 
Action points Priority 1:
  • Guidance for terrestrial field dissipation studies should be reviewed in terms of how to deal with extended drought or flooding and the results of affected trials.
Action points Priority 2:
  • Guidance on sampling timing or pre-incubation after drought or flooding should be developed as well as a guidance for the interpretation of the results for the risk assessment

4.2 Environmental fate modelling

Please find a more detailed evaluation of relevant topics in Appendix 3.

4.2.1 Evaluation of validity of DEFRA (2004) for Northern Europe and year 2024

In year 2004 DEFRA published a report of the project “An assessment of the impacts of climate change on the fate and behaviour of pesticides in the environment” (DEFRA, 2004). It provides a detailed overview of the potential impact of climate change on the environmental factors relevant for PPP registration and risk assessment.
The underlying assumption in DEFRA (2004) is the climate change projection UKCIP02 which is summarised in Table 2.
Variable
UKCIP02 summary
Confidence level
Temperature
Annual warming by 2080s of between 1 and 5 ºC depending on the region and scenario
H
Greater summer warming in the south east than in the north west
H
Greater night-time than daytime warming in winter
L
Greater warming in summer and autumn than in winter and spring
L
Greater daytime than night-time warming in summer
L
The number of very hot days increases, especially in the summer and autumn
H
The number of very cold days decreases, especially in winter
H
Rainfall
Generally wetter winters for the whole UK
H
Substantially drier summers for the whole of the UK
M
Rainfall intensity increases in winter
H
Seasonality
Rainfall: greater contrast between wetter winters and drier summer seasons
H
Temperature: summers warm more than winters
L
Variability
Years as warm as 1999 become very common
H
Summers as dry as 1995 become very common
M
Winter and spring rainfall become more variable
L
Summer and autumn temperatures become more variable
L
Humidity
Specific humidity increases
H
Relative humidity decreases in summer
M
Soil moisture
Soil moisture decreases in summer and autumn in the south east
H
Soil moisture increases in winter and spring in the north west
M
Thermal growing season length
Increases everywhere, with the largest increases in the south east
H
Cloud cover
Reduction in summer and autumn cloud cover, especially in the south
L
Small increase in winter cloud cover
L
Snowfall
Totals decrease significantly everywhere
H
Large parts of the country experience long runs of snowless winters
M
Table 2: Summary of the climate changes predicted using the UKCIP02 scenarios (DEFRA, 2004) (H = High, M = Medium, L = Low)
Since this report is 20 years old and was specifically prepared for UK, it needs to be evaluated if these assumptions (and consecutively its conclusions) can be considered valid for the Northern zone in 2024.
The assumptions most relevant for the environmental risk assessment are assumed to be related to changes in rainfall and temperature.
As described in the table above in DEFRA (2004) it was assumed that the temperature may increase by up to 5 °C until 2080 with greater summer warming than winter. Depending on the emission scenario rainfall in winter will increase between 5 to 30%, while summer rainfall will decrease by 20–40%.
In comparison, the Swedish Government (2018) mentions an increase in temperature by 3–5 °C until 2080 in comparison to 1960–1990, with an increase in winter temperature as high as 10 °C. An increase of precipitation mainly in winter and Southern Sweden of up to 20% is expected. Changes in precipitation are smaller in summer or might be negative (depending on the model). In general, the degree of uncertainty for prediction of precipitation might be larger than for temperature.
The assumption of the Finnish Government Helsinki (2024) is similar to Sweden, with an expected temperature increase of 2–5 °C in comparison to year 2000, with stronger warming in the winter than in the summer. Rainfalls also are expected to increase between 5–20% with strong seasonality and larger changes in winter.
Therefore the climate change expectations of DEFRA (2004) are in line with the more recent expectations for Sweden and Finland. The only major difference is that in the UK it was expected that warming in summer is to be larger than in winter, which is expected to be the other way around in the Nordic Zone.
Therefore in principle the main conclusions and recommendations from DEFRA (2004) remain valid and can be assumed to be applicable for the Nordic Zone as well.
DEFRA (2004) concluded that there are direct and indirect implications of climate change on pesticide fate modelling. It was “not possible to rigorously assess the direct impact of climate change on FOCUS models without a systematic sensitivity analysis, however, qualitative assessment of individual climate parameters indicates that the models may be more sensitive to extreme daily variables and less sensitive to average values.” Regarding the indirect implications it is concluded that the FOCUS models appear to be resilient, so that they represent the climate sensitive processes with sufficient physical realism to account for changes due to climate variables. However, climate sensitive parameters such as crop growth cycles are fixed in FOCUS. This has been identified as a vulnerability.
It was also pointed out that socio-economic changes (like adaptation of agricultural practices, climate-dependent societal changes...) may play an important role, which might be more important than the direct climate effects. 
DEFRA (2004) concluded on a in a number of important changes that need to be accounted for within the regulatory framework. 
  • Changing patterns of pesticide use brought about by changes in cropping patterns.
  • Introduction of new crops
  • Different geographical spread of existing crops
  • Faster maturity of crops
  • Changing patterns of pesticide pests and diseases
  • Changes to accepted pattern of soil moisture deficit development and soil re-wetting
  • Delayed onset of recharge and drainage
  • Shorter recharge/drainage season
  • Increase rainfall intensity in winter
  • By-pass flow conditions occur more frequently
  • Less interaction between leached pesticide and the soil
  • Increased winter pesticide degradation
  • Higher levels of metabolites generated
  • Less dilution available in water bodies during summer
  • Increased water pesticide concentrations from spray drift events
Most of these points appear to be covered within the processes in the FOCUS models (e.g. changes in drainage season and degradation). The points in bold however would need adjustment in the current modelling scenarios and their interpretation.

