Driving forces of chemical risks for the European biodiversity

In the framework of the EU-funded research project ALARM (Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks with tested Methods), an original method combining the DPSIR (driving forces-pressures-state-impacts-responses) framework and an analysis based on the distinction between the four spheres of sustainability (environmental, economic, social and political) has been developed. This paper presents the application of this method, called "the tetrahedral DPSIR" for the identification and analysis of driving forces of environmental chemicals risks for biodiversity, in Europe. The purpose of this methodology is to help reduce the pressures on biodiversity through modifying the driving forces behind them by offering scientific advice to policy makers. We frame our analysis in the context of the current policy, namely the implementation of REACH (Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of CHemicals).

[1]  Martin O'Connor,et al.  An analysis of risks for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework , 2009 .

[2]  Thomas Petry,et al.  An analysis of the proposed REACH regulation. , 2006, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[3]  D. Stanners,et al.  Europe's environment : the Dobrís assessment , 1995 .

[4]  J. Spangenberg.  Economic sustainability of the economy: concepts and indicators , 2005 .

[5]  M. Rogers.  Risk analysis under uncertainty, the precautionary principle, and the new EU chemicals strategy. , 2003, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[6]  A. Schotthoefer,et al.  Agrochemicals increase trematode infections in a declining amphibian species , 2008, Nature.

[7]  Kilian Bizer,et al.  REACh as a paradigm shift in chemical policy – responsive regulation and behavioural models , 2007 .

[8]  M. Paoletti,et al.  Soil algae composition under different agro-ecosystems in North-Eastern Italy , 2006 .

[9]  Rosa García Couto.  Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) , 2009 .

[10]  Sheldon Krimsky.  THE FUNDING EFFECT IN SCIENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE JUDICIARY , 2005 .

[11]  Torbjörn Rydberg,et al.  Impact of production intensity on the ability of the agricultural landscape to generate ecosystem services: an example from Sweden , 1999 .

[12]  Nicholas A. Ashford,et al.  Rethinking the Role of Information in Chemicals Policy: Implications for TSCA and REACH , 2006 .

[13]  D. Lobo,et al.  Water erosion risk assessment and impact on productivity of a Venezuelan soil , 2005 .

[15]  Marco Vighi,et al.  ALARM: Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods , 2005 .

[16]  Joachim H. Spangenberg,et al.  Biodiversity pressure and the driving forces behind , 2007 .

[17]  C. Edwards.  Assessing the effects of environmental pollutants on soil organisms, communities, processes and ecosystems , 2002 .

[18]  Jeroen P. van der Sluijs,et al.  Uncertainty and precaution in environmental management: Insights from the UPEM conference , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[19]  Laura Maxim,et al.  Uncertainty: cause or effect of stakeholders' debates? Analysis of a case study: the risk for honeybees of the insecticide Gaucho. , 2007, The Science of the total environment.

[20]  R. Löfstedt.  The Swing of the Regulatory Pendulum in Europe: From Precautionary Principle to (Regulatory) Impact Analysis , 2003 .

[21]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Exploring the quality of evidence for complex and contested policy decisions , 2008 .

[22]  Adam S. Weinberg,et al.  The treadmill of production and the environmental state , 2002 .

[23]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Science for the Post-Normal Age , 1993, Commonplace.

[24]  W. Häfele.  Hypotheticality and the new challenges: The pathfinder role of nuclear energy , 1974 .

[25]  Konrad Hungerbühler,et al.  Impact of technological development, market and environmental regulations on the past and future performance of chemical processes , 2005 .