Toward the definition of specific protection goals for the environmental risk assessment of chemicals: A perspective on environmental regulation in Europe

This critical review examines the definition and implementation of environmental protection goals for chemicals in current European Union (EU) legislation, guidelines, and international agreements to which EU countries are party. The European chemical industry is highly regulated, and prospective environmental risk assessments (ERAs) are tailored for different classes of chemical, according to their specific hazards, uses, and environmental exposure profiles. However, environmental protection goals are often highly generic, requiring the prevention of "unacceptable" or "adverse" impacts on "biodiversity" and "ecosystems" or the "environment as a whole." This review aims to highlight working examples, challenges, solutions, and best practices for defining specific protection goals (SPGs), which are seen to be essential for refining and improving ERA. Specific protection goals hinge on discerning acceptable versus unacceptable adverse effects on the key attributes of relevant, sensitive ecological entities (ranging from organisms to ecosystems). Some isolated examples of SPGs for terrestrial and aquatic biota can be found in prospective ERA guidance for plant protection products (PPPs). However, SPGs are generally limited to environmental or nature legislation that requires environmental monitoring and retrospective ERA. This limitation is due mainly to the availability of baselines, which define acceptable versus unacceptable environmental effects on the key attributes of sentinel species, populations and/or communities, such as reproductive status, abundance, or diversity. Nevertheless, very few regulatory case examples exist in which SPGs incorporate effect magnitude, spatial extent, and temporal duration. We conclude that more holistic approaches are needed for defining SPGs, particularly with respect to protecting population sustainability, ecosystem function, and integrity, which are implicit in generic protection goals and explicit in the International Programme for Chemical Safety (IPCS) definition of "adverse effect." A possible solution, which the chemical industry is currently assessing, is wider application of the ecosystem services approach proposed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for the risk assessment of PPPs. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:17-37. © 2016 SETAC.

[1]  Sandra Díaz,et al.  Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits , 2010, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[2]  Valery E. Forbes,et al.  Adding Value to Ecological Risk Assessment with Population Modeling , 2011 .

[3]  Sharon Beder,et al.  Environmental principles and policies : an interdisciplinary introduction , 2013 .

[4]  Martin Wu,et al.  Surprisingly extensive mixed phylogenetic and ecological signals among bacterial Operational Taxonomic Units , 2013, Nucleic acids research.

[5]  J. Römbke,et al.  Ecological recovery of populations of vulnerable species driving the risk assessment of pesticides , 2012 .

[6]  A. Cropper Convention on Biological Diversity , 1993, Environmental Conservation.

[7]  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.

[8]  E. Kristiansson,et al.  Assessing variation in the potential susceptibility of fish to pharmaceuticals, considering evolutionary differences in their physiology and ecology , 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  JMSB Jayasundara A NEW PARADIGM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TEACHING IN UNIVERSITIES , 2015 .

[10]  Kyungho Choi,et al.  Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment: What Are the Big Questions? , 2012, Environmental health perspectives.

[11]  Andy Hart,et al.  Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides. , 2012, The Science of the total environment.

[12]  W. Whitman,et al.  Prokaryotes: the unseen majority. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  F. Balloux,et al.  Genetic variation, inbreeding and chemical exposure—combined effects in wildlife and critical considerations for ecotoxicology , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[14]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[15]  圭隆 今泉 化学物質の登録,評価,認可及び制限に関する規制(REACH規則) , 2016 .

[16]  Thomas G. Preuss,et al.  A list of fish species that are potentially exposed to pesticides in edge-of-field water bodies in the European Union—a first step towards identifying vulnerable representatives for risk assessment , 2013, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[17]  D. Slocombe Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management , 1993 .

[18]  Peter Calow,et al.  The extrapolation problem and how population modeling can help , 2008, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[19]  L. Malone,et al.  Establishing a database of bio‐ecological information on non‐target arthropod species to support the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified crops in the EU , 2012 .

[20]  K. Blackstock,et al.  The Need to Disentangle Key Concepts from Ecosystem-Approach Jargon , 2014, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[21]  A. J. Underwood,et al.  Beyond BACI: Experimental designs for detecting human environmental impacts on temporal variations in natural populations , 1991 .

[22]  T. Dawson,et al.  Quantifying the Contribution of Organisms to the Provision of Ecosystem Services , 2009 .

[23]  P. Chapman Integrating toxicology and ecology: putting the "eco" into ecotoxicology. , 2002, Marine pollution bulletin.

[24]  Ad M.J. Ragas,et al.  Trends and challenges in risk assessment of environmental contaminants , 2011 .

[25]  Julann A Spromberg,et al.  Modeling the effects of chronic toxicity on fish populations: The influence of life‐history strategies , 2005, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[26]  M. Kealy,et al.  Ecosystem Services Approach to Public Facility Planning , 2009 .

[27]  David C. Smith,et al.  Global distribution of microbial abundance and biomass in subseafloor sediment , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  G. Daily,et al.  Population diversity and ecosystem services , 2003 .

[29]  P. Sutton,et al.  Changes in the global value of ecosystem services , 2014 .

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

[31]  W. Clements,et al.  COMBINED AND INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND TOXICANTS ON POPULATIONS AND COMMUNITIES , 2013, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[32]  Glenn W Suter,et al.  Ecosystem services as assessment endpoints for ecological risk assessment , 2016, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[33]  James H. Brown,et al.  The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management , 1996 .

[34]  G. Daily,et al.  The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural Capital Conservation , 2008 .

[35]  Raymond L. Lindeman The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology , 1942 .

[36]  Donald J Baird,et al.  Trait-Based Ecological Risk Assessment (TERA): The New Frontier , 2008, Integrated environmental assessment and management.