The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptual basis for the systematic treatment of uncertainty in model-based decision support activities such as policy analysis, integrated assessment and risk assessment. It focuses on the uncertainty perceived from the point of view of those providing information to support policy decisions (i.e., the modellers' view on uncertainty) -uncertainty regarding the analytical outcomes and conclusions of the decision support exercise. Within the regulatory and management sciences, there is neither commonly shared terminology nor full agreement on a typology of uncertainties. Our aim is to synthesise a wide variety of contributions on uncertainty in model-based decision support in order to provide an interdisciplinary theoretical framework for systematic uncertainty analysis. To that end we adopt a general definition of uncertainty as being any deviation from the unachievable ideal of completely deterministic knowledge of the relevant system. We further propose to discriminate among three dimensions of uncertainty: location, level and nature of uncertainty, and we harmonise existing typologies to further detail the concepts behind these three dimensions of uncertainty. We propose an uncertainty matrix as a heuristic tool to classify and report the various dimensions of uncertainty, thereby providing a conceptual framework for better communication among analysts as well as between them and policymakers and stakeholders. Understanding the various dimensions of uncertainty helps in identifying, articulating, and prioritising critical uncertainties, which is a crucial step to more adequate acknowledgement and treatment of uncertainty in decision support endeavours and more focused research on complex, inherently uncertain, policy issues.

Since their discovery in the late 1980s, neonicotinoid pesticides have become the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, with large-scale applications ranging from plant protection (crops, vegetables, fruits), veterinary products, and biocides to invertebrate pest control in fish farming. In this review, we address the phenyl-pyrazole fipronil together with neonicotinoids because of similarities in their toxicity, physicochemical profiles, and presence in the environment. Neonicotinoids and fipronil currently account for approximately one third of the world insecticide market; the annual world production of the archetype neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, was estimated to be ca. 20,000 tonnes active substance in 2010. There were several reasons for the initial success of neonicotinoids and fipronil: (1) there was no known pesticide resistance in target pests, mainly because of their recent development, (2) their physicochemical properties included many advantages over previous generations of insecticides (i.e., organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, etc.), and (3) they shared an assumed reduced operator and consumer risk. Due to their systemic nature, they are taken up by the roots or leaves and translocated to all parts of the plant, which, in turn, makes them effectively toxic to herbivorous insects. The toxicity persists for a variable period of time—depending on the plant, its growth stage, and the amount of pesticide applied. A wide variety of applications are available, including the most common prophylactic non-Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) application by seed coating. As a result of their extensive use and physicochemical properties, these substances can be found in all environmental compartments including soil, water, and air. Neonicotinoids and fipronil operate by disrupting neural transmission in the central nervous system of invertebrates. Neonicotinoids mimic the action of neurotransmitters, while fipronil inhibits neuronal receptors. In doing so, they continuously stimulate neurons leading ultimately to death of target invertebrates. Like virtually all insecticides, they can also have lethal and sublethal impacts on non-target organisms, including insect predators and vertebrates. Furthermore, a range of synergistic effects with other stressors have been documented. Here, we review extensively their metabolic pathways, showing how they form both compound-specific and common metabolites which can themselves be toxic. These may result in prolonged toxicity. Considering their wide commercial expansion, mode of action, the systemic properties in plants, persistence and environmental fate, coupled with limited information about the toxicity profiles of these compounds and their metabolites, neonicotinoids and fipronil may entail significant risks to the environment. A global evaluation of the potential collateral effects of their use is therefore timely. The present paper and subsequent chapters in this review of the global literature explore these risks and show a growing body of evidence t...

A terminology and typology of uncertainty is presented together with a framework for the modelling process, its interaction with the broader water management process and the role of uncertainty at different stages in the modelling processes. Brief reviews have been made of 14 different (partly complementary) methods commonly used in uncertainty assessment and characterisation: data uncertainty engine (DUE), error propagation equations, expert elicitation, extended peer review, inverse modelling (parameter estimation), inverse modelling (predictive uncertainty), Monte Carlo analysis, multiple model simulation, NUSAP, quality assurance, scenario analysis, sensitivity analysis, stakeholder involvement and uncertainty matrix. The applicability of these methods has been mapped according to purpose of application, stage of the modelling process and source and type of uncertainty addressed. It is concluded that uncertainty assessment is not just something to be added after the completion of the modelling work. Instead uncertainty should be seen as a red thread throughout the modelling study starting from the very beginning, where the identification and characterisation of all uncertainty sources should be performed jointly by the modeller, the water manager and the stakeholders.

We assessed the state of knowledge regarding the effects of large-scale pollution with neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on non-target invertebrate species of terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments. A large section of the assessment is dedicated to the state of knowledge on sublethal effects on honeybees (Apis mellifera) because this important pollinator is the most studied non-target invertebrate species. Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Lumbricidae (earthworms), Apoidae sensu lato (bumblebees, solitary bees) and the section “other invertebrates” review available studies on the other terrestrial species. The sections on freshwater and marine species are rather short as little is known so far about the impact of neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on the diverse invertebrate fauna of these widely exposed habitats. For terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species, the known effects of neonicotinoid pesticides and fipronil are described ranging from organismal toxicology and behavioural effects to population-level effects. For earthworms, freshwater and marine species, the relation of findings to regulatory risk assessment is described. Neonicotinoid insecticides exhibit very high toxicity to a wide range of invertebrates, particularly insects, and field-realistic exposure is likely to result in both lethal and a broad range of important sublethal impacts. There is a major knowledge gap regarding impacts on the grand majority of invertebrates, many of which perform essential roles enabling healthy ecosystem functioning. The data on the few non-target species on which field tests have been performed are limited by major flaws in the outdated test protocols. Despite large knowledge gaps and uncertainties, enough knowledge exists to conclude that existing levels of pollution with neonicotinoids and fipronil resulting from presently authorized uses frequently exceed the lowest observed adverse effect concentrations and are thus likely to have large-scale and wide ranging negative biological and ecological impacts on a wide range of non-target invertebrates in terrestrial, aquatic, marine and benthic habitats.