No.

Milestone name

Description

Related WP(s)

Planned (month)

Partner short name

1

Multi-stakeholder Forum (MSF) Engagement Plan

An initial MSF Engagement plan was created in April 2024, by Aarhus University. It outlines the proposed composition, recruitment of the MSF and documents the operationalisation (through various engagement/co-development activities) of this platform for dialogue. It is a ‘living document’ and the MSF engagement plan is periodically updated as engagement activities are developed and implemented.

WP1

4

AU

2

Case-study stakeholder Engagement plan 

An initial case study engagement plan was created in April 2024, by Aarhus University. It includes an overview / general plan for case study engagement activities throughout the project (at least one workshop per year), as well as a more detailed plan for year one. It is a ‘living document’ and is periodically updated as engagement activities are developed and implemented.

WP1

4

AU

3

Partner training for engagement workshops

A Partner Training Workshop was held on 22 February 2024, with a follow-up session held on 23 February 2024, both as part of the project kick-off meeting held in Wageningen. The training workshop was organised and facilitated by AU and Kemi.

WP1, 2, 4, 5

4

AU

4

Initial case-study workshops, one in each country

Between early and late June 2024, initial engagement activities, including online and in-person workshops, and interviews, were carried out or set up for the Case Studies (CS). The activities involved CS leaders, stakeholders (including practitioners/farmers), and project partners. The timing and format were adjusted to accommodate stakeholder availability, with the decision to extend completion until September. Completed workshops will be followed up to evaluate outcomes and align results with the project's overall aims.

WP1, 2, 4, 5 

6

AU

5

Additional case-study workshops (2)

WP1, 2, 4, 5 

42

AU

6

Initial MSF workshop

On September 11, 2024, the SYBERAC project successfully hosted its first Multi-Stakeholder Forum to outline its plan for improving how environmental risks from chemicals are assesed via environmental risk assessment (ERA). The virtual event featuring SYBERAC's experts drew attendees from government, academia, industry, and NGOs. To ensure its work has a broad impact, SYBERAC will align its activities with major related projects (like PARC). The project will use the valuable feedback gathered from participants to refine its methods and plan future collaborative events aimed at developing more effective tools for risk assessment.

WP1, 2, 4, 5

10

AU

7

EU level interviews 

The final EU-level interviews, initially scheduled for February 2025, have been strategically delayed until April to June 2025. This decision was made to allow the project to integrate key insights from earlier stakeholder surveys and workshops. Specifically, the delay ensures the project can first agree on the definition of 'systems-based environmental risk assessment' before interviewing around 20 key individuals from major EU institutions (like ECHA and EFSA). This timeline adjustment will not delay any other project deliverables.

WP1, 4

14

AU

8

Benchmarking workshops

As of June 30, 2025, the SYBERAC project has completed its first cycle of intensive collaboration to advance systems-based Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA). Key activities included the launch of the Multi-Stakeholder Forum (MSF) and a comprehensive survey and workshops involving 98 risk assessors, revealing a strong regulatory desire for more collaborative and effective ERA. The project team, including Johan Axelman and James Williams, has also worked with partners (like PARC and PollinERA) to co-develop a definition for 'systems-based ERA' and held workshops to integrate lessons from Case Study stakeholders, such as the need for a "change of mindset" toward regenerative practices. This early, deep dialogue with regulators and alliance partners significantly boosts the credibility, efficiency, and real-world relevance of SYBERAC’s outcomes by aligning them with regulatory needs and decision-making contexts.

WP1, 4

18

AU

9

Final definition of case studies upon stakeholder 1ngagement

From the list of six fundamental CS concepts included in the proposal, nine CS definitions were set to be addressed in SYBERAC: Plant Protection Products (PPPs) use in winter cereals and their effects on soil biodiversity and functioning and Non-Target Arthropods in the UK (CS1A+5B), PPPs use in winter cereals in Spain (CS1B), coupled terrestrial/aquatic exposures in bats (CS2A) or amphibians (CS2B), food chain exposure across spatial scales during migration (CS3), emission and fate of contaminants of emerging concern released to agricultural fields with secondary fertilizers (CS4A) or in vultures fed with treated livestock (CS4B), PPPs-mixture effects on soil biodiversity and functioning and Non-Target Arthropods (CS5A), and regional dispersal of PPPs into nature areas (CS6). Stakeholders possibly linked to each CS were identified at local, national and EU levels, and a list of them was engaged in the project at the first instance.

