Download Chemical Risk Assessment – Ecosystem Services PDF

TitleChemical Risk Assessment – Ecosystem Services
File Size1.9 MB
Total Pages130
Table of Contents
                            Chemical Risk Assessment – Ecosystem Services
Technical Report No. 125
Brussels, December 2015
ISSN-0773-8072-125 (print)
ISSN-2079-1526-125 (online)
ECETOC Technical Report No. 125
© Copyright – ECETOC AISBL
European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals
2 Avenue E. Van Nieuwenhuyse (Bte 8), B-1160 Brussels, Belgium.
All rights reserved.  No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.  Applications to reproduce, store, copy or translate should be made to the Secretary General.  ECETOC welcomes such applications.  Reference to the document, its title and summary may be copied or abstracted in data retrieval systems without subsequent reference.
The content of this document has been prepared and reviewed by experts on behalf of ECETOC with all possible care and from the available scientific information.  It is provided for information only.  ECETOC cannot accept any responsibility or liability and does not provide a warranty for any use or interpretation of the material contained in the publication.
Chemical Risk Assessment – Ecosystem Services
CONTENTS
SUMMARY 1
1. INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Background 5
1.2 Changing policy context 5
1.3 Natural capital and ecosystem services 7
1.4 Protection goals and risk assessment / management 9
1.4.1 Evolution of the ecosystem approach 10
1.4.2 Applying an ecosystem services approach to chemical ERA 11
1.5 Aims of the Task Force 12
2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND APPROACH 14
2.1 Introduction 14
2.2 Step 1: Construct a habitat x ecosystem service matrix was using published habitat and ecosystem service typologies 15
2.2.1 Ecosystem services typologies 15
2.2.2 Ecosystem / Habitat typologies 18
2.3 Step 2: Assign importance rankings to each habitat x ecosystem service combination using published information 20
2.4 Step 3: Rank potential impact for each habitat x ecosystem service combination using exposure and effects information 22
2.4.1 Rationale for ranking potential impacts on habitats and ecosystem services 22
2.5 Step 4: Identify ecosystem services of high, medium, low and negligible concern for each habitat type within each case study 25
2.6 Step 5: Define SPGs for each ecosystem service of high and medium concern 25
3. REGULATIONS 31
3.1 Introduction 31
3.1.1 Regulatory demands and challenges 31
3.1.2 Broader regulatory perspectives on regulatory protection goals 35
3.2 Adverse environmental effects 35
3.2.1 Qualitative definitions of adverse effects 35
3.2.2 Quantitative definitions of adverse effects 36
3.3 Environmental protection goals 40
3.3.1 Examples of specific protection goals 40
3.3.2 Towards ecosystem-level protection 41
3.4 Ecosystem protection goals 41
3.4.1 Ecosystem-level protection goals 41
3.5 Conclusions 42
4. CASE STUDIES: STEP 3 43
4.1 Case study 1: Oil refinery – discharge into estuarine environments 43
4.1.1 Rationale for level of impacts of oil refinery discharge 43
4.2 Case study 2: Oil dispersants 46
4.2.1 Rationale for level of impacts of dispersants in aquatic environments 46
4.2.2 Dispersant: rationale for colour coding in Table 4.2 47
4.3 Case study 3: Down the drain chemicals 49
4.3.1 Rationale for level of impacts of down the drain chemicals on habitats 49
4.4 Case study 4: Persistent organic pollutants (POP) 52
4.4.1 Exposure assessment 52
5. CASE STUDIES: STEP 4 55
5.1 Case study 1: Oil refinery – discharge into estuarine environments 55
5.2 Case study 2: Oil dispersants 58
5.3 Case study 3: Down the drain chemicals 61
5.4 Case study 4: Persistent organic pollutants 64
5.5 Master Table: integration of maximum concerns from the four case studies 66
6. CASE STUDIES: STEP 5 DERIVING SPECIFIC PROTECTION GOALS 68
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 78
7.1 Discussion 78
7.2 Conclusions 81
GLOSSARY 82
ABBREVIATIONS 84
BIBLIOGRAPHY 86
APPENDIX A: CROSS TABULATION OF MA, TEEB AND CICES CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 97
APPENDIX B: EUNIS HABITAT CODE DESCRIPTIONS 99
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF EU ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS WITH ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION GOALS RELATING TO CHEMICALS 102
MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE 118
MEMBERS OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE 119
Summary
	Steps 1 and 2: Construct a habitat x ecosystem service matrix and assign importance rankings
	Step 3: Ranking potential impact for habitat x ecosystem service combinations using exposure and effects information
	Step 4: Categorising the level of concern for exposed ecosystem services
	Step 5: Defining specific protection goal for ecosystem services of high and medium concern
Over the last 10 years there has been increasing emphasis both on the sustainable use of natural resources and on the recognition that humans are dependent on ecosystems for their well-being. This dependence extends beyond the resources provided by ecosystems (water, food, fibre, minerals, energy) to benefits such as climate regulation, flood control, pest and disease regulation, clean air and recreation. Benefits that flow from ecosystems, ecosystem services, are a function of the biophysical components of ecosystems and are underpinned by biodiversity. There are several national and international initiatives moving rapidly toward integrating the assessment of ecosystem services into decision-making processes. The EU is implementing policies to enhance the sustainable use of natural resources and halt the degradation of ecosystem services. The 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy has a headline target of “By 2020 the loss of biodiversity in the EU and the degradation of ecosystem services will be halted and, as far as feasible, biodiversity will be restored” and sets out specific targets and policy tools for achieving this.
Environmental risk assessment, ERA, traditionally focusses on impact functions (i.e. environmental exposure assessment) and response functions (i.e. ecological effects assessment), although the endpoints measured are generally not selected to enable quantification of ecosystem service delivery. Adopting an ecosystem services approach means that ERA needs to be extended to include the link to ecosystem services. This may involve: (1) refining existing methodologies to assess more relevant endpoints; (2) developing new approaches for assessing effects on the structure and functioning of ecological entities; (3) enhancing and applying ecological understanding of causal relationships between biophysical structure, functioning and service provision; (4) developing models to translate outputs from ecotoxicological studies to estimates of ecosystem service delivery. However, in order to ensure that future developments are fit for purpose, it is essential that the focus of the ERA, i.e. the protection goal, is clearly defined within an ecosystem services framework.
There is an acceptance that protection goals specified in current EU legislation are very general and that more specific protection goals need to be developed in order to guide risk assessment and inform risk management decisions. In 2010, the European Food safety Authority, EFSA, produced a scientific opinion outlining how an ecosystem services framework could be used to develop specific protection goals for the environmental risk assessment of pesticides and more recently, has extended this approach to invasive species, feed additives and genetically modified organisms. This growing interest in using ecosystem services to help define and communicate protection goals will inevitably influence chemical regulation. Therefore, it is timely for the chemical industry to engage in this topic, together with other stakeholders, to help determine and influence developments.
The aim of the Task Force was to investigate the applicability of the EFSA framework for developing specific protection goals for a wide range of chemicals. The EFSA approach is based on a structured framework for identifying which ecosystem services might be affected by chemicals, using this assessment for setting specific protection goals and subsequently informing the scope and needs of risk assessment. The Task Force approached the assessment of the applicability of the EFSA framework to a broad range of chemicals and typical environmental exposure scenarios by working through four case studies, i.e. “learning by doing”. The focus on case studies enabled the Task Force to identify where the steps of the framework worked well and where development is needed. The four different case studies (oil refinery emissions, oil dispersants, down the drain chemicals and persistent organic pollutants) were selected to provide a range of emission scenarios and receptor habitats. A 5-step approach was followed to identify habitats and ecosystem services potentially impacted by emissions of these chemicals.
The Task Force found the EFSA framework to be conceptually straightforward and logical. However, there were many points in the framework where additional information and more detailed guidance will be required for general applicability to all chemical sectors, including pesticides. Furthermore, a strong theme throughout the Task Force application of the framework was the importance of prioritising at each step in order to manage the time and effort required.  The key development needs identified at each step are summarised below.
The development of a reference table of habitats and assigning their importance for ecosystem service provision is essential for the framework approach. It is clear that the habitat x ecosystem service matrix as used by EFSA requires further work to extend the assessment to all combinations of habitats and ecosystem services, especially for the marine habitats (i.e. marine inlets and transitional waters; coastal areas; shelf; open ocean).
The use of all types of ecosystem services in the initial steps of the framework, as recommended by EFSA, was considered important in identifying the key service providing units. The Task Force did not consider the completeness of the list but did not identify any gaps arising from the four case studies. Deviations from the EFSA approach included the combining of primary production with photosynthesis where the Task Force considered the service providing units to be essentially similar and the exclusion of abiotic ecosystem services such as oil (for fuel) and flowing water (for power generation), since these were not provided via biotic service providing units. Including service providing units that provide supporting and other intermediate services was considered a more explicit and informed approach to deriving key groups of service providing units and, therefore, in any subsequent identification of testing strategies for risk assessing the potential impacts on specific protection goals.
The treatment of biodiversity in the habitat x ecosystem service matrix was identified as a topic requiring further discussion. The Task Force adopted the approach that biodiversity underpins the delivery of all ecosystem services that are dependent on biotic processes and specific components of biodiversity are explicitly addressed in many individual ecosystem services (e.g. genetic resources, ornamental resources, pollination, pest control, aesthetic value etc).  Biodiversity, as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity, was considered part of natural capital and not an ecosystem service per se as its inclusion as an ecosystem services would lead to the protection of ‘everything, everywhere’, which is too generic and vague to be useful for scientific risk assessment. Familiarity with the definitions of ecosystem services and other terms is an important requirement if the EFSA framework is to be applied correctly and efficiently.
The Task Force found the preparation of schematic diagrams of potential routes of exposure helpful in assessing and communicating the relative level of exposure each of the habitats could experience from specific chemicals in the case studies. The use of a three coloured traffic light approach proved adequate in ranking and differentiating levels of concern.  Experience and additional guidance would help minimise differences between individuals scoring habitat x ecosystem service combinations.
The Task Force initially aimed to only use the relative level of exposure to rank the level of concern for each habitat x ecosystem service combination. Although exposure was acknowledged as the main driver along with importance of habitats for ecosystem service provision, additional chemical-related factors were also identified and applied.
Assessing the level of potential impact due to chemical exposure was difficult for some ecosystem services. This was particularly pertinent for cultural services where there can be differences in how different cultures perceive and value ecosystem services.
In order to streamline the assessment of exposed habitat x ecosystem service combinations, the Task Force devised a prioritisation matrix. To focus the Task Force resource, only those combinations assessed as medium or high concern were investigated further in the case studies. Including prioritising steps into the framework is an important option to help align resources to the required level of assessment.
At this step the Task Force ensured that potentially impacted service providing units in habitat and ecosystem service combinations identified as medium and high concern were identified at a suitable level of resolution for subsequent specific protection goal description. Access to reference tables of the key service providing units likely to occur in specific habitats helps complete this task and aids consistency.