4.2.2 Evaluation of effect of climate change on environmental parameter

4.2.2.1 Background of scenario data

Soil scenarios
The PECsoil calculation used for European registration is described in FOCUS (1997). A simple scenario is used assuming that the initial applied mass of active substance is mixed over a soil depth of 5 cm with a dry soil bulk density of 1.5 (g/cm3). For multiple applications degradations between the applications is assumed. For accumulation potential multiple years of consecutive applications are calculated. No temperature or moisture data is used in the process for normalisation.
As described in Northern Zone (2024) the Nordic PECsoil calculator needs to be used for the Northern European Zone. The principal is similar to the process described in FOCUS (1997), however for the Nordic Zone the Finnish scenario for Jokioinen (Finland) with temperature data from 1979–1998 should be used.
Work for potential update of the temperature data for the Finnish scenario is currently investigated by Nibio within the scope of a research project.
In the future the model PERSAM might become relevant based on EFSA (2017). PERSAM in Tier3a also uses scenario and weather data within the PEARL and PELMO models. The weather data is the same as for the groundwater scenarios (from the MARS meteorological data base (50 × 50 kms grid cells) from year 1971–2000).
Groundwater scenarios
The standard FOCUS groundwater scenarios are described in FOCUS (2000) (Table 3). These scenarios were selected based on the criteria that it should be maximum 10 scenarios and with realistic combinations of crop, soil, climate and agronomic conditions. The overall vulnerability should approximate the 90th percentile of all possible situations, which represents a realistic worst case. The vulnerability should be split evenly between soil properties and weather. Finally, the 80th percentile value for soil and 80th percentile value for weather is used to approximate the overall 90th percentile.
Locations were selected to represent major agricultural regions, span the range of temperature and rainfall in EU and to be distributed across the EU with no more than one scenario per Member State. This evaluation was based on available data available in multiple publications from 1994 to 1998.
The selection of soil types and characteristics was based on expert judgement. Soil maps were used to obtain information on texture and organic matter content. Also the SEISMIC data base (for Okehampton), local expert judgement, and a formal national scenario for Germany (based on a soil survey intended to locate a worst-case leaching soil (Kördel et al., 1989) were taken into account.
For the weather selection FOCUS (2000) states that: “As part of the scenario selection process, targets for annual rainfall were also developed for each site based on tables of annual rainfall (Heyer, 1984). These target values were used by the weather subgroup to identify appropriate climatic data [...] for a 20-year period [...]. Four locations (Châteaudun, Piacenza, Sevilla, and Thiva) were identified as having irrigation normally applied to at least some crops in the region.” The final weather data was derived from the MARS meteorological data base (50 × 50 kms grid cells) from year 1971–2000.
Details on the process how the irrigation schedules were defined can be found in FOCUS (2000). The irrigation scheduling software IRSIS (Irrigation Scheduling Information System) (Raes et al., 1988) developed by the Institute for Land and Water Management, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven was used.
Together with new weather data also new irrigation schedules would need to be developed. Schedules could be developed based on irrigation models as mentioned above and be evaluated by local experts.
The decision which main crop types to include and for which scenarios to parameterise them was based on expert judgement in the 1990s. 
Reviews and minor changes regarding the above-mentioned points were published in FOCUS (2011) and EC (2014).
 
 
 
