In line with the European Green Deal and in particular with the objectives of the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, the EU zero pollution action plan and the EU pollinators initiative, projects results will contribute to the following impact of destination “biodiversity and ecosystem services”: “Understand and address direct drivers of biodiversity decline…”.

Project results are expected to contribute to all of the following expected outcomes:

• Routes of exposure, linked to ecosystem and biodiversity dynamics to chemicals are better understood,
• Issues raised by the contamination of biodiversity in the natural environment are better known, including risks linked to existing contaminations (legacy), chemicals of emerging concern and accumulations in nature,
• Environmental fate of new chemicals of emerging concern is better understood,
• Toxicological and ecological impacts of contaminants are better understood and risk assessments for relevant highly exposed species are strengthened,
• Prevention and mitigation measures are identified and developed.

According to IPBES global assessment report^[1], pollution is one of the five main direct drivers of biodiversity loss. This topic focuses on chemical pollution, which has been increasing in the last decades with key differences by region and by type of pollution. Quantitative assessments include systematically monitored variables with certain emissions into the atmosphere, water bodies and terrestrial systems from industrial activities and households. However, pollution has and is still changing not only in quantitative but also qualitative terms and the monitoring of many dangerous substances, including ones of emerging concern, and knowledge on the way they impact biodiversity and ecosystem services are missing. This topic aims at better understanding the routes of exposure and toxicological and ecological impacts of chemical pollution (excluding industrial contamination) on terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems^[2] (Area A). According to the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, pressures include the release of nutrients, chemical pesticides, pharmaceuticals, hazardous chemicals, urban and industrial wastewater and other waste including litter and plastics.

The intensification of the loss of biodiversity in the EU is strongly influenced by the intensification of agriculture, through the high application of fertilizers and pesticides, changes in the species and management of crops, as well as mowing and grazing regimes, and the introduction of new production technologies. Currently, the excessive use of pesticides causes a reduction in the population of, among others, pollinating insects. To support the long-term sustainability of both nature and farming, the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 works in tandem with the farm to fork strategy. The Commission has committed with both strategies to take action to reduce by 50% the overall use of - and the risk from – chemical pesticides by 2030 and reduce by 50% the use of more hazardous pesticides by 2030 in order to reverse the alarming decline of farmland biodiversity.

Successful proposals are expected to assess the effects and impact of chemical pollutants, in particular the most dangerous substances from agriculture, on the condition of the biodiversity and ecosystems in natural environment (this may include environmental and host associated microbiomes) and consequently on human health, and identify preventive and mitigation measures. It is important to pay special attention to the fact that the reduction in the population of pollinating insects caused, inter alia, by the excessive use of pesticides in EU agriculture also contributes to reducing the amount of food for birds, reducing the regulation of pests, diseases and invasive alien species. More knowledge is also needed on additional negative impacts from other contaminants of emerging concern, including pharmaceuticals such as hormones and antibiotics, veterinary products and persistent e.g., bio-accumulative substances.

In the context of the EU pollinators’ initiative and the pesticide legislative framework^[3], the EU has increased efforts in the last decade to address this problem. However, knowledge gaps still hinder development and implementation of essential testing methods for a scientifically robust risk assessment of pesticides on wild bees and other wild pollinating insects. This topic will provide a critical contribution to address those knowledge gaps as identified by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Commission (Area B) and thereby support the implementation of the EFSA guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees) and the efforts on broadening the risk assessment safeguards to other wild pollinator species.

Proposals should address Area A or Area B as follows. The Area should be clearly indicated on the application.

Area A: better understanding the routes of exposure of the wild fauna and flora to chemical pollution

Successful proposals should:

• Choose case studies, based on an analysis of chemical contaminations from an environmental history perspective, with representative species on which analysis will be undertaken. Addressing trophic chains is encouraged,
• Develop a method to establish the routes of contamination with chemicals. Priority should be given to cases with potential contamination with chemical pesticides and their metabolites; contaminants of emerging concern, including pharmaceuticals such as hormones and antibiotics, veterinary products and persistent e.g., bio-accumulative substances, SVHC (Substance of Very High Concern) and emerging pollutants. Other substances in particular micro- and nano-plastics are not excluded. Existing contaminations of the environment (legacy) especially from pesticides should also be considered. However industrial contamination is not in the scope of this topic,
• Establish the routes of contamination of the chosen representative species with chemicals, in the case studies,
• Assess the risks resulting from such contaminations for species, for ecosystems and for the local environment, including development of effect-based approach to consider mixture effects and synergies,
• In particular, establish models to link chemical ecotoxicity stress to damages on (a) genetic diversity, (b) functional diversity, and (c) ecosystem services,
• Extrapolate to provide an assessment of risks associated with chemical contaminations of terrestrial wild biodiversity at a larger scale,
• Explore prevention and mitigation measures.

Targets groups for this Area are notably regulatory bodies, farmers and other land managers organisations, civil society, local and regional decision –makers.

Successful proposals are expected to cooperate with relevant projects supported by the mission “A Soil Deal for Europe".

Area B: pollinators and pesticides

Successful proposals should:

• Characterise sources and routes of pesticide exposure in the key pollinator groups (wild bees, butterflies, hoverflies and moths),
• Investigate sensitivity of pollinators to pesticides and identify for each pollinator group sensitive species that: i) are suitable as test organisms in the risk assessment and ii) require safeguards that would indirectly protect other species within the same group (“umbrella effect”),
• Improve prediction of the toxicity endpoints, toxic units for chemicals and data poor compounds (e.g., Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models),
• Develop toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data and models for single and multiple chemicals,
• Generate combined toxicity data (lethal and sublethal effects) of multiple chemicals, improving the availability of data in particular for: i) chronic combined toxicity that would make it possible to identify potential interactions that may lead to deviation from dose addition (potentiation, synergism) and ii) sublethal effects.
• Investigate synergistic effects of typical combinations of pesticides (e.g., based on residue data),
• Devise and test monitoring schemes for establishing the level of contamination of pollen/nectar/water/plant matrices/soil that can support benchmarking in a predictive risk assessment, development of risk indicators and a system-based risk assessment,
• Develop an open source curated database on pollinators and the use of pesticides which would include data and information on: i) exposure and hazard, ii) lethal and sublethal effects, toxicokinetics as well as other stressors (e.g., other chemicals, nutrition, etc.) that could amplify the adverse effects through interaction with pesticides,
• Develop methodologies for risk assessment in open-source tools including toxic units approaches using lethal and sublethal effects as well as validated in silico models applying dose addition as the default model or models integrating synergistic effects,
• Develop population models and landscape modelling for the risk assessment of multiple chemicals in pollinators with an aim to integrate hazard and exposure information,
• Develop environmental scenarios for the risk assessment of pollinators that takes into consideration different landscape characteristics and conditions.

Proposals should earmark the necessary resources for cooperation and networking activities. Collaboration with the European partnership on biodiversity Biodiversa+ should be explored, as needed. They should use existing platforms and information sharing mechanisms notably the EC Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity.

This topic should involve the effective contribution of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) disciplines.

International cooperation is encouraged.

[1] https://ipbes.net/global-assessment.

[2] Freshwater ecosystems may be also addressed by proposals provided the main focus is on terrestrial biodiversity

[3] https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/live-animal-movements/honey-bees/pesticides-and-bees_en; https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/sustainable-use-pesticides_en