The Task Force considered that the six dimensions in EFSA’s guidance (ecological entity, attributes, magnitude of effect, temporal and spatial scale of effect and the degree of certainty required) provide a good basis for describing specific protection goals. However, derivation of specific protection goals was achieved with a high degree of uncertainty because of the lack of detailed guidance and knowledge in deciding ecological entities, their attributes and especially the scale of potential impact. Adopting the ecological threshold option focuses on identifying the maximum tolerable impact on the entity/attribute of concern in order to protect the ecosystem service of interest. The scientific challenge here is to have sufficient knowledge to be able to link ecological changes to changes in ecosystem service delivery (i.e. ecological production functions) and to identify thresholds of ecological change at which ecosystem service delivery is affected. Given the uncertainties associated with identifying thresholds, a precautionary approach is to assume that ‘maximum tolerable impact’ is ‘no/negligible impact’. Adopting the recovery option considers some impacts at limited spatial and temporal scales to be acceptable assuming that full recovery occurs.  The scientific challenge here, in addition to establishing ecological production functions, is understanding recovery processes within a landscape context and the spatio-temporal dynamics of ecosystem service delivery. In addition, there is a need for dialogue with risk managers to agree on specific protection goals and to clarify which bundle of ecosystem services is to be protected where and at what level.
The scope of the Task Force objectives effectively concluded with the derivation of specific protection goals for selected case studies. How these specific protect goals might be used in subsequent chemical risk assessment (prospective and retrospective) was not considered, but this is a key next step in practical application of the EFSA framework. In addition to the development of testing and modelling approaches needed to assess impacts on the service providing units that underpin specific protection goals, there is a need to define acceptable effects from unacceptable ‘adverse’ environmental effects, e.g. using retrospective or diagnostic methods.
Applying the ecosystem services concept to derive specific protection goals brings the potential for greater spatial resolution in chemical risk assessment, i.e. specific protection goals can be derived for specific land-uses or landscape typologies. It, therefore, could facilitate increasing the environmental relevance of risk assessments, a need identified by several scientific advisory groups, e.g. EC Scientific Committees. Whilst increasing environmental relevance in this way has scientific merit, the practical outcome of defining spatially explicit protection goals to inform risk assessment for a range of chemical sectors requires further investigation and evaluation. The Task Force recommends that such further work is initiated to more fully determine the practical application of the ecosystem services approach.
The EFSA framework represents a top-down approach for deriving specific protection goals for habitats that can be expected to be exposed to specified anthropogenic chemicals. In principle, the framework can be applied to a broad range of chemicals and exposure scenarios. With modifications, clarity on terminology / definitions and further development, the framework could provide a methodical approach for the identification and prioritisation of ecosystems and services that are most at risk. Prioritised habitats and key service providing units could then form the focus for subsequent risk assessment.
1. Introduction
	1.1 Background
	1.2 Changing policy context
	1.3 Natural capital and ecosystem services
		Figure 1.1: The TEEB overview diagram from Braat and de Groot (2012)
		Figure 1.2: Linkages between the components of ecosystem valuation: ecosystem structure and function, goods and services, human actions, and values (source: National Research Council, 2005)
		Figure 1.3: Framework to assess the risk of chemical exposure resulting from change in human action on ecosystem services and societal benefits (adapted from Wainger and Mazzotta, 2011)
	1.4 Protection goals and risk assessment / management
		1.4.1 Evolution of the ecosystem approach
			Table 1.1: Major sources of uncertainty in environmental risk assessment
				Adapted from Chapman, 2002; Hommen et al, 2010; SCHER/SCENIHR/SCCS, 2012
		1.4.2 Applying an ecosystem services approach to chemical ERA
	1.5 Aims of the Task Force
Assessing the risks of chemicals to man and the environment is based on comparing exposure to chemicals with their respective hazardous properties. However, there are differences in the criteria for deciding whether the level of exposure represents an acceptable or unacceptable risk. For man, decision criteria are focused on protecting the individual and regulations are applied relatively consistently around the globe. For the environment, protection goals are less clearly defined and not consistent across regional regulations. Regional environmental policies take a cost-benefit approach to environmental impacts. There are two possible extremes for doing this: i) a precautionary approach aiming for zero release of chemicals into the environment (costs judged to be more important than benefits); ii) uncontrolled release with no effective management to mitigate impacts (benefits judged to be more important than costs). Most environmental regulatory schemes adopt an approach somewhere between these extremes. For example, some effects on individuals may be accepted if the population is unaffected or if it recovers from episodic exposure. For this approach to make sense, protection goals need to be suitably defined. Reviews of current regulations indicate that protection goals are only generally defined leaving a lack of clarity on how to achieve such protection (EFSA, 2010; Hommen et al, 2010).
Discussion of current chemical regulation schemes has led to calls for changes in the way environmental toxicity thresholds are derived. The use of a limited number of species toxicity tests together with application factors is tenuously linked to protection goals and will be over-protective in some cases and potentially under-protective in others. Given that there are relatively few examples of major impacts (e.g. TBT, DDT, diclofenac), from the regulated use of thousands of chemicals in commerce, it may be that the current approach tends to be over-protective. This could be restricting the societal benefits of chemicals. On the other hand, the uncertainties in the approach may underestimate effects, for example, in potentially sensitive ecosystems such as coastal marine reefs or in assessing endocrine disruption of chemical mixtures.
Over the last 10 years there has been increasing emphasis both on the sustainable use of natural resources and on the recognition that humans are dependent on ecosystems for their well-being (Cardinale et al, 2012; CEFIC, 2013). This dependence extends beyond the resources provided by ecosystems (water, food, fibre, minerals, energy) to benefits such as climate regulation, flood control, pest and disease regulation, clean air and recreation. Benefits that flow from ecosystems, termed ecosystem goods and services (often combined as ecosystem services), are a function of the biophysical components of ecosystems and are underpinned by biodiversity. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a) drew attention both to the reliance of human well-being on ecosystem services and to the widespread degradation of ecosystems and the services they provide.  For example, more than 60% of the Earth’s ecosystem services have been degraded in the last 50 years and in the EU, 88% of fish stocks are fished beyond maximum sustainable yields and only 11% of protected ecosystems are in a favourable state (EC, 2011a).
The publication of UNEP’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 and its ongoing project – The Economics for Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) – have been extremely influential. The Millennium Assessment emphasised the need for robust scientific understanding of how ecosystems affect human well-being and TEEB has demonstrated the economic benefits of ecosystem services to human well-being as well as the economic costs of environmental degradation and habitat loss. Following UNEP’s lead, the European Union, along with the United States of America, are moving rapidly toward integrating the assessment of ecosystem services into their decision-making processes (Olander and Maltby, 2014).
The EU is implementing a number of policies to enhance the sustainable use of natural resources and halt the degradation of ecosystem services. The 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy has a headline target of “By 2020 the loss of biodiversity in the EU and the degradation of ecosystem services will be halted and, as far as feasible, biodiversity will be restored” and sets out specific targets and policy tools for achieving this (EC, 2011b). These are: fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives to conserve and restore nature (Target 1); incorporate green infrastructure into spatial planning to maintain and enhance ecosystems and their services (Target 2); use CAP reforms, sustainable forest management plans and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure the sustainability of agriculture, forestry and fisheries (Targets 3 and 4); introduce a new legislative instrument to combat invasive alien species (Target 5); address the global biodiversity crisis by alleviating pressure on biodiversity emanating from the EU (Target 6). Achieving these targets will require full implementation of existing EU legislation as well as action at national, regional and local level.
The EU Roadmap for a Resource Efficient Europe states that the Commission will “significantly strengthen its efforts to integrate biodiversity protection and ecosystem actions in other Community policies with particular focus on agriculture and fisheries”. It also states that Member States will “work towards the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy by integrating the value of ecosystem services into policymaking” (EC, 2011a). The EU Marine Strategy Framework (Directive 2008/56/EC) outlines a transparent, legislative framework for an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities and supports the sustainable use of marine ecosystem services (EC, 2008a). Whereas the Green Infrastructure Strategy recognises that land in both rural and urban areas provides multiple ecosystem services and promotes green infrastructure through several policy areas including, climate change and environmental policies, disaster risk management, health and consumer policies and the Common Agricultural Policy (EC, 2013).
The EU has substantial legislation requiring the achievement of good ecological status for water by 2015 (Water Framework Directive [EC, 2000]) and marine ecosystems by 2020 (Marine Strategy Framework Directive [EC, 2008a]), and for regulating chemicals and their effects on the environment (e.g. REACH [EC, 2006a]). However, the implementation of this legislation may be revisited to ensure that the headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services is met. This process has already begun for plant protection products (EFSA, 2010) and the European Commission joint Scientific Committees report “Making Risk Assessment more Relevant for Risk Management” has highlighted the need for risks be “expressed in terms of impacts or entities that matter to people … such as changes in ecosystem services.” (SCHER/SCENIHR/SCCS, 2013). EU regulations relevant to the authorisation, release and management of chemicals in the environment are discussed further in Chapter 3.
Human wellbeing and economic prosperity depend on the sustainable use of ecosystems. The biophysical components of ecosystems – land, water, air, minerals, species, genes – provide the stocks of natural capital from which flow benefits (i.e. ecosystem services), such as clean air and water, food and fibre, disease suppression and climate regulation. Natural capital may be renewable (e.g. ecosystems) or non-renewable (e.g. mineral deposits) and renewable natural capital may be depletable (e.g. fish stocks) or non-depletable (e.g. wind) (Maes et al, 2013). Each natural capital asset may provide one or more ecosystem service, which may be combined with other capital inputs (e.g. built, human, social) to produce goods that people use. Many of these ecosystem services are used almost as if their supply is unlimited. They are treated as ‘free’ commodities, their economic value is not properly accounted for and therefore they continue to be overly depleted or polluted, threatening our long-term sustainability and resilience to environmental shocks.
There is no single agreed definition of ecosystems services (Nahlik et al, 2012). Some authors consider services to be the outputs of ecosystems that are used to derive benefits, whereas others consider services to be the same as well-being benefits. In this document we adopt the TEEB (2010a) definition, which is used by the EU: ecosystem services are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being. The TEEB definition, which is illustrated in Figure 1.1, places ecosystem services between the natural and human systems and identifies benefits for people flowing from services delivered by ecosystems. In addition, this definition separates benefits and values and clearly shows that ecosystem services are derived from interactions between biotic and abiotic components of ecosystems.
/
A single human well-being benefit may depend on several ecosystem services. The production of wild berries, for example, depends on pollination, pest and disease regulation, climate regulation, nutrient cycling and primary production, amongst others. However, several of these services also contribute to other benefits so in order to avoid multiple accounting when valuing services, a distinction has been made between final services (those that are used directly and therefore valued) and intermediate services that contribute to the final service (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007). Whereas direct quantification of final services may be sufficient for accounting purposes, if ecosystems are to be managed for service delivery, it is important to know what changes in biophysical structure and processes are resulting in changes in intermediate and final services. The translation from ecosystem structure and function to ecosystem services is referred to as the ecological production function (Figure 1.2) (National Research Council, 2005; Tallis and Polasky, 2009).
/
Wainger and Mazzotta (2011) present a modification of the National Research Council (2005) scheme illustrated in Figure 1.2 in which they highlight four key functions (i.e. empirical data or models) linking a change in human actions to resulting change in social welfare: impact functions, which connect human actions to increases or decreases in stressors; response functions, which demonstrate how changes in stressors result in ecological changes that underpin ecosystem service delivery; ecoservice production functions, which translate ecological changes into outcomes that people use or value (i.e. final services) and benefit functions, which demonstrate what people would be willing to pay (WTP) to achieve a gain or avoid a loss in an ecosystem service. The distinction between ecological production functions and ecoservice production functions is that, whereas ecological production functions define services in terms of biophysical measures only, ecoservice production functions also consider the potential for a service to be used at a specific location and time.