Surface Soil Properties
Location
Mean Annual Temp. (°C)
Annual Rainfall (mm)
Texture
Organic Matter (%)
Châteaudun
11.3
648 + I
Silty clay loam
2.4
Hamburg
9.0
786
Sandy loam
2.6
Jokioinen
4.1
650
Loamy sand
7.0
Kremsmünster
8.6
899
Loam/silt loam
3.6
Okehampton
10.2
1038
Loam
3.8
Piacenza
13.2
857 + I
Loam
2.2
Porto
14.8
1150 + l
Loam
2.5
Sevilla
17.9
493 + I
Silt loam
1.6
Thiva
16.2
500 + I
Loam
1.3
Table 3: Overview of the nine groundwater scenarios. “I” indicates that rainfall is supplemented by irrigation (FOCUS, 2011)
Additionally, to the standard FOCUS scenarios national groundwater scenarios for Sweden, Norway and Denmark were developed. Similar to the FOCUSgw scenarios also the weather data for the national scenarios were derived from data between 1961 to 1995 (as summarised in Burns et al. (1995)) and for the scenarios Krusenberg and Näsbygård irrigation is used.
The weather data for the Swedish scenarios is currently under review and in the process to be updated by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU).
Burns et al. (1995) reviewed the protectiveness of the national MACRO scenarios and found that overall it was only slightly lower than of the FOCUS scenarios Hamburg and Jokioinen, but more variable with occasional negative outliers. “Consequently, the uncertainty of regulatory decisions at the zonal level based on the FOCUS scenarios Hamburg and Jokioinen would be higher than the uncertainty of decisions based on results of the national MACRO scenarios.“ They suggest for higher tier-simulations a GIS-based, fully spatially probabilistic approach should be used.
Surface water scenarios
STEP1-2:
The STEP1-2 scenarios follow a relatively simplistic and very conservative approach as described in FOCUS (2001): “At Step 1 inputs of spray drift, run-off, erosion and/or drainage are evaluated as a single loading (sum of individual applications) to the water body and “worst-case” water and sediment concentrations are calculated. If inadequate safety margins are obtained (Toxicity Exposure Ratios < trigger values), the registrant proceeds to Step 2. At Step 2, loadings are refined as a series of individual applications, each resulting in drift to the water body, followed by a run-off/erosion/drainage event occurring four days after the last application and based upon the region of use (Northern or Southern Europe), season of application, and the crop interception. Again, if inadequate safety margins are obtained (Toxicity Exposure Ratios < trigger values), the registrant proceeds to Step 3. Step 3 requires the use of deterministic models such as PRZM, MACRO and TOXSWA.”
Drift loadings, runoff, erosion, and drainage loadings have been determined and those are directed into a standard water body of fixed dimension. The drift loadings at STEP 1 and 2 are based on Rautmann et al. (2001). Runoff/erosion/drainage entries in STEP1 were set to 10% as a very conservative estimate for a reported maximum loss of 8-9% for drainage and 3-4% for runoff. The runoff/drainage entries in STEP2 are defined as 2%-5% depending on the region and season and have been calibrated against STEP3 calculations.
Due to the increased rainfall amount and intensity in recent years (and predicted in the future), it should be checked if the assumptions are still conservative enough. After FOCUS Surface Water Repair published the new surface water scenarios it should be checked if STEP2 still leads to systematically higher PECsw values than STEP3. 
STEP3:
Similar to the groundwater scenarios, a set of scenarios were developed for surface water (FOCUS, 2001) to define “a limited number of “realistic worst-case” surface water scenarios which were broadly representative of agriculture as practised in the major production areas of the EU. These scenarios should take into account all relevant entry routes to a surface water body, as well as considering all appropriate target crops, surface water situations, topography, climate, soil type and agricultural management practices.” In contrast to the groundwater scenarios (which explicitly do not represent specific sites) it is mentioned for surface water that “wherever possible, selected scenarios should be represented by specific field sites with monitoring data to allow subsequent validation of the scenario.”
A set of representative realistic worst-case scenarios was selected based on data sets covering the European community for climate, landscape characteristics and land use and cropping (Table 4). Data included is from the 1990s and before. A pragmatic approach was then used for initial scenario selection. This was based upon “climate using temperature and recharge together with soil drainage status to identify broad drainage scenarios, and temperature and rainfall together with slope to identify broad run-off scenarios”. 
Scenario
Mean spring & autumn temp.(oC)
Mean annual rainfall (mm)
Mean annual recharge (mm)
Slope (%)
Soil
D1
<6.6
600–800
100–200
0–0.5
Clay with shallow groundwater
D2
6.6–10
600–800
200–300
0.5–2
Clay over impermeable substrate
D3
6.6–10
600–800
200–300
0–0.5
Sand with shallow groundwater
D4
6.6–10
600–800
100–200
0.5–2
Light loam over slowly permeable substrate
D5
10–12.5
600–800
100–200
2–4
Medium loam with shallow groundwater
D6
>12.5
600–800
200–300
0–0.5
Heavy loam with shallow groundwater
R1
6.6–10
600–800
100–200
2–4
Light silt with small organic matter
R2
10 – 12.5
>1000
>300
10–15
Organic-rich light loam
R3
10 – 12.5
800 – 1000
>300
4–10
Heavy loam with small organic matter
R4
>12.5
600–800
100–200
4–10
Medium loam with small organic matter
Table 4: Inherent Agro-environmental characteristics of the Surface water scenarios (FOCUS, 2001)
For each scenario then a main range of crops was characterised based on local knowledge and cropping databases.
Similar to the groundwater scenarios the MARS database (50 × 50 km grid cells, years 1971–1998) was used to derive weather data for the scenarios (for details refer to FOCUS (2001)). In contrast to groundwater the assessment for surface water is based only on a six-year warm up period and a 16-year evaluation period (drainage) and a 20-year period from which only 12 months will be fed from PRZM to TOXSWA.
Drift calculation is based on BBA (2000) and Rautmann et al. (2001).
For FOCUS surface water the ISAREG model (Teixeira and Pereira, 1992) was used to derive irrigation schedules. This model was developed and validated for Southern European conditions and was considered particularly appropriate for the runoff scenarios.
Together with new weather data also new irrigation schedules would need to be developed. Schedules could be developed based on irrigation models as mentioned above and be evaluated by local experts.
For surface water it is assumed that new irrigation schedules have been development within FOCUS surface water repair. It should be evaluated if the same methods can be applied for updated weather data.
It should be mentioned that the FOCUS Surface Water repair group (EFSA et al., 2020) has updated the most important issues of the surface water scenarios. One of the main changes was the extension of the evaluation period to 20 years. For this the weather time series had to be prolonged. However, as discussed in section 3.2.2 no update to more recent data or consideration of climate change was in the scope of this group.
Additionally in FOCUS (2001) the relevance of each scenario was evaluated for the different regions in Europe.
STEP4:
At STEP4 mitigation options can be used as described in FOCUS (2007a and b) based on e.g. drift and runoff buffer. For drift the mitigation efficiency is based on the Rautmann et al. (2001) drift curve. The efficiency of the runoff buffer has been implemented in the SWAN software (ECPA, 2018) based on Reichenberger et al. (2007), who compiled a review of buffer efficiency. 90th percentile efficiencies were implemented in FOCUS as a conservative approach. It is assumed that these conservative estimates are still valid also under climate change conditions. Since 2012 SWAN also includes an alternative option to model the efficiency of vegetative filter strips (VFS), using the mechanistic, event-based model VFSMOD (Muñoz-Carpena and Parsons, 2022; Muñoz-Carpena et al., 1999). VFS scenario parameters for SWAN have been derived by Brown et al., (2012).
Potential impact by climate change
Based on the above description climate change may have impact on the following aspects of the background data used to derive the FOCUS scenarios.
Climate data, soil data, crop distribution maps etc., which were used to prepare the scenarios and to analyse their relevance for the member states are from the 1990s and earlier. It has to be noted that the scenarios were designed to cover the climatic and agricultural variability throughout Europe, and that the changes induced by climate change are expected to range within this spatial variability. Therefore, the concept of the FOCUS scenarios remains valid. Details on potential adjustments of scenario data are discussed in the following chapters.
However, due to the outdated data background adjustments on how to use the FOCUS scenarios might be required:
  1. A shift of the agricultural zones from south to north is taking place and will further take place in the future (Franke et al. (2021), UBA (2023)). Therefore, the extent of each scenario has most probably changed in the recent years. The spatial extent of each scenario should be re-evaluated, and the member states should update their list of required scenarios if necessary. SETAC SDLM group could be approached for further details.
  2. In the same process it should be evaluated if some scenarios do not cover any relevant agricultural area anymore and should be omitted. Further if there is a relevant portion of agricultural land which is not covered by any scenario the development of additional scenarios might need to be considered.
  3. It should be reviewed if the main FOCUS crops defined for each scenario are still sufficient (e.g. by examining current crop distribution maps). It can be expected that cropping zones of crops like e.g. maize or oil seed crops shift further to the North (DEPA, 2013). Therefore, a parameterization of further crops for e.g. Jokioinen or the Nordic groundwater scenarios might be useful. Also new crops might have become more relevant in Europe which have not been considered relevant at the initial set up of the scenarios. Additional FOCUS crops might need to be defined. This is indicated as well in the increasing need to select surrogate crops for non-parameterised FOCUS crop/scenario combinations. Guidance should be developed to establish rules for selection of surrogate crops.
  4. The STEP 2 runoff and drainage percentages should be reviewed if they are still conservative (based on literature review and comparison against new FOCUS-scenarios from FOCUS surface water repair activities). 
Action points Priority 1:
  • Member states to re-evaluate spatial extent of FOCUS groundwater and surface water scenarios and to re-define relevancy of scenarios for their national risk assessment
  • Member states to re-evaluate if further FOCUS scenarios, FOCUS crops, or combinations of both need to be defined to cover all major agricultural areas and to avoid increased necessity to use surrogate crops
  • Development of guidance on how to select surrogate crops for those scenarios which are not defined for FOCUS crops
Action points Priority 2:
  • Re-evaluation of conservatism of STEP2 runoff and drainage percentages in light of recent FOCUS surface water repair activities (e.g. literature review)
 