WP1, 2

6

UCLM

10

Identification of case study parameters (chemicals, sources, species and functional groups)

The variety of case studies has been designed to cover as much variability as possible within a theoretical space defined by the different dimensions that play a role in the risk assessment scheme and that can be grouped into four main categories: chemicals, sources, species and functional groups. The nine case study definitions will provide proof of concept data for exploring potential improvement in all dimensions

WP2

6

UCLM

11

Identification of individual and population level endpoints from case studies

The different endpoints have been defined to achieve the specific objectives of each case study. The individual endpoints can be classified into (i) sub-organismal endpoints in response to specific chemical modes of action, (ii) metabolic endpoints to explore multiple mechanisms of toxicity, (iii) apical endpoints, and (iv) specific endpoints retrieved through experimental approaches to improve the elucidation of mechanisms of toxicity. The population endpoints can be classified into (i) reproductive endpoints from wild populations, (ii) reproductive endpoints collected as part of experiments, (iii) indirect effects, (iv) abundance of populations in the wild and their changes over time, and (v) species richness and diversity.

WP2

12

UCLM

12

Lab-based validation of pesticides and CEC exposure assessment

WP2

38

UCLM

13

Outline of risk mitigation proposals and case study outputs to support WP4

After 18 months, an initial list of risk mitigation proposals (RMM) and outputs has been generated across the different Case Studies (CS). The CS designs vary widely: some evaluate scenarios where RMMs are already in place (e.g., CS 1A, 5A, 5B), while others design custom RMMs (CS 4B) or identify environmental factors that naturally reduce chemical exposure risks for wildlife (CS 1B, 2A, 2B). While outputs are currently being produced individually, the project plans to focus on integrating and consolidating common outputs from the pool of Case Studies toward the end of the project (Month 42).

WP2, 4

18

UCLM

14

Fate modelling of agrochemicals for case studies 1 and 5

A methodology was developed for the fate modelling of pesticides in the CS 1 and 5, taking into account the spatial variability of the landscape. In both case studies, the effect of the shape and size of landscape components (e.g., arable land, natural areas) on NTA and in-soil organism populations is studied. The proposed methodology considers that spray drift deposition is an important pathway that governs the off-field exposure. The spatial distribution of spray drift deposition can be simulated with various models such and can serve as input for a spatial version of pesticide fate models. The final aim of the fate modelling is to predict pesticide concentrations on the crop canopy, on the soil surface, and in the soil as a function of both space and time. These concentrations feed into the TK/TD modelling of Task 3.3, which can be further linked to impacts on ecosystem services (Task 3.4) and biodiversity impacts (Task 3.5). The developed methodology is intended to be generic and can also be applied to other landscapes and case studies.

WP3

8

WR

15

Choice of focal species for ERA

To support the case studies with modelling, focal species were selected that are considered to be of relevance for the specific case study.

WP3

6

WR

16

Glossary of agreed definitions for internal use in project

A key focus of SYBERAC’s Work Package 4 (WP4) is establishing the foundational science for a Systems-based Environmental Risk Assessment (sb-ERA). To ensure clear communication, an internal glossary of critical terms—including 'Decision contexts,' 'Model validation,' and 'Complexity'—has been created. The central effort has been to develop a workable definition of sb-ERA, achieved by aligning and benchmarking with external projects like PARC and PollinERA and incorporating feedback from project leaders. This agreed-upon definition will be refined and integrated across all work packages, starting from Month 12, and used to structure upcoming workshops with case study stakeholders.

WP4

12

AU

17

Mapping of decision contexts with respect to the case studies

A template for outlining decision contexts, focusing on PPPs was developed during year 1. The template covers a range from EU-level decisions on active substances to farm-level decisions on PPP-application. Moreover, it distinguishes between decisions linked to specific PPPs and decisions of generic relevance, such as landscape management. The template was used to guide information gathering in Stakeholder workshops linked to the specific Case studies of WP2 during Year 1. The template is currently used to systematically map comparably and then visualise decisions linked to each case study as well as their environmental impact.

WP1–4

18

AU

18

Proposed landscape-level indicators for biodiversity derived as input for D4.1, 4.2

WP1–4

36

AU

19

Kick-off Meeting

The consortium met in Wageningen, Netherlands, 21–23 February 2024, to hold the kick-off meeting.

WP1–6

2

WU

20

Mid-term review

WP1–6

24

WU