It is proposed that, in general, ERA should focus on ecological production functions rather than ecoservice production functions, the rationale being that whereas the former is based on ecological information and may be extrapolated between similar ecosystems, the latter requires ecological information to be evaluated within the context of location-specific social and economic factors and can only be applied to site-specific assessments. A modification of the Wainger and Mazzotta (2011) framework in which ecological production function replaces ecoservice production functions is presented in Figure 1.3.
/
Environmental risk assessment traditionally focusses on impact functions (i.e. environmental exposure assessment) and response functions (i.e. ecological effects assessment), although the endpoints measured are generally not selected to enable quantification of ecosystem service delivery. Adopting an ecosystem services approach means that ERA needs to be extended to include the link to ecosystem services. This may involve: (1) refining existing methodologies to provide information on more relevant endpoints; (2) developing new approaches for assessing the effects of chemicals on structure and functioning of ecological entities of interest; (3) enhancing and applying ecological understanding of causal relationships between biophysical structure, functioning and service provision; (4) developing models to translate outputs from ecotoxicological studies to estimates of ecosystem service delivery. However, in order to ensure that future developments are fit for purpose, it is essential that the focus of the ERA, i.e. the protection goal, is clearly defined within an ecosystem services framework.
The EU has highly developed and complementary environmental regulations, which are applied to distinct ‘eco-regions’ (EC, 2000; Meissle et al, 2012; Maes et al, 2014) each typified by different ‘ecologically relevant’ species (Chapman, 2002; Meissle et al, 2012; Ibrahim et al, 2013). The benefits of adopting more ecologically holistic and spatially explicit approaches for chemical ERA has been recently articulated in the European Commission’s discussion paper Addressing the New Challenges for Risk Assessment (SCHER/SCENIHR/SCCS, 2012). In parallel with the drive to improve chemical ERA, the European Commission has developed a Biodiversity Strategy which recognises the need to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services (Section 1.2). However, there is still a basic lack of understanding of how protection goals within current EU environmental legislation will ensure that this need is met (EFSA, 2010; Hommen et al, 2010).
It is unclear how the traditional extrapolative (bottom-up) or reductionist (top-down) approaches to environmental risk assessment and management address the aspirational goals for protecting ‘biodiversity’, ‘ecosystems’ or ‘the environment as a whole’, set by legislation for the registration and authorisation of chemicals (Chapter 3). Although there is a recognition that more holistic, ecosystem-level approaches are needed (SCHER/SCENIHR/SCCS, 2012), these are beset by the inherent variation and complexity of ecosystems (Table 1.1), presenting a conundrum for environmental risk assessors and managers.
The mandate for an ‘ecosystem approach’ for sustaining the Earth's biological resources, alongside economic and social development, came in 1992 with the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (UN, 1992a), but the concept dates back to the 1950s (Waylen et al, 2014). Crucially, the ecosystem approach recognises the importance of sustainable, self-organising and complex ecosystems, which “maintain a degree of stable functioning across time”, and that “a system is healthy if it maintains its complexity and capacity for self-organisation” (Norton, 1992). Furthermore, since ecosystems are complex systems with multiple feedback loops, trade-offs and interactions, it is not feasible to manage or protect individual species in isolation (Slocombe, 1993). Over the last two to three decades, the terms ‘ecosystem management’, ‘ecosystem approach’ and latterly the ‘ecosystem services approach’ have been used increasingly and often inter-changeably, despite subtle differences (Waylen et al, 2014).
In this report we follow EFSA’s lead in adopting an ecosystem services approach for deriving protection goals and for informing ERA (EFSA, 2010). We acknowledge that this approach is anthropocentric and that it does not address all 12 principles of the ecosystem approach – focusing on ecological rather than socio-economic principles (Waylen et al, 2014). However, it may be argued that all management decisions, whether establishing protected areas, changing land use or regulating commercial activities, are based on human value systems and are therefore anthropocentric in nature. The difference is more to do with the cost-benefit trade off accepted, rather than a fundamental difference in approach. An ecosystem services approach, however, is not the most appropriate tool to identify conservation effects for specific (iconic) species, although integrating ecosystem services within conservation mechanisms adds value by conserving both nature and other benefits to people.
In order to achieve the 2020 EU Biodiversity Strategy target and longer-term vision, it is necessary to incorporate ecosystem service thinking into regulatory policy and decision making. It is also necessary to develop tools and approaches for identifying what needs to be protected where, in order to enable the sustainable use of natural capital. Aligning chemical risk assessment to such aims requires the establishment of protection goals and approaches for translating ecotoxicological exposure and effects information into risks for ecosystem service delivery.
In general terms, the ‘ecosystem services approach’ involves establishing “the linkages between ecosystem structures and process functioning … which are understood to … lead directly or indirectly to valued human welfare benefits” (Turner and Daily, 2008). The main perceived benefits of adopting such an approach in ERA include: (i) Improved linkage between ERA and risk management by focusing on protection of entities that matter to people (SCHER/SCENIHR/SCCS, 2013); (ii) Systematic and transparent identification of specific protection goals for ecosystems and biodiversity, which require protection according to new and recently amended EU regulations (Chapter 3); (iii) Quantification of potential environmental impacts, taking into account ecological trade-offs and spatial variation, acknowledging that delivery of all ecosystem services cannot be maximised at the same place and time e.g. food production is maximised in agricultural systems at the expense of some other services (EFSA, 2010); (iv) Quantification of socio-economic impacts and tradeoffs following the valuation of ecosystem services (Hanley and Barbier, 2009).
The utility of the ecosystem services approach for weighing the environmental risks versus the benefits of chemicals is most apparent for plant protection products, since their benefits in terms of enhancing crop yields in smaller, more intensively managed agricultural systems can be assessed directly against their positive and negative impacts on the surrounding landscape. However, the approach also has potential application for other chemical use classes, which offer socio-economic and environmental benefits, including supporting or enhancing ecosystems services, such as biocidal products designed for water purification, pest regulation and invasion resistance and medicinal products used for disease regulation. The main difference for these other chemical use classes is that impacts tend to occur ‘downstream’ in the environment, rather than in proximity to their use, therefore trade-offs between risks and benefits may be more difficult to assess. Nevertheless, the identification of non-target species assemblages or functional groups, which may be vulnerable to chemical exposure, enables specific protection goals to be identified ‘where’ ecosystem services are most likely to be affected, both spatially and ecologically (i.e. at the population, functional group, community or habitat level).
There is an acceptance that protection goals specified in EU legislation are very general (Hommen et al, 2010) and that more specific protection goals need to be developed in order to guide risk assessment and inform risk management decisions (EFSA, 2010). In 2010, EFSA produced a scientific opinion outlining how an ecosystem services framework could be used to develop specific protection goals for the environmental risk assessment of pesticides (EFSA, 2010; Nienstedt et al, 2012) and more recently, has extended this approach to invasive species, feed additives and genetically modified organisms (EFSA, 2014a, 2015). This growing interest in using ecosystem services to help define and communicate protection goals will inevitably influence chemical regulation. Therefore, it is timely for the chemical industry to engage in this topic in order to determine and influence developments.
Current risk assessment approaches focus on the exposure-response relationship for a limited number of assessment endpoint and species. Whereas some standard species may be directly involved in delivering services of concern (e.g. bees and pollination, earthworm and soil formation; fish and recreational fishing), the link between the biological response measured in a toxicity test and ecosystem service delivery is often unclear. In order to obtain more relevant data for an ecosystem services evaluation it is necessary to: (1) identify the habitats potentially exposed to the chemical of interest; (2) identify ecosystems services provided by those habitats that are potentially affected by the chemical of interest; (3) identify ecosystem components (individual species, functional groups etc.) driving the services potentially affected (i.e. service-providing units, SPU); (4) identify how service provider attributes (e.g. behaviour, biomass, function etc.) relate to ecosystem service provision; (5) design studies to assess the toxicity of the chemical to SPUs and their key attributes (Maltby, 2013).
Ecosystem services are derived from the complex interactions between biotic and abiotic components of ecosystems. No single species, group of species or individual ecosystem can provide the full suite of ecosystem services and therefore the application of an ecosystem services framework to risk assessment and risk management requires consideration of multiple species across multiple ecosystems. Most ecosystems can provide a number of different services, several of which may be potentially affected by chemical exposure. Furthermore ecosystem services are not independent and there may be synergies and trade-offs between them. The risk assessment should therefore provide information on a number of landscape-scale scenarios, including possible mitigations, which the risk manager can then consider when deciding which ecosystem services to protect, where and when.
The aim of the Task Force was to investigate the applicability of the EFSA framework for developing specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides (EFSA, 2010) to a wider range of chemicals. The EFSA approach, as described in Section 1.4.2 is based on a structured framework for identifying which ecosystem services might be affected by chemicals, using this assessment for setting specific protection goals and subsequently informing the scope and needs of risk assessment.
The Task Force work programme was organised into 3 phases:
Phase 1 – Develop a Framework for the chemical industry applicable to all sectors by considering the following:
 Description of key exposure scenarios and ecosystems including continuous and intermittent exposures, seasonality in receiving environments, spatial differences and scales.
 Identification of the main stressors driving ecological status.
 Establishment of current and potential uses of the environment in terms of ecosystem services. What does the local society use?
 Definition of spatially explicit protection goals. Use case examples to exemplify, e.g. direct discharge of untreated sewage and no-impact scenarios for down the drain chemicals in different regions. Prioritise / select case examples for phase 2.
 Identification of key service-providing units. What are their attributes / dimensions?
Phase 2 – Case studies to show how the framework would be used:
 Receiving environments to include freshwater, marine, soil.
 Exposure scenarios to include down the drain (pharmaceuticals, home and personal care products representing constant exposure), episodic exposure in terrestrial and aquatic environments (pesticides), intermediate exposure scenarios (biocides), multiple sources of exposure from industry value chains (e.g. oil and/or mining companies).
 Also consider multiple stressors to explore relative contributions of chemicals to overall ecosystem stress.
Phase 3 – Recommendations on how Risk Assessments Schemes need to be evolved:
 There is scope to incorporate greater ecological relevance in risk assessment in order to achieve protection goals, e.g. population metrics, community structure. If the ecotoxicological community is about to develop more ecologically relevant paradigms for chemical risk assessment, we should combine the approach with consideration of the ecosystem services we wish to protect.
The Task Force adopted this phased approach and considered most of the work programme listed above. Notable deviations and omissions include the following:
o A pesticide focused case example was not developed since EFSA have addressed this chemical sector.
o A case example with a metals focus was initiated but dropped before completion due to resource constraints of the relevant Task Force member.
o A case study addressing a chemical value chain was not developed to keep the work load manageable.
o Multiple stressors were not fully explored although certain aspects of chemical mixtures were considered.
