Christopher John Topping‡, Johan Axelman§, James Henty Williams§Corresponding author: Christopher John Topping ( cjt@agro.au.dk ) © Christopher John Topping, Johan Axelman, James Henty Williams. This is an open access preprint distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Citation:
Topping CJ, Axelman J, Williams JH (2026) A REGIONAL BUDGET SYSTEM FOR PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS-FIRST ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT: THE CASE FOR CHANGE. ARPHA Preprints. https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e200193 |  |
EU pesticide regulation assesses substances and their agronomic uses individually. Yet environmental impacts arise from the combined pressure of multiple substances across entire landscapes over time. EU environmental law, including the Water Framework Directive, Nature Restoration Law, and Natura 2000 obligations, requires ecological outcomes at the landscape scale. The current regulatory method cannot deliver these outcomes.
Each ecological region (aligned with WFD river basin districts) receives an annual toxic-unit (TU) budget. Each pesticide carries a TU value based on its ecotoxicological profile, application rate, and persistence. Farmers register intended applications digitally through CAP land parcel systems. If budget remains, the application is confirmed. This manages cumulative pesticide pressure against a defined ecological carrying capacity.
Denmark already operates the necessary infrastructure: mandatory digital pesticide reporting, high-resolution parcel data, and catchment-level groundwater monitoring. No new systems are required; the regulatory logic is extended, not replaced.
Systemic regulatory budget setting is new in chemical legislation but is a proven concept to operationalise regulation and incentivise business transformation to meet sustainability goals e.g. reduce CO2-emissions.