EFSA Strategy Redefines Protection Goals for Terrestrial Organisms Under EU Pesticide Rules

The strategy is particularly relevant to chemical manufacturers, agrochemical firms, regulators, and professionals involved in environmental risk assessment. It introduces a refined methodology for evaluating both direct and indirect ecological effects of pesticides—potentially altering compliance strategies and R&D considerations for pesticide formulations.

Revised SPG Framework Targets Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

EFSA’s updated approach addresses three key groups: non-target arthropods (excluding bees), in-soil organisms, and non-target terrestrial plants. The guidance builds upon earlier opinions from EFSA’s Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel), linking species-level impacts to broader ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, pest control, and pollination.

A key component is the dual-use of the Ecological Threshold Option (ETO) and the Ecological Recovery Option (ERO). The ETO allows only negligible effects, whereas the ERO permits temporary adverse effects if ecological recovery is demonstrated within specific timeframes—typically up to 6 months, depending on organism group and effect size.

Multiple Lines of Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisions

The strategy outlines four “Lines of Evidence” (LoEs) to guide SPG development:

• LoE #1: Statistical replication in field studies to ensure practicability.
• LoE #2: Time-to-recovery assessments verifying plausibility.
• LoE #3: Modelling of plant community tipping points for protectiveness.
• LoE #4: Trophic network simulations to quantify indirect impacts.

These methods aim to give risk managers science-based tools to determine acceptable thresholds for pesticide effects. Notably, EFSA acknowledges the limitations of assessing single active substances in isolation—highlighting the cumulative nature of agroecosystem pressures.

Implications Across the Chemicals and Agricultural Sectors

This policy development may affect how companies plan product approvals, monitor environmental impact, and implement mitigation measures. Regulatory affairs teams, environmental consultants, and agricultural producers should assess how the new SPG thresholds intersect with current use patterns and land management practices.

It also prompts a shift toward more nuanced risk assessments, encouraging the use of ecological modelling and recovery potential evaluations. While the guidance is not immediately binding, it is expected to shape future updates to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.