2. Conceptual framework and approach
	2.1 Introduction
		Figure 2.1: Stepwise process for specifying specific protection goals
	2.2 Step 1: Construct a habitat x ecosystem service matrix was using published habitat and ecosystem service typologies
		2.2.1 Ecosystem services typologies
			Table 2.1: Ecosystem services considered in case studies. Services and explanations are taken from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b)
		2.2.2 Ecosystem / Habitat typologies
			Table 2.2: Proposed MAES typology of European habitats and corresponding EUNIS habitat code (Appendix B). Adapted from Maes et al (2013)
				X01: Estuaries; X02: Saline coastal lagoons; X03: Brackish coastal lagoons; A1: Littoral rock and other hard substrata; A2: Littoral sediment; A3: Infralittoral rock and other hard substrata; A4: Circalittoral rock and other hard substrata; A5: Sublit...
	2.3 Step 2: Assign importance rankings to each habitat x ecosystem service combination using published information
		Table 2.3: The relative importance of broad habitats for delivering ecosystem services (+ small; ++ intermediate; +++ large; ? unknown). Blank cells indicate that the habitat is not considered important for delivering the ES of interest
	2.4 Step 3: Rank potential impact for each habitat x ecosystem service combination using exposure and effects information
		2.4.1 Rationale for ranking potential impacts on habitats and ecosystem services
			Table 2.4: Analysis of factors determining the potential level of impact of chemicals on ecosystem services; Example: down the drain chemicals
			Table 2.5: Ecosystem services likely to be affected by increases in chemical exposure levels versus additional chemical or ES-related factors; Example: oil dispersants
	2.5 Step 4: Identify ecosystem services of high, medium, low and negligible concern for each habitat type within each case study
		Table 2.6: Prioritisation matrix based on relative importance of habitats for delivering specific ecosystem services and the potential impact of chemical exposure on service delivery
	2.6 Step 5: Define SPGs for each ecosystem service of high and medium concern
		Table 2.7: Cropland and grassland (terrestrial compartments)
		Table 2.8: Woodland and forest (terrestrial compartments)
		Table 2.9: Heathland and shrub including tundra
		Table 2.10: Wetlands
		Table 2.11: Rivers and lakes
		Table 2.12: Inlets and transitional waters, coastal, shelf and ocean
The Task Force approached the assessment of the applicability of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) framework (EFSA, 2010) as applied to a pesticide exposure scenario, to a broad range of chemicals and typical environmental exposure scenarios by working through four case studies, i.e. “learning by doing”. The focus on case studies enabled the Task Force to identify where the steps of the framework worked well and where development is needed. The four different case studies were selected to provide a range of emission scenarios and receptor habitats:
1. Oil refinery: Exposure of aquatic habitats, including wetlands to the chemicals present in waste water from a single refinery in an estuarine location.
2. Oil dispersants: Exposure from the use of dispersants in ocean and estuarine / transitional environments, not including the impact of spilt oil.
3. Down the drain chemicals: Continuous exposure of a wide range of ecosystems to a complex mixture of chemicals from the disposal of consumer products / pharmaceuticals via household waste systems into the municipal wastewater treatment / disposal infrastructure.
4. Persistent organic pollutants: Potential impacts to POP-type chemicals in remote (pristine) areas, e.g. high altitude alpine and Arctic regions. One chemical will be studied that has relevant properties.
A 5-step approach, similar to that of EFSA (2010), was used to identify habitats and ecosystem services potentially impacted by chemicals released into the environment. The approach is outlined in Figure 2.1 and each step is described in the following sections.
There are several schemes for listing and classifying ecosystem services, the most widely used and well known typology, being that developed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment typology, which was used by EFSA (2010), classifies ecosystem services into four categories: provisioning services (e.g. products such as food, fuel, fibre); regulating services (i.e. benefits arising from the regulation of ecosystem processes e.g. climate regulation, natural hazard regulation, water purification); supporting services (e.g. nutrient cycling, primary production, soil formation) and cultural services (i.e. nonmaterial benefits such as recreational, spiritual, aesthetic services) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005b).
The Economics of Ecosystems and their Biodiversity (TEEB) project, which followed on from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, also grouped ecosystem services into four broad categories. However the TEEB classification replaced ‘supporting services’ with ‘habitat or supporting services’, which comprise ‘habitats for species’ and ‘maintenance of genetic diversity’ (TEEB, 2010b). More recently, there has been a proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), which builds on existing classifications (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013). CICES has been developed to support the work of the European Environment Agency on environmental accounting and is linked with the UN System of Environmental Economic Accounts (SEEA). It therefore focuses on services that are used directly (i.e. final services). CICES groups services into 3 sections: provisioning (nutrients, materials, energy); regulating and maintenance (mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances; mediation of flows; maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions) and cultural (physical and intellectual interactions with biota, ecosystems and land/seascapes; spiritual, symbolic and other interactions with biota, ecosystems and land / seascapes). It is a nested typology with CICES v4.3 resolving 3 sections (main service categories) via 8 divisions (main types of output or process) and 20 groups (biological, physical or cultural type or process) to 48 classes (http://cices.eu/). A cross tabulation of Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, TEEB and CICES classification systems is presented in Appendix A.
CICES has been adopted by the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) process at the EU level and has been applied to six pilot studies (Maes et al, 2014). As a result of these pilots, it was concluded that the hierarchical structure of CICES was very useful to bundle services at class level and could be used for data poor systems where indicators may only be available at division or group level. However, conceptual difficulties were encountered when assessing regulation and maintenance services, especially in aquatic systems, and in addressing services delivered by agriculture (e.g. discriminating between the amount of provisioning service supplied by agro-ecosystems and the role of human energy inputs in contributing to total yield). MAES (Maes et al, 2014) suggested that separate classifications for both ecosystem functions (which underpin ecosystem services) and for ecosystem benefits or beneficiaries are developed in order to distinguish between the supply of and the demand for ecosystem services.
The ecosystem services considered in this project are listed in Table 2.1. It has been argued that ecosystem service assessments should focus on final ecosystem services to avoid double accounting in valuations (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007). However, we have followed the EFSA (2010) approach and recent recommendations by MAES (Maes et al, 2014) by considering all types of services (i.e. including supporting and other intermediate services) and by basing our list of ecosystem services on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment typology. This list is not exhaustive and other services may be added if sufficient information is available to evaluate their importance in specific habitats (see Step 2). Future developments may refine the list of services considered to prioritise final services for each habitat type, an approach adopted by the US EPA (Landers and Nahlik, 2013) and implied by the use of CICES by the MAES process. If required, the protection goals generated using the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment typology can be translated to the CICES typology using the information in Appendix A.
Finally, the Task Force recognised the importance of addressing biodiversity in relation to ecosystem services adopting the position that biodiversity underpins the delivery of all ecosystem services that are dependent on biotic processes and that specific components of biodiversity are explicitly addressed in many individual ecosystem services e.g. genetic resources, ornamental resources, pollination, pest control, aesthetic value etc. (Devos at al, 2015; Science for Environment Policy 2015).  Biodiversity, as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity, was considered part of natural capital and not an ecosystem service per se as its inclusion as an ecosystem service would lead to the protection of ‘everything, everywhere’, which is too generic and vague to be useful for scientific risk assessment.
Explanation
Ecosystem service
Category
Food products derived from plants, animals, and microbes.
Food
Materials including wood, jute, cotton, hemp, silk, and wool. Biological materials providing sources of energy e.g. wood, dung.
Fibre and fuel
Genes and genetic information used for animal and plant breeding and biotechnology.
Genetic resources
Provisioning services
Medicines, biocides, food additives such as alginates.
Biochemical / natural medicines
Animal and plant products (e.g. skins, shells, and flowers) are used as ornaments. Whole plants used for landscaping and ornaments.
Ornamental resources
People obtain fresh water from ecosystems. Fresh water in rivers is also a source of energy.
Fresh water
Ecosystem changes affect the distribution, abundance, and effectiveness of pollinators.
Pollination
Ecosystem changes affect the abundance of human pathogens and disease vectors and the prevalence of crop / livestock pests and diseases.
Pest and disease regulation
Ecosystems influence climate both locally and globally. At a local scale, for example, changes in land cover can affect both temperature and precipitation. At the global scale, ecosystems play an important role in climate by either sequestering or emitting greenhouse gases.
Climate regulation
Ecosystems both contribute chemicals to and extract chemicals from the atmosphere, influencing many aspects of air quality.
Air quality regulation
Regulatory services
The timing and magnitude of runoff, flooding, and aquifer recharge can be strongly influenced by changes in land cover.
Water regulation
Vegetative cover plays an important role in soil retention and the prevention of landslides.
Erosion regulation
The presence of coastal ecosystems (e.g. mangroves and coral reefs) can reduce the damage caused by hurricanes or large waves.
Natural hazard regulation
Ecosystems can be a source of impurities but also can help filter out and decompose organic wastes introduced into ecosystems. They can also assimilate and detoxify compounds through biological processes.
Water purification / soil remediation / waste treatment
Many religions attach spiritual and religious values to ecosystems or their components.
Spiritual and religious values
Ecosystems and their components and processes provide the basis for both formal and informal education in many societies. Ecosystems provide a rich source of inspiration for art, folklore, national symbols, architecture, and advertising.
Education and inspiration
People often choose where to spend their leisure time based in part on the characteristics of the natural or cultivated landscapes.
Recreation and ecotourism
Cultural services
The diversity of ecosystems is one factor influencing the diversity of cultures. Many societies place high value on the maintenance of either historically important landscapes (‘cultural landscapes’) or culturally significant species.
Cultural diversity and heritage
Many people find beauty or aesthetic value in various aspects of ecosystems.
Aesthetic values
Many people value the ‘sense of place’ that is associated with features of their environment, including aspects of the ecosystem.
Sense of place
Primary production is the assimilation of energy and nutrients by biota. Photosynthesis produces oxygen required by most living organisms.
Primary production, photosynthesis
Because many provisioning services depend on soil fertility, the rate of soil formation influences human well-being in many ways.
Soil formation and retention
Supporting services
Approximately 20 nutrients essential for life, including nitrogen and phosphorus, cycle through ecosystems.
Nutrient cycling
Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity defines an ecosystem as ‘a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit’ and a habitat as ‘the place or type of site where an organism or population naturally occurs’ (UN, 1992a). We follow the approach adopted by the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and classify ecosystems using broad habitat types (UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011). For this project, habitat types have been defined according to the MAES typology (Maes et al, 2013) and the European Nature Information System (EUNIS).
EUNIS brings together data on species and habitats from several European databases and organisations (http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/index.jsp). It is part of the Biodiversity data centre of the European Environment Agency and aids implementation of EU biodiversity strategies and the General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 – Living well, within the limits of our planet (EC, 2014). The EUNIS habitat classification covers both natural and artificial pan-European habitats and groups them into 11 broad categories:
A. Marine habitats
B. Coastal habitats
C. Inland surface waters
D. Mires, bogs and fens
E. Grasslands and lands dominated by forbs, mosses or lichens
F. Heathland, shrub and tundra
G. Woodland, forest and other wooded land
H. Inland unvegetated or sparsely vegetated habitats
I. Regularly or recently cultivated agricultural, horticultural and domestic habitats
J. Constructed, industrial and other artificial habitats
X. Habitat complexes
This hierarchical classification, which was revised in 2012, divides the 11 broad habitat categories into 5282 distinct habitat types (http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/eunis/eunis-habitat-classification).
