Applying ecosystem services for pre-market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors
Citation:
Devos, Y., W. Munns, V. Forbes, L. Maltby, M. Stenseke, L. Brussaard, F. Streissl, AND A. Hardy. Applying ecosystem services for pre-market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Journal. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy, 17:e170705, (2019). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170705
Impact/Purpose:
Chemicals are often used in modern agricultural practices to limit pest damage to crops. Harm to environmental systems and human health is managed through enforcement of regulations controlling the use of chemicals in agricultural settings. These regulations historically have been based on information developed through performance of risk assessments that are intended to understand the harmful effects of agricultural chemicals on organisms other than pests. This information is limited in scope and can be difficult to understand by nontechnical audiences. Further, current risk assessments typically evaluate harm to parts of ecological systems that people may care little about. Risk assessments, and the regulatory decisions based on them, can be made more useful and meaningful by including evaluations of the possible effects of chemicals on “ecosystem services” – the contributions of ecosystems to human well-being. Incorporation of the ecosystem services concept in risk assessments and the regulations based on them has the potential to enhance the ecological and societal relevance of risk assessments of regulated agricultural chemicals.
Description:
Ecosystem services (ESs) are the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. Investigating the environment through the ES framework has gained wide acceptance in the international scientific community and is applied by policy makers to protect biodiversity and safeguard the sustainability of ecosystems. This approach can enhance the ecological and societal relevance of pre-market/prospective environmental risk assessments (ERAs) of regulated stressors by: (1) informing the derivation of operational protection goals; (2) enabling the integration of environmental and human health risk assessment; (3) facilitating horizontal integration of policies and regulations; (4) leading to more comprehensive and consistent environmental protection; (5) articulating the benefits of trade-offs involved in environmental decisions; and (6) enhancing the transparency of risk assessment results and decisions based on them. Realisation of these benefits will require to overcome challenges that impede acceptance of the ES approach. Particularly, there is concern that, if biodiversity only matters to the extent that it benefits humans, the intrinsic value of nature is ignored. Moreover, our understanding of linkages among ecological components and the processes that ultimately deliver ESs is incomplete, valuing ESs is complex, and there is no standard ES lexicon and unfamiliarity with the approach. To help overcome these challenges, we encourage: (1) further research establishing biodiversity–ES relationships; (2) developing approaches that translate responses to chemical stressors by organisms/groups of organisms to ES delivery across different spatial and temporal scales, and (3) measure cultural ESs and ease their integration in ES valuations; (4) standardising approaches that can appropriately value changes in ES delivery so that trade-offs among different management options can be assessed; (5) establishing a standard ES lexicon; and (6) building capacity in ES science and how to apply ESs to ERA. These development needs should not prevent movement towards implementation of the ES approach in ERA, as the benefits we perceive of this approach render those challenges more than worthwhile to tackle. Society and the environment stand to benefit from this shift in how we conduct ERAs of regulated stressors.
URLs/Downloads:
DOI: Applying ecosystem services for pre-market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors