Guidance to develop specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services

T.C.M. Brock, C. Hogstrand, R. Luttik, T. Hardy, J. Perry, J. Romeis, W. van der Werf, Y. Devos, A. Maggiore, A. Rortais, R. Schoonjans, F. Streissl, J. Tarazona, S. Tramontini, M.V. Vettori

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialProfessional

Abstract

Maintaining a healthy environment and conserving biodiversity are major goals of environmental protection. A challenge is that protection goals outlined in legislation are often too general and broad to be directly applicable for environmental risk assessment (ERA) performed by EFSA. Therefore, they need to be translated into specific protection goals (SPGs). This Guidance presents a framework, which accounts for biodiversity and ecosystem services, to make general protection goals operational for use in all areas of EFSA's ERAs. The approach to follow has three sequential steps: (1) the identification of relevant ecosystem services; (2) the identification of service providing units (SPUs) for these ecosystem services; and (3) the specification of options for the level/parameters of protection of the SPUs using five interrelated dimensions. This last step involves the specification of options for the ecological entity and attribute to protect and the magnitude, temporal scale and spatial scale of the biologically relevant and, in the case of regulated products, tolerable effects, the latter defined in dialogue with risk managers. In order to promote transparency and consistency when developing options for the level/parameters of protection, this guidance provides considerations to justify the selected options.
Original languageEnglish
Article number4499
Number of pages50
JournalEFSA Journal
Volume14
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

ecosystem service
biodiversity
transparency
environmental protection
legislation
environmental risk assessment
parameter
services
effect
attribute
product

Cite this

Brock, T.C.M. ; Hogstrand, C. ; Luttik, R. ; Hardy, T. ; Perry, J. ; Romeis, J. ; van der Werf, W. ; Devos, Y. ; Maggiore, A. ; Rortais, A. ; Schoonjans, R. ; Streissl, F. ; Tarazona, J. ; Tramontini, S. ; Vettori, M.V. / Guidance to develop specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: EFSA Journal. 2016 ; Vol. 14, No. 6.
@article{51eb3eafb2604d27a296b8589f360606,
title = "Guidance to develop specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services",
abstract = "Maintaining a healthy environment and conserving biodiversity are major goals of environmental protection. A challenge is that protection goals outlined in legislation are often too general and broad to be directly applicable for environmental risk assessment (ERA) performed by EFSA. Therefore, they need to be translated into specific protection goals (SPGs). This Guidance presents a framework, which accounts for biodiversity and ecosystem services, to make general protection goals operational for use in all areas of EFSA's ERAs. The approach to follow has three sequential steps: (1) the identification of relevant ecosystem services; (2) the identification of service providing units (SPUs) for these ecosystem services; and (3) the specification of options for the level/parameters of protection of the SPUs using five interrelated dimensions. This last step involves the specification of options for the ecological entity and attribute to protect and the magnitude, temporal scale and spatial scale of the biologically relevant and, in the case of regulated products, tolerable effects, the latter defined in dialogue with risk managers. In order to promote transparency and consistency when developing options for the level/parameters of protection, this guidance provides considerations to justify the selected options.",
author = "T.C.M. Brock and C. Hogstrand and R. Luttik and T. Hardy and J. Perry and J. Romeis and {van der Werf}, W. and Y. Devos and A. Maggiore and A. Rortais and R. Schoonjans and F. Streissl and J. Tarazona and S. Tramontini and M.V. Vettori",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4499",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
journal = "EFSA Journal",
issn = "1831-4732",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "6",

}

Brock, TCM, Hogstrand, C, Luttik, R, Hardy, T, Perry, J, Romeis, J, van der Werf, W, Devos, Y, Maggiore, A, Rortais, A, Schoonjans, R, Streissl, F, Tarazona, J, Tramontini, S & Vettori, MV 2016, 'Guidance to develop specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services', EFSA Journal, vol. 14, no. 6, 4499. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4499

Guidance to develop specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services. / Brock, T.C.M.; Hogstrand, C.; Luttik, R.; Hardy, T.; Perry, J.; Romeis, J.; van der Werf, W.; Devos, Y.; Maggiore, A.; Rortais, A.; Schoonjans, R.; Streissl, F.; Tarazona, J.; Tramontini, S.; Vettori, M.V.

In: EFSA Journal, Vol. 14, No. 6, 4499, 2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialProfessional

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guidance to develop specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services

AU - Brock, T.C.M.

AU - Hogstrand, C.

AU - Luttik, R.

AU - Hardy, T.

AU - Perry, J.

AU - Romeis, J.

AU - van der Werf, W.

AU - Devos, Y.

AU - Maggiore, A.

AU - Rortais, A.

AU - Schoonjans, R.

AU - Streissl, F.

AU - Tarazona, J.

AU - Tramontini, S.

AU - Vettori, M.V.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Maintaining a healthy environment and conserving biodiversity are major goals of environmental protection. A challenge is that protection goals outlined in legislation are often too general and broad to be directly applicable for environmental risk assessment (ERA) performed by EFSA. Therefore, they need to be translated into specific protection goals (SPGs). This Guidance presents a framework, which accounts for biodiversity and ecosystem services, to make general protection goals operational for use in all areas of EFSA's ERAs. The approach to follow has three sequential steps: (1) the identification of relevant ecosystem services; (2) the identification of service providing units (SPUs) for these ecosystem services; and (3) the specification of options for the level/parameters of protection of the SPUs using five interrelated dimensions. This last step involves the specification of options for the ecological entity and attribute to protect and the magnitude, temporal scale and spatial scale of the biologically relevant and, in the case of regulated products, tolerable effects, the latter defined in dialogue with risk managers. In order to promote transparency and consistency when developing options for the level/parameters of protection, this guidance provides considerations to justify the selected options.

AB - Maintaining a healthy environment and conserving biodiversity are major goals of environmental protection. A challenge is that protection goals outlined in legislation are often too general and broad to be directly applicable for environmental risk assessment (ERA) performed by EFSA. Therefore, they need to be translated into specific protection goals (SPGs). This Guidance presents a framework, which accounts for biodiversity and ecosystem services, to make general protection goals operational for use in all areas of EFSA's ERAs. The approach to follow has three sequential steps: (1) the identification of relevant ecosystem services; (2) the identification of service providing units (SPUs) for these ecosystem services; and (3) the specification of options for the level/parameters of protection of the SPUs using five interrelated dimensions. This last step involves the specification of options for the ecological entity and attribute to protect and the magnitude, temporal scale and spatial scale of the biologically relevant and, in the case of regulated products, tolerable effects, the latter defined in dialogue with risk managers. In order to promote transparency and consistency when developing options for the level/parameters of protection, this guidance provides considerations to justify the selected options.

U2 - 10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4499

DO - 10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4499

M3 - Editorial

VL - 14

JO - EFSA Journal

JF - EFSA Journal

SN - 1831-4732

IS - 6

M1 - 4499

ER -