The MAES project, which is mandated to coordinate and oversee Action 5 of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, has proposed a typology that distinguishes 12 main ecosystem types based on the higher levels of the EUNIS Habitat Classification (Table 2.2). The MAES typology was applied in six pilot studies covering forests, agriculture, fresh waters and marine systems. It was concluded that, whereas the MAES typology worked well for forests, questions were raised about the appropriateness of combining arable land and permanent crops into a single category (i.e. cropland). The challenges of defining boundaries for freshwater systems was highlighted and several weaknesses with the marine typology were identified that require further refinement (e.g. typology solely based on bathymetry due to limited mapping information) (Maes et al, 2014).
The MAES typology is used in the current project, with the slight modification that the category ‘Rivers and lakes’ is subdivided into standing (EUNIS C1) and running (EUNIS C2) waters for the ‘Down the drain’ case study and coastal wetlands (i.e. saltmarshes and saline reedbeds; EUNIS A2.5) are separated out from the ‘marine inlets and transitional waters’ category for the oil refinery case study.
The relative importance of broad habitats for delivering ecosystem services have been classified as ‘+’ small (+), intermediate (++), large (+++) or unknown (?) based on the following publications: UNEP (2006); Haines-Young and Potschin (2008); Vandewalle et al (2008); IFPRI, GIPB (2008); EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (2010); Harrison et al (2010); Wali et al (2010); UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011); KPMG, NVI (2011) and Gómez-Baggethun et al (2013). The resulting matrix (Table 2.3) was used for all case studies.
The EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (2010) evaluated the relative importance of 30 ecosystem services in five components of European agro-ecosystems: within crops, edge of field margins, terrestrial habitats away from field, small edge of field surface waters, large surface waters. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) provided information on the relative importance of 8 broad habitats (mountains, moorlands and heaths, semi-natural grasslands, enclosed farmland, woodlands, freshwaters, urban, coastal margins, marine) in delivering 16 final ecosystem services. The marine and coastal ecosystems synthesis report from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provides examples of significant amounts of service provision by 12 coastal and marine habitats (UNEP, 2006) and ecosystem services provided by urban areas have been classified and described by Gómez-Baggethun et al (2013). Ranking of productivity across habitats is based on Wali et al (2010).
Haines-Young and Potschin (2008) evaluated ecosystem service provision by UK terrestrial and freshwater Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats. A questionnaire survey of BAP lead-authors was used to elicit information about the potential ecosystem services or benefits associated with each habitat. This information, which was supplemented by a literature review and a series of expert workshops, was used to identify associations between 28 services and 19 broad habitats.
The EU 6th Framework Project RUBICODE, performed a detailed review of 31 ecosystem services provided by European terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity (Vandewalle et al, 2008). The relative importance of services was first evaluated using information from an extensive literature search. The results of the literature search were then considered by international scientific experts at a workshop and via an econference. The agreed qualitative importance rankings for 23 ecosystem services provided by 8 ecosystems – agro-ecosystems, forests, semi-natural grasslands, heathlands / shrublands, mountains, soil systems, rivers and lakes, wetlands – are presented in Harrison et al (2010).
Few studies have evaluated the role of sparsely vegetated land in delivering ecosystem services and therefore the relative importance of this habitat for providing many ecosystem services is unknown (Table 2.3). For this reason, sparsely vegetated land was not considered in the case studies.
Information on the likely exposure of habitats in each case study was used to identify habitats potentially at risk. Knowledge of the level of redundancy among SPUs providing each ecosystem service, and the potential level of impact of chemicals versus regulatory protection goals for these services was used to identify ecosystem services potentially at risk. This information was combined to categorise ES x habitat combinations as either high potential impact (red) or medium potential impact (amber) or low potential impact (green).
 This evaluation concerns the levels of exposure and likely impact of chemicals on ecosystem services. No consideration has been given to the beneficial effects, e.g. of applying nutrients in aqueous sewage and sewage sludge (biosolids) to agricultural land and pasture.
 The impact on SPUs is considered to be mainly driven by the overall level of exposure to the chemical(s).
 The chemical mode of action and characteristics, e.g. complexity and variability were considered when known, i.e. existing knowledge of chemical fate and effects were taken into account.
 Direct linking of specific chemical properties with impacts on SPUs (e.g. EDs potentially producing chronic effects on populations) will be possible only in exceptional cases.
 Chemical exposures are more problematic for certain ecosystem services due to:
o secondary exposures e.g. via the food chain – chemical residues are more problematic in food (following non-lethal exposure) than in fibre and fuel,
o lack of redundancy in the provision of some ecosystem services, e.g. less species are pollinators than are primary producers.
These factors were applied to two of the case studies (down the drain chemicals and oil dispersants) to illustrate the approach, see Tables 2.4 and 2.5. The outcome of this step for each of the 4 case studies is shown in Chapter 4, Tables 4.1 – 4.4. Explanatory comments on the potential impacts of chemicals on single ESs are provided in Appendix D.
Ecosystem services are prioritised based on their relative importance (Step 2, Table 2.3) and the potential impact of chemical exposure on service delivery (Step 3). Ecosystem services are categorised as high, medium, low or negligible concern using Table 2.6. Of highest concern are those services that have large relative importance scores and the potential impact of chemical exposure is high.
Note: The following tables are organised by habitats with generally similar groups of SPUs. Each tabulation is then ordered into three trophic levels, primary producers, primary consumers (including decomposers, detritivores and ecosystem-engineers), secondary consumers.
Some taxa are included as specific examples of ecosystem-engineers. These taxa can also be listed under their general trophic level and so may appear more than once in each habitat table, e.g. ants and termites are listed as ecosystem-engineers as well as primary consumers in cropland and grassland. Taking a different perspective, there are several ecosystem-engineer taxa representing different trophic levels that could all influence ecosystem functions affecting a range of regulating and supporting ecosystem services (see Table 2.7: ants and termites (primary consumers), moles (secondary consumers)).
Examples given are illustrative of one or more habitats within each table, hence the tables contain much duplication but are not the same. Sparsely vegetated land is excluded because the level of importance this habitat represents for most ecosystem services is unknown.
3. Regulations
	3.1 Introduction
		3.1.1 Regulatory demands and challenges
			Table 3.1: Environmental principles adopted in the prospective and retrospective ERA of chemicals - requiring environmental protection goals at different levels of biological organisational (underlined) (Adapted from Brock et al, 2006; Beder, 2006)
			Figure 3.1: EU environmental legislation and conventions relating to chemicals relating to Appendix C Tables: C1.1 (red boxes); C1.2 (red/green boxes); C1.3 (green boxes)
		3.1.2 Broader regulatory perspectives on regulatory protection goals
	3.2 Adverse environmental effects
		3.2.1 Qualitative definitions of adverse effects
		3.2.2 Quantitative definitions of adverse effects
			Table 3.2: Definitions of adverse (unacceptable, harmful) effects in international guidance and EU legislation concerning prospective ERA of chemicals
				All URLs were accessed in March 2015
				# Guidance on the Biocidal Products Regulation Volume IV, Part B guidance for Environmental Health is currently under development.
	3.3 Environmental protection goals
		3.3.1 Examples of specific protection goals
		3.3.2 Towards ecosystem-level protection
	3.4 Ecosystem protection goals
		3.4.1 Ecosystem-level protection goals
	3.5 Conclusions
The European chemical industry is highly regulated, both internally and externally, with a range of guidelines and legislative instruments requiring environmental testing and assessment of new products to ensure environmental (and human) safety prior to market authorisation in the European Union (EU) (Hommen et al, 2010). Whilst regulations are highly consistent across chemical sectors, environmental testing may be tailored for different classes of chemicals, according to their inherent risks to the environment. In each case a tiered environmental risk assessment (ERA) is performed, beginning with the estimation of exposure profiles based on chemical use, volumes and/or physico-chemical properties. Predicted or measured chemical exposure concentrations may then be compared to predicted or measured effects on environmentally relevant and/or sensitive test species, while also taking into account chemical mode of action and potency, including the potential for bioconcentration and secondary poisoning (Hommen et al, 2010).
Despite highly developed environmental principles (Table 3.1) and internationally standardised test methods (OECD, 2015), environmental protection goals for chemical registration remain vague, such as requiring prevention of ‘unacceptable’ or ‘adverse’ impacts on ‘biodiversity’ and ‘ecosystems’ or the ‘environment as a whole’. Due to the complexity of ecosystems these high-level goals have not been adequately addressed by current regulations and ERA guidance documents, leading regulators to ‘err on the side of caution’. The widespread adoption of this overarching ‘precautionary principle’ (UN Rio Declaration, 1992b) has led to the application of assessment (uncertainty) factors in order to extrapolate from the most sensitive test species to protect the theoretically most sensitive species in the field, with the intention of protecting ‘ecosystems’ and the ‘environment as a whole’.
Uncertainties in ERA are attributable to: i) natural background variability in the environment; ii) representation of multiple chemical exposure profiles; iii) extrapolation of chemical effects from individual laboratory test organisms to wild populations; iv) failure to account for ecological factors, including interactions between species and between physical, chemical and biological stressors (Table 1.1, after Chapman, 2002; Hommen et al, 2010; SCHER/SCENIHR/SCCS, 2012).
/
Here a broader range of regulatory instruments than those previously considered for prospective ERA prior to chemical product registration and retrospective assessment under the Water Framework Directive (Hommen et al, 2010) are reviewed. These broader instruments provide a ‘catch-all’ or environmental ‘safety net’ covering the life-cycle of chemicals from manufacture to use and disposal. They include environmental and nature conservation legislation and International Conventions, many of which require retrospective environmental surveillance, monitoring and impact assessment, instead of, or in addition to prospective risk assessment (Appendix C Tables C1.1 to C1.3, Figure 3.1). The complementary use of retrospective and prospective approaches is recognised as important for improving ERA (Ragas, 2011; Boxall et al, 2012; SCHER/SCENIHR/SCCS, 2012). The Task Force has identified existing examples of specific protection goals (SPGs) from consolidated regulatory texts and guidance documents, including historical and recent amendments, covering a wide range of ecological entities, from individual organisms to entire habitats or ecosystems, and key attributes reflecting ecosystem health (Section 3.3.1).
EU regulations concerning prospective ERA of chemicals (Figure 3.1) require no ‘unacceptable’, ‘undesirable’, ‘harmful’ or ‘adverse’ effects on ‘biodiversity’, ‘ecosystems’ or ‘the environment as a whole’ (Tables C1.1 and C1.2). Definitions of these terms (here generally referred to as adverse) in environmental legislation and chemical sector-specific guidance (Table 3.2) tend to focus on individuals, which is at odds with stated high-level environmental protection goals aimed at ecological populations, communities and ecosystems (Table C1.1). For example, the WHO/UNEP/OECD/ILO International Programme for Chemical Safety (IPCS) definition of adverse effect (below) is adopted under the Registration Evaluation Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation (EC 1907/2006), Plant Protection Products Regulation (PPPR) (EC 1107/2009) and Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) (EU 528/2012), with the exclusion of the terms ‘system’ and ‘(sub)population’ (Table 3.2). The context of the term ‘system’ may be considered ambiguous in the IPCS definition and could refer to in vivo system (e.g. endocrine system) or eco-system.