4.2.2.2 Weather data and irrigation

Northern Europe is expected to experience higher temperature increases compared to the global average. These projections, typically based on Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) scenarios, highlight the region's sensitivity to climate change due to its high latitude. By 2100, under a high-emission scenario (RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5), the mean annual temperature could rise by 4 °C to 6 °C in many parts of Northern Europe. In a moderate scenario (RCP4.5), the increase is projected to be around 2 °C to 3 °C. Winters will warm significantly, potentially shortening the snow season, especially in southern and coastal areas. Summer temperatures are also projected to rise, with more frequent heatwaves.
Projections generally indicate a rise in winter rainfall, with more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow, particularly in southern Scandinavia. Snowfalls may still occur but are predicted to be less frequent and occur later in the season. Summer precipitation may decrease slightly in some areas, leading to a higher risk of droughts, particularly in parts of Sweden. Scandinavia is also expected to experience longer growing seasons due to earlier springs and delayed autumns. 
Carvalho et al. (2021) investigated future changes in mean, maximum, and minimum surface temperatures over Europe using CMIP6 projections. The study found that temperatures are projected to increase across Europe, particularly in northern and southern latitudes, with warming reaching 2–3 °C by mid-century and 5–6 °C by the end of the century under SSP5–8.5. Carvalho also noted that frost days are expected to decrease across Europe, with fewer than 50–70 days per year in central Europe and even less in Scandinavia and north-eastern Russia.
Lind et al. (2023) used high-resolution climate modelling to assess future projections for Fenno-Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Finland, and surrounding areas). The study employed the HARMONIE-Climate model (HCLIM38) and found that by the end of the century, temperatures could increase by 2–3 °C under RCP4.5 and by 4–7 °C under RCP8.5. Higher precipitation amounts are projected for fall, winter, and spring, while summer precipitation may decrease in southern areas. Both daily and sub-daily intense precipitation events are expected to become more frequent, with the most significant changes occurring in summer. 
Analyses of measured and remote sensing data confirm the trends predicted by climate models. Kjellström et al. (2022) reanalysed data from 1961 to 2020 and found significant warming across all seasons in Northern Europe, with reduced daily temperature variability in winter and increased variability in summer. Precipitation has generally increased over the past 30 years, although daily precipitation variability has not shown consistent trends. Montibeller (2021) focused on the Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, data from 2000 to 2018) and reported temperature increases, particularly in late spring, summer, and early autumn, with mixed trends in precipitation.
The Interministerial Working Group on Adaptation to Climate Change in Germany (UBA, 2023) has reported a temperature increase of 0.8 °C since the early industrialization period, with further warming expected. They additionally analysed two scenarios: the ‘Climate protection scenario’ (RCP2.6) aiming for a maximum of 2 °C global warming by 2100, and the ‘High emissions scenario’ (RCP8.5), which anticipates significant temperature rises due to continued carbon-rich fossil fuel use. For the period 2031–2060, projected temperature increases range from 0.8 to 1.5 °C under RCP2.6 and 1.5 to 2.3 °C under RCP8.5. Precipitation projections for the short-term planning horizon (2031–2060) suggest no significant annual changes, with variations between ±0% to +6% under the climate protection scenario and -1% to +9% under the high emissions scenario. In winter, precipitation could increase by 3% to 23%, while the trends for summer and autumn are less clear. The number of days with heavy precipitation (at least 20 mm per day) is expected to rise across all regions.
As discussed above the most important weather variables for the environmental fate modelling of PPP are changes in rainfall amounts and intensity (which influences the leaching of substances to groundwater as well as the occurrence of runoff and drainage), air temperature (which is used to calculate soil temperature relevant for degradation of the substances), and evapotranspiration (influencing the water balance of the soil and therefore also has impact on the leaching of PPPs). 
Below an evaluation is performed on which impact these changes have on the predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) in the different environmental compartments. 
PECsoil
As described above for the soil scenarios, weather data plays a minor role for PECsoil calculations. The initial PECsoil does not change with changing climate. On European level also for the plateau or accumulation PECsoil the weather data has no influence.
The Finnish PECsoil calculator temperature plays a role. Increased temperature would lead to a faster degradation of parent substances, which would lead to lower concentrations. Metabolites calculated being formed in a pathway from the parent would also degrade faster but at the same time they would be formed faster. Overall, a decrease in concentrations with increasing temperature would be expected.
Work for potential update of the temperature data for the Finnish scenario is currently done by Nibio.
Once PERSAM will be used a similar impact from climate data can be expected as for the groundwater scenarios.
PECgw
For PECgw calculations three models are used (FOCUS MACRO, FOCUS PEARL, and FOCUS PELMO). FOCUS MACRO is the only model included which simulates macropore flow.
An impact assessment of the MACRO model was done by Steffens et al. (2014 and 2015) as discussed in section 3.2.3. Steffens et al. (2015) performed simulations with the regional model MACRO-SE for south-west Sweden in order to assess the direct and indirect effects of climate change on herbicide leaching to groundwater. One of the main conclusions was that the increased temperature (enhancing degradation) and increased rainfalls (promoting leaching) cancel each other at regional scale, so that only a minor increase in concentrations were observed. Indirect effects (such as increase of land-use area in Sweden and increase of herbicide use) may have a larger effect on groundwater contamination.
This conclusion might not be directly transferable to FOCUS MACRO or the national MACRO scenarios for the Nordic zone. Since weather data for the MACRO scenarios for Sweden are currently under review by SLU, an impact assessment of the weather data on PECgw will be discussed in that framework.
FOCUS PELMO and FOCUS PEARL consist of the same or similar processes. For the risk assessment in the Nordic zone the Hamburg scenario calculated with FOCUS PELMO is the most relevant (Northern Zone, 2024). Therefore, an impact assessment of climate change on the PECgw for this scenario calculated with FOCUS PELMO is performed in Appendix 2. Nine substances with different DT50,soil and KFOC values were tested with application to winter cereals at BBCH 10 and BBCH 30. Four different climate scenarios were tested based on climate protection assumptions and high emission assumptions based on UBA (2023) with an average annual increase of rainfall and with seasonal variability. The results show for the majority of substances that the PECgw values decrease from FOCUS weather over the climate protection to the high emission scenario. Consideration of seasonality in the changes in precipitation appear to play a minor role. 
Please see Figure 1 as an example for active substance 1 (DT50 in soil = 10 d, KFOC = 10 mL/g). The different climate scenarios are FOCUS_ET = FOCUS with updated evapotranspiration, CPM = climate protection scenario without seasonal variation, CPS = Climate protection scenario with seasonal variation, HEM = high emission scenario without seasonal variation, and HES = high emission scenario with seasonal variation.
Figure 1: PECgw values of active substance 1 for Hamburg scenario (PELMO) calculated with different climate scenarios
While a change in rainfall pattern and amount was considered in the impact assessment it is important to note that changes in rainfall intensities were not considered. Extreme rainfall intensities are becoming more frequent, with strong rainfalls of sub-daily duration. In the current FOCUS models daily weather data is included, which disregards any variation of precipitation on sub-daily level. This may lead to an overestimation of infiltration and leaching in case the actual rainfall intensity exceeds the actual infiltration capacity of the soil. This might occur more often due to climate change.
