Assessing and Managing Multiple Risks in a Changing World – the Roskilde Recommendations
Citation:
Munns, W., H. Selck, G. Burton, P. Chapman, G. Banta, A. Palmqvist, AND A. Thit. Assessing and Managing Multiple Risks in a Changing World – the Roskilde Recommendations. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) 37th Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, November 06 - 11, 2016.
Impact/Purpose:
Roskilde University (Roskilde, Denmark) hosted a November 2015 workshop on “Environmental Risk – Assessing and Managing Multiple Risks in a Changing World”. This manuscript presents the consensus recommendations of 30 invited attendees from 9 countries and multiple academic and governmental organizations regarding: implementation of a common currency (i.e., ecosystem services) for holistic environmental risk assessment and management; improvements to risk assessment and management in a complex, human-modified, and changing world; appropriate development of protection goals in a two-stage process; dealing with societal issues; risk management information needs; conducting risk assessment of risk management; and development of adaptive and flexible regulatory systems. The manuscript encourages interdisciplinary approaches to address 10 recommendations: 1) adopt ecosystem services as a common currency for risk assessment and management; 2) consider cumulative stressors (chemical and non-chemical) and determine which dominate to best manage and restore ecosystem services; 3) fully integrate risk managers and “communities of interest” (relevant stakeholders) into the risk assessment process; 4) fully integrate risk assessors and communities of interest into the risk management process; 5) consider socioeconomics in both risk assessment and risk management; 6) recognize the ethical rights of humans and ecosystems to an adequate level of protection; 7) determine relevant reference conditions and the proper ecological context for assessments in human-modified systems; 8) assess risks and benefits to humans and ecosystems, and consider unanticipated consequences of management actions; 9) avoid excessive conservatism or possible under-protection resulting from sole reliance on binary, numerical benchmarks; and 10) develop adaptive risk management and regulatory goals based on ranges of uncertainty. Although these recommendations are directed to the broad international environmental management community without reference to any particular governance body or agency, some statements might reflect on the policies of EPA.
Description:
Roskilde University hosted a November 2015 workshop on “Environmental Risk – Assessing and Managing Multiple Risks in a Changing World”. Thirty attendees from 9 countries developed consensus recommendations regarding: implementation of a common currency (ecosystem services) for holistic environmental risk assessment and management; improvements to risk assessment and management in a complex, human-modified, and changing world; appropriate development of protection goals in a 2-stage process involving both universal and site-, region-, or problem-specific protection goals; addressing societal issues; risk management information needs; conducting risk assessment of risk management; and development of adaptive and flexible regulatory systems. We encourage both cross- and inter-disciplinary approaches to address 10 recommendations: 1) adopt ecosystem services as a common currency for risk assessment and management; 2) consider cumulative stressors (chemical and non-chemical) and determine which dominate to best manage and restore ecosystem services; 3) fully integrate risk managers and communities of interest into the risk assessment process; 4) fully integrate risk assessors and communities of interest into the risk management process; 5) consider socio-economics and increase transparency in both risk assessment and risk management; 6) recognize the ethical rights of humans and ecosystems to an adequate level of protection; 7) determine relevant reference conditions and the proper ecological context for assessments in human-modified systems; 8) assess risks and benefits to humans and ecosystems, and consider unanticipated consequences of management actions; 9) avoid excessive conservatism or possible under-protection resulting from sole reliance on binary, numerical benchmarks; and 10) develop adaptive risk management and regulatory goals based on ranges of uncertainty.