IPCS definition of adverse effect: “a change in the morphology, physiology, growth, development, reproduction, or life span of an organism, system, or (sub)population that results in (i) an impairment of functional capacity, (ii) an impairment of the capacity to compensate for additional stress, or (iii) an increase in susceptibility to other influences” (WHO/UNEP/OECD/ILO, 2004; after Bayne, 1975).
Notes:
(i) The impairment of functional capacity (at the ecosystem-level), is elaborated under the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) (2004/35/CE) and the Control of Major Accident Hazard (COMAH) Directive (2012/18/EU), with supporting guidance (DETR, 1999; CDOIF, 2013). These documents refer to the “long-term maintenance of … the functions of habitats”, including defined, statutory protected and undesignated land-based habitats and water bodies. In addition, some specific ecosystem functions e.g. biodegradation of animal dung and sewage effluents are protected in several chemical and environmental regulations (Tables C1.1 and C1.2).
(ii) With respect to impairment of the compensatory capacity of individuals, populations and ecosystems, guidance for the Convention on Biological Diversity (UN, 1992a; CBD SBSTTA, 2000) and Habitats Directive (HD) (92/43/EEC) specifically refers to the preservation of ecosystem integrity, including ‘the capacity for self-regulation’. Similarly, the PPPR (EC 1107/2009) and the ELD consider the potential for populations to ‘recover’ or ‘regenerate naturally’, following chemical exposures or spills (Tables C1.1 and C1.2).
(iii) In terms of susceptibility to additional stress … or other influences, the PPPR and BPR both require the consideration of possible cumulative and interactive (synergistic) effects of co-formulated chemical mixtures / products and relevant metabolites or transformation products on biodiversity and ecosystems. The potential ‘long-range’ or ‘transboundary’ transport of some chemicals is also acknowledged in PPPR, BPR, the Air Quality Framework Directive (AQFD) (2008/50/EC) and the UN Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (1972). Defining acceptable versus unacceptable limits of exposure for such chemicals inevitably requires the assessment of cumulative risks from multiple emission sources.
Quantitative definitions of the terms ‘impairment’, ‘unacceptable’, ‘undesirable’, ‘harmful’ or ‘adverse’ are generally lacking in chemical regulations and supporting guidance documents (Table C1.1; Table 3.2). Furthermore, although prospective ERA places emphasis on assessing population-relevant effects in controlled exposure studies (often in the laboratory), their ‘significance’ is ultimately framed in statistical terms, and the ecological significance of effects on wild populations may be exaggerated, or worse still, overlooked (Forbes et al, 2008; 2011; Brown et al, 2014). Alternatively, the ERA of plant protection products also includes the option for appropriate assessments under field conditions of: the population density and viability of non-target species (including keystone and/or indicator species); biodiversity (e.g. overall species richness of ecological communities); and ecosystem services (including the provision of harvestable resources and aesthetic resources including species with ‘popular appeal’) (SANCO, 2002). However, there is still a lack of clarity in the definition and relevance of unacceptable impacts on each of these ecological entities, and hence their recovery, indicating the absence of long-term effects, may be used as an alternative decision criterion under PPPR (Hommen et al, 2010; Moe et al, 2013) and COMAH (CDOIF, 2013). It is important to recognise that “ecosystems change, including species composition and population abundance” and that environmental management should take account of such natural, background changes (Malawi Principle 9: CBD SBSTTA, 2000). Retrospective environmental assessments (Tables C1.2 and C1.3) have the advantage of historical baselines for established ‘reference’ sites, which are capable of quantifying such natural variability, including seasonal cycles and long-term climate change (Moe et al, 2013). Ecological baselines are fundamental to environmental quality assessment under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC), Oslo Paris Convention (OSPAR) (Table C1.3) and the Thematic Soil Strategy (TSS) (COM/2006/0231/EU, COM/2006/0232/EU) (Table C1.2) and retrospective evaluation of chemical impacts under the ELD and COMAH (Table C1.2).
For reasons already discussed, specific environmental protection goals are generally lacking in legislation and guidance concerning the prospective and retrospective ERA of chemicals (Table C1.1), including the following specific industry sectors:
 the plant protection products regulation (EC 1107/2009), which specifies the goal of “no unacceptable effects on the environment”,
 the pharmaceuticals industry (Directive 2001/83/EC), which aims to prevent “any risk of undesirable effects on the environment”,
 and the maritime transport industry (Directive 2012/33/EU), which aims to achieve “levels of air quality that do not give rise to significant negative impacts on and risks to human health and the environment”.
Conversely, it may be argued that some environmental protection goals are too specific, such as the environmental protection goals for bees in the EFSA guidance for plant protection products (EFSA, 2013), which require measuring and linking PPP exposure to colony-relevant population changes (despite the potential influence of other causal factors). This apparent ‘gulf’ between the general and specific protection goals is also apparent for other groups of organisms / species that are covered in the prospective environmental risk assessment of plant protection and other chemical products. However, there are several examples of specific protection goals associated with environmental monitoring in retrospective ERA (Tables C1.2 and C1.3), and these generally fall into two categories. The first category contains population-level goals for indicator species, identified using a reductionist approach typified by OSPAR’s Ecological Quality Objectives (e.g. focusing on priority chemicals and individual biomarkers or population trends for indicator species, Table C1.3). The second category contains more holistic community or ecosystem-level goals (e.g. protection of ecological communities reflecting biological quality status defined under the Water Framework Directive, or entire habitat features under the Habitats Directive, Table C1.3). These specific protection goals provide valuable working examples for guiding prospective ERA, helping to justify the selection of ecological entities (e.g. population, functional group or community) and their key attributes (e.g. biomass or function) as reliable indicators of ecosystem health. Quantifiable changes in these attributes, versus acceptable limits or reference values, should ideally be defined in terms of magnitude of change, spatial scale and temporal scale (EFSA, 2010). All three dimensions are considered in the setting of specific protection goals under OSPAR (e.g. “ecological quality objective” of <10% decline in recruitment (5 year rolling average) for defined sub-populations of 5 species of North Sea seals [OSPAR, 2010]), the Water Framework Directive (“biological water quality classification” based on species diversity, abundance, distribution and trends) and the Habitats Directive (“favourable conservation status” based on species population dynamics, long-term viability and natural range; habitat species richness, structure and function, extent and trends, necessary for their long-term maintenance [EC, 2011c; EC, 2012]). Critically, in each of these cases, the main focus is on magnitude of change, while spatial and temporal dimensions are constrained by pre-defined monitoring regions, water bodies or habitats and reporting cycles.
Traditionally, a bottom-up approach is adopted in environmental risk assessment (ERA), whereby (eco)toxicity testing results for sensitive ‘model’ organisms are extrapolated using assessment factors in order to protect ‘populations’ representing various trophic levels and taxonomic groups potentially subjected to chemical exposure. Although populations are widely considered to be the ‘operational taxonomic units’ of choice for species protection (IUCN, 2012), they may not always be the most suitable for ecosystem-level protection. This is due to lack of consideration of species interactions (Slocombe, 1993) and other ecological interactions and selective pressures, which promote evolutionary divergence within and between species (Sneath and Sokal, 1973), including their differential susceptibilities to chemicals (Brown et al, 2009; 2014). Consequently, no single ‘model’ species or population will be most susceptible to all chemicals and therefore protective of all other species and populations. Furthermore, the operational taxonomic units of species and populations cannot be applied readily to micro-organisms (Koeppel and Wu, 2013), which provide an enormous pool of biological and genetic diversity and which support / provide numerous ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient cycling, climate regulation, soil formation, retention and remediation, water purification, and waste treatment [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005b]).
The importance of protecting ecosystem services (or amenities) from chemical exposure has been recognised for several decades. For instance, the UN’s Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP, 1986) defined marine pollution as: “The introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine environment (including estuaries), which results in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities including fishing, impairment of quality for use of sea water and reduction of amenities”. This definition is largely unchanged under the current EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/56/EC). A key point, which should be noted, is that chemicals only form part of these ecosystem service protection goals.
Despite the maturity of the ecosystem service concept and its relevance to environmental regulation, current definitions of ecosystem-level protection goals in ERA remain blurred. For example, the protection of ecosystem structure and function are both commonly referred to in EU environmental and chemical regulations (Figure 3.1, Table C1.1). Whilst ecosystem structure and function (and resilience / integrity) are intrinsically linked (Malawi Principle 5: CBD SBSTTA, 2000), protection of ecosystem function (underpinning ecosystem services) takes into account functional redundancies among similar species, whereas the explicit protection of ecosystem structure is more demanding (EFSA, 2014b). By focusing on functional groups or ‘service-providing units’ (SPUs), the derivation of ecosystem service protection goals is undoubtedly more transparent than attempting to protect all species’ populations, everywhere, all of the time (as is the current paradigm, involving extrapolation from tests on model species to all species in the field (Section 3.1.1)). The use of an ecosystem service approach also has the advantage that trade-offs, spatial scales and redundancies are considered collectively in ERAs (EFSA, 2010).
Regulations and guidelines for chemical environmental risk and impact assessment have consistent, highlevel, aspirational goals for protecting the environment as a whole, including ecosystem structure and how to achieve ecosystem-level protection in the prospective ERA of chemicals. Despite generic ecosystem-level protection goals being common to all chemical sectors, specific protection goals are conspicuously lacking, which has engendered a high degree of conservatism in risk assessments and reliance on the precautionary principle (Table 3.1). All chemical sectors rely on generic predicted no-effect concentrations, PNECs, (or predicted no-adverse effect concentrations) to protect ecological populations per se in prospective ERA. Specific protection goals for ecosystems are generally limited to wider environmental / nature legislation requiring environmental monitoring and impact assessment and retrospective ERA. This is due mainly to the existence of tangible baselines or reference conditions, which help define acceptable versus unacceptable environmental effects. In some cases these specific protection goals are based on a reductionist approach and rely on population-based indicators of ecosystem health (e.g. OSPAR), while others are more holistic and therefore more in tune with the concept of the ‘ecosystem approach’ (e.g. protection of entire habitat features under the Habitats Directive, protection of aquatic ecological communities under the Water Framework Directive'). A promising yet not yet fully operational alternative is the spatially explicit, holistic and pragmatic ‘ecosystem services approach’ recently devised for plant protection products (EFSA, 2010; Nienstedt et al, 2012). We propose that better protection of ‘the environment as a whole’ will be facilitated by amalgamating this new approach with current best practices for defining ‘specific protection goals’, as identified during this review of current chemical and environmental regulations.
