Is an ecosystem services-based approach developed for setting specific protection goals for plant protection products applicable to other chemicals?

• DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.083
• Publication Date: 2016-12-24T10:16:55Z
• Authors: Lorraine Maltby; Mathew Jackson; Graham Whale; A. Ross Brown; Mick Hamer; Andreas Solga; Patrick Kabouw; Richard Woods; Stuart Marshall
• Keywords: Water Framework Directive; Precautionary Principle; CLARITY

Clearly defined protection goals specifying what to protect, where and when, are required for designing scientifically sound risk assessments effective management of chemicals. Environmental specified in EU legislation general terms, resulting uncertainty how achieve them. In 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a framework identify more specific based on ecosystem services potentially affected by plant products. But applicable is this chemicals with different emission scenarios receptor ecosystems? Four case studies used address question were: (i) oil refinery waste water exposure estuarine environments; (ii) dispersant aquatic (iii) down drain wide range ecosystems (terrestrial aquatic); (iv) persistent organic pollutant remote (pristine) Arctic environments. A four-step process was followed impacted chemical emissions define goals. Case demonstrated that, principle, concept EFSA can be applied derive broad scenarios. By identifying key habitats concern, approach offers potential greater spatial temporal resolution, together increased environmental relevance, assessments. With modifications including improved clarity terminology/definitions further development/refinement concepts, we believe principles could provide methodical identification prioritization ecosystems, service providing units that most at from exposure.