In general, the usage of hourly climate data in empirical water flow models on which e.g. PELMO and PRZM are based on, might make less sense than in physics-based models like PEARL and MACRO.
For FOCUS PELMO the runoff function is deactivated (CN=0). Even if switched on only the daily precipitation volume would play a role, so that an impact of changed intensity is only expected if also the daily volume is changed.
Test calculations in FOCUS (2014) showed that the estimated runoff volume increases drastically for most FOCUS scenarios in PEARL, when the averaging period is not 24 h, but decreased to as low as 1 h. FOCUS (2014) concluded that runoff information should be updated, but that no suitable data was obtainable at that time.
In MACRO higher hourly rainfall intensity (or a higher value of the parameter RINTEN) would primarily lead to a higher macropore flow at the surface. Higher surface runoff is only expected once the infiltration capacity of the macropore domain is exceeded. As a consequence, increased rainfall intensity will primarily lead to increased leaching. In MACRO an algorithm used to derive hourly data from daily values (Olsson (1998) and Güntner et al. (2001)).
It should be evaluated if inclusion of e.g. hourly weather data is possible and if the FOCUS models are able to handle higher resolution weather data or would need to be updated. Further it needs to be evaluated if data sources with long term data on sub-daily level are available, or if algorithms are suitable for use also in other models.
PECsw
For FOCUS PECsw calculations the entry pathways of drift, drainage and runoff to three different water bodies (pond, ditch and stream) are relevant. 
Drift calculation is based on BBA (2000) and Rautmann et al. (2001). Actual drift strongly depends on the onsite weather conditions at time of application (especially wind velocity and direction). The variability of the field conditions is higher than the changes introduced due to climate change. Therefore, it is expected that no update of the drift values will be required. However, also induced by climate change more precision farming techniques (e.g. application via drones, spot application) are expected. It would be important to develop drift curves for regulatory purposes for these techniques.
Runoff and drainage are strongly influenced by rainfall amount, intensity and timing. Therefore, it is expected that PECsw values will be strongly impacted by climate change. While larger rainfall amount will lead to more transport of pesticides into the water bodies also the water volume increases, and with it the dilution of the pesticides. 
Kühnel and Wang (2024) updated the weather data of FOCUS SWASH from the years 1975-1994 to the time frame of 2004–2023. They found that PECsw values differ noticeably if recent weather data is used. For autumn applications PECsw values increased, while they decreased for spring applications. This is due to the fact that mainly precipitation in autumn and winter increased, while in spring and summer mainly the temperatures increased. They concluded that “These results indicate that FOCUS weather data should be updated regularly to take account of climate change. As weather extremes and the variability of precipitation have increased, multiyear PECsw should also be used instead of using one reference year only.” 
An update of the PECsw calculations was performed within the FOCUS SW repair group which includes a multi-year approach similar to the PECgw calculations. However, an update to more recent weather data is not foreseen within this context (EFSA et al. (2020). 
As discussed already for PECgw, high rainfall intensities may have a stronger impact on PECsw calculations. Especially runoff and drainage are driven by rainfall intensities. The usage of daily precipitation may introduce an error which will increase in the future when high intensity rainfalls increase. It should therefore be considered to include weather data with e.g. hourly timesteps. 
Adjustments in the code of the FOCUS models might be required and would need to be discussed with the model developer (e.g. the usage of runoff and erosion curve numbers which are based on daily assumptions). As mentioned above, the usage of hourly climate data in empirical water flow models on which e.g. PRZM is based on, might make less sense than in physics-based models. 
PECair
Contamination of and transport by air mainly occurs via volatilisation and deposition. Volatilisation is mainly influenced by the vapour pressure of the active ingredient. The FOCUS air group (FOCUS, 2008) has established the vapour pressure thresholds of 10-4 Pa (at 20 °C) for volatilisation from soil and 10-5 Pa (at 20 °C) from plants. If vapour pressure is higher than these thresholds volatilisation and deposition need to be considered in the aquatic exposure assessment and should be either calculated with EVA 2.0 or based on experiments.
The usage of the vapour pressure at 20 °C appears to still be conservative for the Nordic Zone, where average daily temperatures are below 20 °C. Additionally, for typical application timings in autumn and spring temperatures are expected to be below 20 °C. Therefore, an amendment of this procedure might not be required.
Conclusion
The weather data used in the current risk assessment is outdated (usually from 1970s–1990s). Due to changes in rainfall, temperature, and evapotranspiration the impact on PEC-values is depending on the environmental compartments and application timing.
Rainfall intensities of sub-daily / hourly time steps should be included in the physics-based models (such as MACRO and PEARL) to adequately depict runoff and drainage conditions. MARS data appears to be available for download only in daily resolution. Different sources (other gridded values or direct data from weather stations) would need to be considered to extract relevant data or statistical models for temporal rainfall disaggregation should be considered (as e.g. for MACRO). Models might need to be updated to appropriately reflect changes in the time resolution of weather data. Increased rainfall intensities might make it more relevant to re-evaluate the methods of how runoff is calculated (FOCUS, 2014). 
An update of the recent weather data should be considered for the national Nordic scenarios. Potentially also discussion on updating the weather data of the FOCUS scenarios on European level should be initiated.
Within the current framework a regular update (every 5–10 years) of climate files should be considered. A potential option would be to make new weather files available for download in regular intervals, with newest measured data (e.g. based on MARS 25) for the respective scenarios in the appropriate file formats. A procedure would need to be developed to assure that this data still covers the 90th percentile protection goal. The interval should not be larger than 10 years to ensure that for substance renewal updated weather data is available. 
This approach ensures that relatively recent actual weather data is used for risk assessment. However, it does not consider any climate projections for the future time frame for which registration is granted (usually around 10 years). The use of climate projection for the Nordic zone was recommended by Burns et al. (2015).
Climate projections bring a further degree of uncertainty which could be addressed by Bayesian Network models. Example applications of these approaches were discussed in section 3.2.3 (e.g. Steffens et al. (2014 and 2015) and Mentzel et al. (2021)). These predictions aim however at time frames > 10 years, where the usage of projections is required.
For the regulatory process of up to 10 years the additional effort of these assessments might not be justified. However, these options should be discussed especially if the regulatory process is overhauled in general in the future (see EU-PARC project). 
Action points Priority 1:
  • Update climate data and irrigation schedules used in models for environmental risk assessment to new time series. Data sources as used in original FOCUS scenario could be used.
  • Develop process on how to update and distribute climate data regularly (every 5–10 years) for relevant models and scenarios to stakeholders.
  • Initiate discussions with model developers if sub-daily climate data can be used and perform impact assessment on PEC groundwater and surface water calculations. Availability of weather data of e.g. hourly resolution or options of temporal rainfall disaggregation needs to be checked.
Action points Priority 3:
  • Initiate discussions on European level (EFSA, EU-PARC project) if in an updated future risk assessment scheme climate projections could and should be implemented instead of past weather data

