AbstractCurrent pesticide registration procedures are discussed and three major shortcomings identified with regard to the quantification and evaluation of potential pesticide side effects on nature and the environment: (a) the absence of a framework for assessing the acceptability of damage; (b) the disregard for indirect side effects; and (c) the absence of field studies. With reference to the situation in The Netherlands, recommendations for overcoming these three shortcomings are presented. For priority species it is proposed that a population decline of more than 5 is unacceptable in target areas having ‘general environmental quality.’ Populations should have recovered after one year. Outside the target area and in areas having ‘special environmental quality’ there should be no decline at all in population densities. An integral decision tree is presented with which to incorporate assessment of indirect side effects in the registration procedure, achieving a better balance relative to direct side effects. Spectrum of action, scale of use, overlap of habitats, and compound efficacy are employed as criteria for assessing indirect side effects. The decision tree prescribes field trials in cases where lab testing indicates a moderate hazard or uncertainty. Finally, guidelines are presented for selecting appropriate pesticide field
展开▼
