Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides.

General protection goals for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of plant protection products are stated in European legislation but specific protection goals (SPGs) are often not precisely defined. These are however crucial for designing appropriate risk assessment schemes. The process followed by the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as well as examples of resulting SPGs obtained so far for environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides is presented. The ecosystem services approach was used as an overarching concept for the development of SPGs, which will likely facilitate communication with stakeholders in general and risk managers in particular. It is proposed to develop SPG options for 7 key drivers for ecosystem services (microbes, algae, non target plants (aquatic and terrestrial), aquatic invertebrates, terrestrial non target arthropods including honeybees, terrestrial non-arthropod invertebrates, and vertebrates), covering the ecosystem services that could potentially be affected by the use of pesticides. These SPGs need to be defined in 6 dimensions: biological entity, attribute, magnitude, temporal and geographical scale of the effect, and the degree of certainty that the specified level of effect will not be exceeded. In general, to ensure ecosystem services, taxa representative for the key drivers identified need to be protected at the population level. However, for some vertebrates and species that have a protection status in legislation, protection may be at the individual level. To protect the provisioning and supporting services provided by microbes it may be sufficient to protect them at the functional group level. To protect biodiversity impacts need to be assessed at least at the scale of the watershed/landscape.

[1]  R. D. Groot,et al.  A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services , 2002 .

[2]  Jacob Lekker,et al.  The placing of plant protection products on the market , 2014 .

[3]  P. Kareiva,et al.  Ecosystem services , 2005, Current Biology.

[4]  S. Wratten,et al.  Organic agriculture and ecosystem services , 2010 .

[5]  FROM THE COMMISSION on the precautionary principle , 2022 .

[6]  Mats Gyllenberg,et al.  Two General Metapopulation Models and the Core-Satellite Species Hypothesis , 1993, The American Naturalist.

[7]  P. Thorbek,et al.  Ecological models for regulatory risk assessments of pesticides: Developing a strategy for the future , 2010 .

[8]  Theo C. M. Brock,et al.  Aquatic Risks of Pesticides, Ecological Protection Goals, and Common Aims in European Union Legislation , 2006 .

[9]  B. Walker.  Biodiversity and Ecological Redundancy , 1992 .

[10]  V E Forbes,et al.  Conceptual model for improving the link between exposure and effects in the aquatic risk assessment of pesticides. , 2007, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[11]  P. J. Van den Brink,et al.  Potential application of population models in the European ecological risk assessment of chemicals II: Review of models and their potential to address environmental protection aims , 2010, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[12]  P. J. Van den Brink,et al.  Potential application of ecological models in the European environmental risk assessment of chemicals I: Review of protection goals in EU directives and regulations , 2010, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[13]  Paul J van den Brink,et al.  Ecological impact in ditch mesocosms of simulated spray drift from a crop protection program for potatoes. , 2006, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[14]  Peter Chapman,et al.  Ecological models and pesticide risk assessment: Current modeling practice , 2010, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[15]  John H. Lawton,et al.  What Do Species Do in Ecosystems , 1994 .

[16]  T. C. M. Brocka,et al.  Conceptual Model for Improving the Link between Exposure and Effects in the Aquatic Risk Assessment of Pesticides , 2013 .

[17]  Holmes Rolston.  Value in Nature and the Nature of Value , 1994 .

[18]  H. Tallis,et al.  A Critical Analysis of Ecosystem Services as a Tool in Conservation Projects , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[19]  M. Loreau,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  P. Burkill,et al.  Ecosystem Services for 2020 , 2010, Science.

[21]  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.  Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis , 2005 .

[22]  J. Belden,et al.  Relative Toxicity and Occurrence Patterns of Pesticide Mixtures in Streams Draining Agricultural Watersheds Dominated by Corn and Soybean Production , 2007, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[23]  G. Daily.  Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. , 1998 .

[24]  Pushpam Kumar,et al.  The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity : mainstreaming the economics of nature : a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB , 2010 .

[25]  T. Ricketts,et al.  Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture , 2007 .

[26]  Dale Young,et al.  Translating Ecological Risk to Ecosystem Service Loss , 2009, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[27]  Dennis D. Murphy,et al.  Distribution of the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, Euphydryas editha bayensis: Evidence for a Metapopulation Model , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[28]  V. Grimm,et al.  Ecological Models in Support of Regulatory Risk Assessments of Pesticides: Developing a Strategy for the Future , 2009, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[29]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective , 2009 .