4.2.2.3 Application dates/growth stages

Soil temperature and water content of the soil play a major role in the development of the plants. UBA (2023) mentions that a soil temperature of 5 °C is required to induce plant growth and that especially temperature in spring is important for scheduling of farmers management practices. In case temperatures are high enough a limiting factor might be the water supply. Too low or too high water content in the soil is inhibiting plant growth.
This leads to the conclusion that the predicted higher temperatures in winter and spring lead to an earlier crop development and/or shorter dormancy of e.g. winter crops. At the same time potential drought conditions may limit the plant growth in summer. Both effects would lead to a prolonged growth season and a shift in the dates when a BBCH stage is reached. This has been already observed in the northern zone (Wenng et al., 2020) and is expected to increase in the future. 
In the regulatory process the application timings are usually defined relative to the BBCH stage. Most often the tool AppDate v3.06 (Klein, 2019) is used to define the specific dates for the FOCUS groundwater and surface water scenarios. For each defined BBCH stage of the main FOCUS crops a date is associated and linear interpolation is used for intermediate growth stages. For the Nordic zone additionally the publication of Myrbeck (1998) is frequently used, which is partially outdated as well. Scenario specific emergence and harvest dates for the FOCUS crops are also implemented in some of the FOCUS models.
In FROGS (2013) the application timing can be directly based on the BBCH stage. The application timing for the different regions in France is then calculated based on the temperature sum. This routine is similar to routines implemented in SWAP (the hydrological model used in PEARL) and WOFOST. 
Similar to the weather data also the BBCH-dates relationship should be reviewed in regular intervals. This could be done within the AppDate tool as a standard approach. Also, the timings for Sweden in Myrbeck (1998) would need to be updated.
For more refined options the usage of crop growth models (such as WOFOST) could be employed to define new relationships based on the updated weather data.
As an additional option the C2D2 database published by industry (Hughes et al., 2023, see section 3.2.2) and potentially further databases could be a good source of information. It should be discussed if an extension of this database with recent field trial data in a regular interval would be feasible. This data could be used to define appropriate application timings directly or to verify dates from AppDate or from model calculations by e.g. WOFOST.
Action points Priority 1:
  • Update of agronomic dates in FOCUS and national scenarios (especially emergence and harvest dates of FOCUS crops)
  • Update of BBCH – date relationships in AppDate and for national scenarios
Action points Priority 2:
  • Development of more flexible approach of defining BBCH-date relationships with field data (e.g. C2D2-database) or crop modelling