4. Case studies: Step 3
	4.1 Case study 1: Oil refinery – discharge into estuarine environments
		4.1.1 Rationale for level of impacts of oil refinery discharge
			Figure 4.1: Refinery discharge into estuarine environment
			Table 4.1: Potential impact of an oil refinery discharge on specific ecosystem services (green: no impact; yellow: moderate impact; red: severe impact) and potentially impacted service-providing units (SPU)
				*SPU key:  Primary producers;  Primary consumers;  Secondary consumers;  Decomposers;  Eco-engineers;  Detritivores
	4.2 Case study 2: Oil dispersants
		4.2.1 Rationale for level of impacts of dispersants in aquatic environments
			Figure 4.2: Environmental exposure route for oil dispersants
		4.2.2 Dispersant: rationale for colour coding in Table 4.2
			Table 4.2: Potential impact of dispersant use on specific ecosystem services (green: no impact; yellow: moderate impact; red: severe impact) and potentially impacted service-providing units (SPU)
				*SPU key:  Primary producers;  Primary consumers;  Secondary consumers;  Decomposers;  Eco-engineers;  Detritivores
	4.3 Case study 3: Down the drain chemicals
		4.3.1 Rationale for level of impacts of down the drain chemicals on habitats
			Figure 4.3: Emission routes of chemicals in consumer products and pharmaceuticals into the environment
			Table 4.3: Potential impact of down the drain chemicals on specific ecosystem services (green: no impact; yellow: moderate impact; red: severe impact) and potentially impacted service-providing units (SPU)
				*SPU key:  Primary producers;  Primary consumers;  Secondary consumers;  Decomposers;  Eco-engineers;  Detritivores
	4.4 Case study 4: Persistent organic pollutants (POP)
		4.4.1 Exposure assessment
			Figure 4.4: Emissions of a POP-like chemical to Arctic regions
			Table 4.4: Potential impact of Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) on specific ecosystem services (green: no impact; yellow: moderate impact; red: severe impact) and potentially impacted service-providing units (SPU)
				*SPU key:  Primary producers;  Primary consumers;  Secondary consumers;  Decomposers;  Eco-engineers;  Detritivores
In Chapter 2, the generic approach to steps 1 and 2 is described and we applied as such to the four case studies. Deviations to these two first steps were relatively few and are discussed in Chapter 7. In this section the third step in the EFSA framework is discussed for each case study, i.e. the ranking of potential impacts for each habitat x ES combination using chemical exposure and effects information.
In an attempt to describe and capture ecosystem services in relationship to chemical use and disposal in the environment, a series of scenarios have been developed as examples to better understand the potential risks to ecosystem services. Scenarios include: oil refinery emissions to an estuary, oil dispersant application at sea, down the drain chemicals, air dispersed persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Whilst the Task Force’s application of the EFSA framework follows a prospective approach to informing risk assessment (generic or site specific), we recognise that the framework can also be applied retrospectively (site specific). For example, identifying relevant ecosystem services can follow a site-specific exercise dependent upon temporal and spatial aspects of the material release or application. Elements of ecosystem services may overlap between similarly described habitats and may be an ecological entity or a physical aspect. When conducting an ecosystem services evaluation it is often necessary to utilise local experts in the fields of environment and socio-economic issues, who are familiar with the local complexities and priorities. Nevertheless the following chemical case studies are intended to cover a broad range of generic cases. Note that we have identified and considered only negative effects of the chemicals represented in the case studies. Positive, impacts may arise, e.g. indirect effects following application of oil dispersants is usually tied to oil spills. As such dispersants enhance the opportunities for water purification through material breakdown enabling micro-organisms to better feed upon contaminants.
Oil refineries are often situated in coastal locations, typically on estuaries, allowing relatively easy transport links and access to water for cooling etc. during the refining process. In this case study, the discharge from a single refinery, situated on an estuary is considered. The emission routes and subsequent movement in the environment are shown in Figure 4.1.
Refinery effluents are complex mixtures of organic and non-organic chemicals, discharged directly into the environment. Much of the chemical components will be hydrocarbons, with a non-specific mode of action, causing baseline toxicity and untreated refinery effluents discharged into an estuary have the potential to impact a wide range of SPUs, across all taxonomic groups as shown in Table 4.1. Before discharge, refinery waste waters are subjected to a variety of different physical, chemical and/or biological treatment processes that significantly reduce total emissions and their potential to cause adverse environmental effects (Comber et al, 2015).  However, for the purposes of this case study, it is assumed that the refinery effluent is not treated.
/
Dispersants are primarily used in conjunction with an oil release into an aquatic environment and predominantly into a marine environment. Dispersants are usually applied to surface oil via spray (airplane, helicopter or boat). Based upon conditions and contact accuracy their use may result in either oil, oil and dispersant mixture, or dispersant only in the water. Under correct application, low concentrations of dispersant alone may be observed in the environment but these will only persist for a few minutes in the open environment. Measured low level concentrations and the transient nature of higher concentrations should be taken into consideration when comparing dispersant application with untreated oil in a net environmental benefit analysis.
Dispersants are a blend of several surfactants that reduce the oil-water interfacial tension and work by enhancing the natural dispersal of oil (which can occur naturally via wave action) into the water column as smaller particles with greater surface area. The increased surface area enables more rapid biodegradation by micro-organisms present in the water column.
/
For the purposes of this example, dispersants will be considered as a chemical application (dispersant that did not interact with oil when applied). Dispersants are primarily utilised at low levels in offshore water with minimal depth criteria (i.e. 300 meters), but may be used in near shore applications with appropriate approval. Dispersants rapidly dilute in the open ocean (<10 ppm in minutes) and like dispersed oil, may cause temporary impacts to sensitive marine species. These are limited to the immediate spill vicinity (upper layer of water column i.e. top 10 meters) and for a short period after dispersants are applied. These impacts are generally limited to non-motile organisms that have reproductive schemes that can readily recover from large losses.
This example will attempt to identify potential ecosystem services during dispersant use in a variety of water environments including off shore (open water), near shore (coastal) and the transition zones (inlets and rivers). This example does not explicitly condone nor dismiss the use of dispersants in shallow marine or freshwater, however for the purposes of identifying ecosystem services in these zones consistent with the other scenarios, an attempt will be made to capture potential ecosystem services that might be considered in an assessment.
 This evaluation focuses on the levels of exposure and probable impact of dispersants on ecosystem services. No consideration has been given to the beneficial effects of applying dispersants during an oil spill which would disperse the oil, enable more rapid biodegradation and limit potentially greater impacts to shorelines and organisms. These benefits should be considered in a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis.
 The impact on SPUs is proposed to be primarily driven by the overall level of exposure to the dispersant – considering concentration and short-term duration of exposure.
 Exposures are expected to be in the surface mixing zone of marine waters with potential exposure in estuarine waters.
 The exposure scenario consists of dispersant application in the water column separate from any interaction with spilt oil (i.e. off target dispersant spraying).
Figure 4.3 indicates the key routes of environmental exposure to down the drain chemicals. By far the highest volumes of discharges result from end consumer use. In Europe most consumer emissions are into municipal sewerage systems which can lead to discharges of treated or untreated effluent into receiving waters or to soil as contaminants in aqueous sewage (as irrigation water) or sewage sludge (applied as fertiliser). Therefore, habitats likely to experience highest exposures are those closest to the points of discharge, i.e. lotic freshwaters and transitional waters and cropland / grassland. Coastal waters can also be the primary receiving environment but, in general, may provide greater initial dilution of effluents than freshwater systems. Lentic systems are often by-passed to avoid discharging into slowly moving water but may be exposed via inflowing lotic water. As the distance from the point of discharge increases towards the open ocean, exposure is expected to rapidly reduce because of loss processes (biotic and abiotic degradation and partitioning to solids) and further dilution. Terrestrial habitats other than cropland / grassland are unlikely to receive direct applications of aqueous sewage and sludge, and so will only be exposed via indirect routes such as transport in ground water or irrigation water.
/
The chemicals present in consumer products and pharmaceuticals represent a wide range of chemistry in terms of physico-chemical properties and mode of toxic action. A proportion of the thousands of chemicals included in these categories are considered to have a non-specific mode of action and therefore, have potential to impact a wide range of SPUs. Others may be specific physiological targets and/or have higher potency for specific taxonomic groups, e.g. antimicrobial compounds, synthetic oestrogens, etc. However, for many chemicals the breadth of potentially affected species means that the lists of potentially impacted SPU will tend to be a comprehensive listing for each ecosystem service that they deliver.
Marine
Freshwater
Terrestrial
Potentially impacted SPU*
Ecosystem service
Open ocean
Shelf
Coastal
Inlets and transitional waters
Lotic (streams and rivers)
Lentic (ponds and lakes)
Wetlands
Heathland and shrub
Woodland and forest
Grassland
Cropland
Urban
X01-03, A1-5, A7
A6, A7
A5, A7
A1-5, A7
C2
C1
D
F
G
E
I
J
EUNIS habitat code
Food
/ / / /
Fibre and fuel
Genetic resources
/ / / / /
Biochemical / natural medicines
/ / /
Ornamental resources
Provisioning services
/ / / /
Fresh water
/ / / /
Pollination
Pest and disease regulation
/ /
Climate regulation
/ /
Air quality regulation
Water regulation
/ /
Erosion regulation
/ /
Natural hazard regulation
Regulatory services
/ / /
Water purification / soil remediation / waste treatment
/ /
Spiritual and religious values
/ /
Education and inspiration
/ / / / / /
Recreation and ecotourism
/ / /
Cultural diversity and heritage
/ / /
Aesthetic values
Cultural services
Sense of place
/ / / /
Primary production and photosynthesis
/ / /
Supporting services
/ / / /
This study is based on the release of a POP-type chemical predicted to undergo long-range transport from undefined emission sources. POPs can be present in gaseous form in the atmosphere or bound to the surface of solid particles. Contamination of remote areas such as the Arctic environment can be via atmospheric, oceanic current and/or freshwater transport. POPs can undergo several cycles of transport, deposition and re-volatilisation. These processes are often strongly influenced by temperature.
The chemical is assumed to have generic characteristics, i.e. low abiotic and biotic degradation / transformation rates, a high vapour pressure and high hydrophobicity (potential to bioaccumulate). This allows for bioaccumulation in fatty tissues of living organisms and slow metabolism, which confers the compound’s persistence and accumulation in food chains.
In the last 30 years international regulations (see Chapter 3) and voluntary phase-outs have significantly reduced exposure. Nevertheless new POP like substances are regularly developed which could cause new pressures on ecosystem services in Arctic regions (Vorkamp and Riget, 2014).
Assessment of historical emissions is outside the scope of this case study and the chemical is assumed not to be locally produced in Arctic regions. The chemical is expected to have low but ubiquitous concentrations in all Arctic habitats (see Figure 4.4). It is possible that larger dilution factors in the open ocean might result in lower concentrations than those found in coastal habitats. However, such differences are small and are not considered likely to affect the major concern associated with accumulation of POPs through food webs. Although lotic and lentic freshwater habitats have been considered separately in this case study, both habitat types could have been combined into a generic freshwater habitat since the potential for exposure and food chain accumulation is likely to apply to both. Differences in exposure concentrations would be addressed in any risk assessment of the POP chemical in prioritised SPUs.
The chemical would be expected to be detected in most habitats around the globe but notably in Arctic regions due to global fate and transport processes such as atmospheric advection and polar condensation. In this study the assessment of exposure is restricted to the Arctic environment. Local transport processes could also be important, e.g. terrestrial to aquatic systems.