4.2.2.4 Field management practices

Standard application techniques like boom spray, air blast, and incorporation are currently available as standard approaches in the FOCUS framework. However, further field management practices related to precision farming are used more and more frequently. These might be especially application via drones, spot applications, conservation tillage, or no tillage.
They might become more important in the future to avoid increased loss of pesticides and soil via runoff and erosion due to climate change.
A regulatory framework is required to provide guidance on how a risk assessment for these novel practices shall be done. Especially drift curves for the non-standard application techniques need to be developed.
Action points Priority 1:
  • Develop regulatory framework for precision farming techniques. Detailed guidance and implementation in FOCUS models is required (e.g. new application types, drift curves, mitigation options in SWAN and VFSmod)

4.2.2.5 Soil parameters

As described in FOCUS (2000) for the groundwater scenarios soil profiles were defined by experts based on real soil profiles. Main criteria for selection of the profiles were soil texture, soil pH, dry bulk density and percentage of organic carbon content down to a depth of at least 1 m.
Soil hydraulic properties of the profiles are described with van Genuchten parameters (van Genuchten, 1980), which were either measured or estimated with HYPRES (Wösten, 1998). These parameters are dependent mainly on soil texture, bulk density, and organic carbon content.
The most important input parameters in regard to leaching of pesticides is hence soil texture, bulk density and organic carbon content.
It is assumed that soil texture in general is relatively stable over the time period of 50 years, and hence would not require review. Also, bulk density is relatively stable as long as soil management does not change. It should be mentioned that changing field management practices such as conservation or no tillage may have impact on bulk density and pore network and might therefore need further attention when these techniques become more relevant.
The main variable which might change over shorter time periods and may have a high impact on pesticide fate is the organic carbon content. Higher temperature might lead to faster decomposition of organic material in soil, while longer growth periods may lead to increased input of organic material into the soil (UBA (2023) and Varney et al. (2020)). A case study in UBA (2023) shows relative stability of organic matter content over the last decades. A modelling and uncertainty analysis of global changes in soil carbon content indicates a decrease of soil carbon content over time considering global warming of 2 °C (Varney et al., 2020). It is mentioned that a common assumption is that the turnover time of carbon decreases by 7% per °C of warming. However, these modelling results are subject to high uncertainty.
An impact analysis of changes of soil organic carbon content of -10% and -25% on the FOCUS PELMO Hamburg scenario is presented in Appendix 2. Nine substances with different DT50,soil and KFOC values were tested with application to winter cereals at BBCH 10 and BBCH 30. The original OC-content of the FOCUS Hamburg scenario was reduced by 10% and 25%. No further changes e.g. in the van Genuchten parameters has been considered. A decrease in organic matter content by 10% and 25% led to an increase in PECgw by approximately 3% and 9%, respectively. However, in how far such significant changes in OC-content can be expected within the next 30–50 years is unclear.
Please see Figure 2 as an example for active substance 1 (DT50 in soil = 10 d, KFOC = 10 mL/g). The different climate scenarios are FOCUS_ET = FOCUS with updated evapotranspiration, CPM = climate protection scenario without seasonal variation, CPS = Climate protection scenario with seasonal variation, HEM = high emission scenario without seasonal variation, and HES = high emission scenario with seasonal variation.
Figure 2: PECgw values of active substance 1 for Hamburg scenario (PELMO) calculated with different climate scenarios and soil organic carbon contents
Further work on the validity of organic carbon content in FOCUS groundwater calculations and PERSAM is done by the SDLM working group.
Also, the soil pH might be impacted by climate change and changed management practices. But currently usually pH-dependency is not directly considered within FOCUS calculations. If pH-dependency is addressed this is mainly done by separating the substance data set into an alkaline and acidic data set and running both through the standard FOCUS scenarios without considering the implemented pH values of the soils. Therefore, pH values in the soil profiles are assumed to be of less importance. However, the Nordic countries should review if the range of relevant pH-values mentioned in Northern Zone (2024) remains valid also under changed climate and management practices.
Action points Priority 2:
  • Literature research on expected development of soil organic carbon content and soil pH values is recommended to decide if current scenarios cover future developments conservatively

4.2.2.6 Crop parameters

FOCUS (2000) mentions that vulnerability of the scenarios is more dependent on soil and weather data rather than on crop data. Therefore, average or median values were selected for crop parameters like rooting depth, leaf area index or kc-factors and were based on expert consultation and a limited set of literature data. In principle it can be assumed that changes in temperature and moisture regime will have a certain impact on these parameters. It is assumed that this has a rather limited effect on the outcome of PEC-calculations. Thus, no further measures were taken to evaluate a potential refinement.
No Action points identified

4.2.2.7 Models

The FOCUS models are processed based. The underlying processes are independent of external factors such as climate. The climate dependency is introduced by the input files based on the parameters discussed above.
It is therefore expected that no changes in the models themselves are required. Only exception might be potential changes required to handle weather data on sub-daily basis as discussed in section 4.2.2.2.
No Action points identified

4.3 Ecotoxicology

Please find a more detailed evaluation of relevant topics in Appendix 3.

4.3.1 Testing guidelines

Regulatory ecotoxicology studies are conducted to published internationally agreed testing guidelines to estimate the toxicity of a substance to non-target organisms. These guidelines stipulate various conditions and parameters to which the studies are conducted to ensure the outcome of the study can be considered relevant and reliable. This allows different substances to be tested against the same standardized guidelines, in any laboratory, which enables comparisons to be made, risk assessments to be conducted and data used for regulatory decision making in a harmonized approach.
Several of the OECD guidelines are now around 20 years old and although they are being updated to meet state-of-the-art science, with the environmental changes that are occurring the parameters specified in these guidelines may no longer be as representative of the conditions deemed suitable in previous years. 
A brief summary of the type of parameters considered in a selection of the OECD guidelines and the parameters which may be considered climate sensitive are listed in Appendix 3, however, some questions are then raised:
  1. Is the species stated as the most relevant indicator species in the guideline still the most relevant indicator species for our future climate?
  2. Are the parameter ranges in the laboratory study designs still relevant?
    1. water temperature 18–22 °C,
    2. ambient air temperature 20 ± 2 °C,
    3. relative humidity 50–70%,
    4. light intensity Lux 540–1000, wavelength and photoperiod,
    5. are the test media compositions still appropriate for tests conducted in water and soil; organic matter content, sand content, pH, microbial content, water holding capacity, salinity, water hardness etc.,
    6. sensitivity of the toxic reference used in the test designs,
    7. acclimation conditions of the test species prior to testing.
Similar questions concerning the parameters specified above for use in the laboratory studies, could also be applied to higher tier semi-field and field studies. ­
Ecotoxicology testing covers a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Some groups of organisms may be able to adapt or tolerate the change in environmental conditions, for example if the ambient air temperature or water temperature was to increase by a few degrees, and some species may become stressed. When put under stress, organisms may indicate a higher sensitivity to the test substance. Thus, it is important to evaluate the tolerance threshold of the test organisms.
Action points Priority 1:
  • Identify if the 'indicator' species being tested are still appropriate considering the changing environmental conditions.
  • Evaluate if the study designs are still representative of the changing environmental conditions.
  • Establish if the current indicator species can tolerate a change in the study design parameters.

4.3.2 Risk assessment considerations

Various endpoints are measured from the regulatory ecotoxicological studies and used in the risk assessments. Depending on the type of study performed, a range of endpoints may be derived; a LC50, a NOEC or an EC10, based on survival, reproduction, biomass and growth etc. An evaluation should be made to see if these endpoints are still the appropriate parameters to be derived from the regulatory laboratory studies considering the environmental changes that are occurring. The assessments use the toxicity endpoints from these studies together with the Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PEC) to estimate potential risk to non-target organisms in a step wise harmonized approach. As described in section 4.2 of this document, any potential environmental changes could impact the PEC values for surface water, sediment and soil, calculated for use in the ecotoxicological risk assessments. This could make it harder to find an acceptable risk for the aquatic and soil risk assessments and more often higher tier refinements could be triggered or mitigation measures increased. An evaluation should be made to understand the impact of the PEC values on the risk assessments considering the environmental changes that are occurring.
In the agricultural environment, a change in environmental conditions could mean a change in timings of food item availability, shifts in diets and ultimately have an impact on growth and reproduction of the non-target organisms. There are various considerations that are taken into account when conducting a risk assessment that could be impacted by environmental changes:
  1. country/zonal specific focal species considered for a particular BBCH growth stage of a crop (due to food availability and dietary exposure),
  2. certain flowering stages of a crop and nectar/pollen availability are specified as being important for pollinator exposure, the timing of when flowering crops/weeds being available to pollinators might change,
  3. short cut values used in the avian and mammal assessments (based on body weight and diet, food intake, habitat range).
The above list is not exhaustive, but an evaluation should be made of the impact on focal and indicator species, of a potential shift in the timings of when a BBCH stage of a crop is reached (see also section 4.2.2.3 of this document) due to environmental changes.
Regulatory ecotoxicological guidance on assessing the impact of plant protection products on biodiversity is currently being developed. Thus, it is currently unclear what the protection goals are and what needs to be protected. However, the impact of climate change on biodiversity from a regulatory ecotoxicology point of view should be evaluated: landscape change, movement of mobile organisms, ecosystems and their services, etc. 
With the current environmental changes, as mentioned above, it is possible that a change in species sensitivity could occur which would influence if the focal/indicator species are still appropriate. Furthermore, the ‘target pest’ that the plant protection products are aimed at could also change, which could lead to a potential impact on beneficial species that exist in off-field habitats which could re-colonise in-field areas following application. It is recommended that an evaluation is made on the impact of a change in ‘target pest’ on off-field habitats and recolonisation. 
Action points Priority 1:
  • It is recommended that an evaluation be made to understand the impact of the PEC values on the risk assessments considering the environmental changes that are occurring.
Action points Priority 2:
  • An evaluation should be made to see if the toxicity endpoints are still the appropriate parameters to be derived from the regulatory laboratory studies considering the environmental changes that are occurring.
  • The impact of climate change on biodiversity from a regulatory ecotoxicology point of view should be evaluated: landscape change, movement of mobile organisms, ecosystems and their services, etc..
  • An evaluation should be made of the impact on focal and indicator species, of a potential shift in the timings of when a BBCH stage of a crop is reached.
  • It is recommended that an evaluation is made on the impact of a change in ‘target pest’ on off-field habitats and recolonisation.

4.4 Toxicology

No climate sensitive parameters were identified for toxicology. However, outcomes of the risk assessment may change due to changes from other sections (e.g. environmental fate and modelling).
No Action points identified

4.5 Chemistry

Most parameters in this section were identified as not climate sensitive. Please find a more detailed evaluation of relevant topics in Appendix 3.
Only exception is the storage stability or shelf-life. According to EC (2021) “the tests should be conducted at ambient temperature or 20 °C, 25 °C or 30 °C” and “storage temperatures must reflect the maximum and minimum temperatures likely to be experienced in a warehouse, farm store or garden store for amateur products dependent on the expected geographical areas of use.” Therefore, testing of shelf-life is dependent on ambient temperature which is defined for moderate/temperate (18–22 °C), hot (23–27 °C), and very hot climate (28–31 °C).
Considering the increased frequencies of hot days due to climate change member states should review if the selection of their current temperature range needs to be updated. Potentially for some regions a shift to hotter climates for this test would need to be considered. For Southern Europe it should be reviewed if the upper testing period of 30 °C can still be considered as worst case, or if a higher temperature (e.g. 35 °C) needs to be tested and another range of “> 31 °C” should be introduced.
Action points Priority 1:
  • Review of relevant temperature ranges for shelf-life test. Potentially introduction of new temperature ranges for Southern Europe.

4.6 Residues

No immediate action points were identified. Please find a more detailed evaluation of relevant topics in Appendix 3.
However, outcomes of the risk assessment may change due to changes from other sections (e.g. environmental fate and modelling).
For the consumer risk assessment and the animal diet changes may be required once “typical” consumption may change when climate change triggers a change in local diet / local grown and available crops. However, this is currently not considered an immediate risk.
No Action points identified
Nordic Council of Ministers I www.norden.org/publications I pub@norden.org