/
Arctic Marine
Arctic Freshwater
Arctic Terrestrial
Potentially impacted SPU*
Ecosystem service
Open ocean
Shelf
Coastal
Inlets and transitional waters
Lotic (streams and rivers)
Lentic (ponds and lakes)
Wetlands
Shrubs, heathland and tundra
Urban
X01-03, A1-5, A7
A6, A7
A5, A7
A1-5, A7
C2
C1
D
B, H
J
EUNIS habitat code
Food
/ /
Fibre and fuel
Genetic resources
Biochemical / natural medicines
Ornamental resources
Provisioning services
Fresh water
Pollination
Pest and disease regulation
Climate regulation
Air quality regulation
Water regulation
Erosion regulation
Natural hazard regulation
Water purification / soil remediation / waste treatment
Spiritual and religious values
/ /
Education and inspiration
/ / / /
Recreation and ecotourism
/ /
Cultural diversity and heritage
/ /
Aesthetic values
Cultural services
Sense of place
Primary production and photosynthesis
Soil formation and retention
Nutrient cycling
5. Case studies: Step 4
	5.1 Case study 1: Oil refinery – discharge into estuarine environments
		Table 5.1: Oil refinery – ecosystem services of concern with examples of SPUs involved in the delivery of potentially threatened services. Black: high concern; dark grey: medium concern; light grey: low concern; white: negligible concern
	5.2 Case study 2: Oil dispersants
		Table 5.2: Oil dispersants – ecosystem services of concern with examples of SPUs involved in the delivery of potentially threatened services. Black: high concern;  dark grey: medium concern; light grey: low concern; white: negligible concern
	5.3 Case study 3: Down the drain chemicals
		Table 5.3: Down the drain chemicals – ecosystem services of concern with examples of SPUs involved in the delivery of potentially threatened services.  Black: high concern; dark grey: medium concern; light grey: low concern; white: negligible concern
	5.4 Case study 4: Persistent organic pollutants
		Table 5.4: Persistent organic pollutants – ecosystem services of concern with examples of SPUs involved in the delivery of potentially threatened services.  Dark grey: medium concern; light grey: low concern; white: negligible concern
	5.5 Master Table: integration of maximum concerns from the four case studies
		Table 5.5: Summary of potential concerns, obtained by integrating all case studies. Black: high concern; dark grey: medium concern; light grey: low concern; white: negligible concern
The tables presented in this chapter were derived by combining the importance rankings of all habitat x ecosystem service combinations relevant for a certain case study with the rankings of potential impacts. The underlying tables are provided in Section 2.3 (importance rankings, same for all case studies) and Chapter 4 (impact tables, differing between case studies), respectively. The importance x impact matrix shown in Section 2.5 has been applied to identify habitat x ecosystem service combinations with different levels of concern. Only those combinations for which medium or high concern has been found were addressed in more detail. Giving priority to the most critical areas was considered a reasonable approach. No SPU examples are given in the last column if, for all habitat types of a certain ecosystem services, only low or negligible concern was obtained. If medium or high concern has been revealed, SPUs involved in delivery of the critical ecosystem services were assigned.
A master table is presented at the end of the chapter (Section 5.5) which integrates maximum concerns derived from the four case studies.
In the oil refinery case study, high concern has been revealed particularly for inlets and transitional waters (Table 5.1). This finding can be explained by the importance of this habitat type for the provision of certain ecosystem services (e.g. natural hazard regulation, recreation and ecotourism) and its potentially close proximity to the point of discharge. Oil refineries are often located on estuaries (see Section 4.1.1) and are thus in direct contact with transitional waters, which potentially leads to high levels of exposure. Medium concern has been found for a number of habitat x ecosystem service combinations. Increased concern became less frequent in habitats at larger distance from the source, i.e. shelf and particularly in the open ocean.
The oil dispersant case study indicated high concern particularly for inlets, transitional waters and for coastal habitats (Table 5.2). This finding can be explained by the importance of these habitat types for the provision of certain ES (e.g. genetic resources, recreation and ecotourism) and the potentially short distance to the point of discharge. Oil dispersants may be applied to water environments like coastal and transitional (Section 4.2.1); thus a high level of potential exposure can be assumed. Overall, increased concern (medium + high) has been found for less habitat x ecosystem service combinations than in other case studies (e.g. oil refinery or down the drain chemicals). This is linked with the comparably lower impact of these types of chemicals on the considered ecosystem services and SPUs which provide them, respectively (cf. Table 4.2, Section 4.2). The potentially lower impact (Section 4.2.1) may be due to the limited temporal and spatial occurrence of oil dispersants in (mainly marine) water bodies.
With down the drain chemicals, high concern has been revealed particularly for freshwater habitats (rivers and lakes) and for transitional waters (Table 5.3). High concern has also been detected for several cropland – ecosystem service combinations. These findings can be explained by the importance of those habitats for the provision of certain ecosystem services (e.g. cropland – food; rivers – freshwater) and their potentially short distance from the point of discharge, leading to a high level of exposure. Medium concern has been found for a number of habitat x ecosystem service combinations. It is only in habitats at longer distances from the source (i.e. shelf) and overall lower importance for the delivery of an ecosystem service that increased concern became less frequent. Combinations of medium or high concern were found for all (four) categories of ecosystem services without any clear focus on one of those groups.
Within a certain ecosystem service, medium or high concern has often been found for various habitats (e.g. genetic resources in terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats). As a consequence, the number and diversity of involved SPU is usually high. For some ecosystem services in this case study, only negligible or low concern has been found over all considered habitats. On one hand this can be explained by the ‘robustness’ of the SPUs providing a certain service; on the other hand, the expected level of exposure has to be taken into account. To give an example, terrestrial plants are involved in erosion regulation in crop- and grassland habitats. However, the potential impact of sewage sludge or sewage for irrigation is not considered to be strong enough to significantly impair this service, i.e. the plant cover will most probably not be destroyed.
In the POP case study, none of the habitats taken into account (Table 5.4) were identified as being of high concern; indeed medium concern was determined only for a low number of habitat x ecosystem service combinations. This can be explained by the assumed low impact of POP-type chemicals on most ecosystem services due to the expected low concentrations in pristine areas (cf. Table 4.4, Section 4.4). When severe impact on a certain ecosystem service was assumed (e.g. in the case of food provision), this resulted in only medium concern because the respective habitats were considered to be of no more than intermediate importance for delivery of this service.
A master version of the case study Tables 5.1 to 5.4 was made by taking the highest level of concern for each habitat x ES cell. From the habitats perspective, the pattern in Table 5.5 shows that high concern was particularly apparent for habitats in the transition between freshwater and marine. This result is clearly driven by the selection of the case studies and the related proximity to the sources of pollution, combined with the ‘sensitivity’ of some services and the organisms which provide them. In contrast, in more remote habitats (e.g. shelf, open ocean), high concern regarding the delivery of different ecosystem services is the exception.
The integration of the different case studies produced high concern combinations in all (four) ecosystem services categories with no clear focus on any one category. The highest frequency of concern across habitats was found for the services ‘genetic resources’ and ‘recreation and ecotourism’, which are not habitat specific and are generally perceived to be particularly susceptible to negative impacts by chemicals. In this context it should be noted that the ecosystem service ‘genetic resources’ is treated inconsistently by different authorities. While the definition of this ecosystem service used in this report is rather strict with a clear focus on genetic information suitable for animal and plant breeding and biotechnology (cf. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005b), the term is sometimes used synonymously with biodiversity. As a consequence, all species would be considered to be potentially important sources of genetic information. This leads to the numerous habitats in which this ecosystem service is considered to be of high importance and to the relatively large number of high concern combinations (see Table 2.3 in Chapter 2). In 2015, EFSA published guidance to define protection goals for environmental risk assessment in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services (EFSA 2015). This guidance outlines the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services and helps rectify the consideration of genetic resources in defining protection goals.
The provisioning service ‘food’ is also assumed to be sensitive to chemical pollutants; however, the prevailing medium concern in this example can be explained by the lower importance of exposed habitats in delivering this service (cf. Table 2.3, Chapter 2).
6. Case studies: Step 5 Deriving specific protection goals
	Table 6.1: Potential definitions of sustainable (acceptable) impacts
		* Some level of impact may be sustainable beyond the conventionally accepted mixing zone i.e. >100 m depending on magnitude and duration of impact and also functional redundancy amongst SPUs.
	Table 6.2: Ecosystem Service – Food provisioning
	Table 6.3: Ecosystem Service – Genetic resources
	Table 6.4: Ecosystem Service – Natural hazard regulation
		* Limited functional redundancy, i.e. only a few highly specialised species are expected to provide this service (example: Spartina in saltmarshes); thus, although functional aspects are in focus, the ecological entity may therefore be the population
	Table 6.5: Ecosystem Service – Water purification / soil remediation / waste treatment
		* Some level of impact may be sustainable beyond the conventionally accepted mixing zone i.e. >100 m depending on magnitude and duration of impact and also functional redundancy amongst SPUs
	Table 6.6: Ecosystem Service – Nutrient cycling
	Table 6.7: Ecosystem Service – Recreation and eco-tourism
In this section, the derivation and description of SPGs for selected ecosystem services is presented based on the combined outcome for case studies in step 4 (Table 5.5). The ecosystem services selected to illustrate the approach represent those considered to be of potentially high concern (relatively more habitat x ecosystem service cells prioritised as high or medium concern of chemical impact) and include food provisioning, genetic resources, natural hazard regulation, water purification / soil remediation / waste treatment, recreation and ecotourism and nutrient cycling.
The order of the columns in Table 6 was changed from the original table proposed by EFSA (2010), in order to describe chronologically the derivation of SPGs for SPUs, prioritised in previous steps for each chemical case study (Section 4). Nevertheless SPGs are ultimately framed in five dimensions according to EFSA’s guidance: ecological entity (individuals, (meta)populations, functional groups); attributes (process / behaviour, abundance / biomass); magnitude of impact; temporal and spatial scale of impact. The degree of certainty that the specified level of impact will not be exceeded was not addressed. The final column ‘legal requirement’ in Table 6 provides a reference against which the SPGs derived by using the EFSA framework can be checked. NB the listed legal requirements relate to the SPUs specified in each row.
The Task Force concluded that more ecological knowledge is required to define the maximum magnitude of impact that would still enable the sustainable delivery of an ecosystem service by an SPU. There is a need to define acceptable / sustainable levels of impact more explicitly than currently defined in EFSA’s guidance (EFSA, 2010) and in environmental regulations (Section 3). There is some existing guidance for defining spatio-temporal scales of impact, for example in EFSA’s aquatic ERA guidance document (EFSA, 2013). EFSA adopts two approaches: ‘ecological threshold option’ and the ‘ecological recovery option’.  The ecological threshold option focuses on the identifying the maximum tolerable impact on the entity/attribute of concern in order to protect the ecosystem service of interest. The scientific challenge here is to have sufficient knowledge to be able to link ecological changes to changes in ecosystem service delivery (i.e. ecological production functions) and to identify thresholds of ecological change at which ecosystem service delivery is affected. Given the uncertainties associated with identifying thresholds, a precautionary approach is to assume that ‘maximum tolerable impact’ is ‘no/negligible impact’.
The recovery option considers some impacts at limited spatial and temporal scales to be acceptable assuming that full recovery occurs.  The scientific challenge here, in addition to establishing ecological production functions, is understanding recovery processes within a landscape context and the spatio-temporal dynamics of ecosystem service delivery.
In addition, there are the risk managers to consider, who may, for non-scientific reasons, find certain risks acceptable or not acceptable.  Examples here may be the focus on the individual-level for vertebrates and the more stringent controls on effects for GMOs.
The Task Force considered that the magnitude of an acceptable impact will differ between SPUs and would depend upon factors such as natural variation or fluctuations, which could be determined from retrospective analysis of control or reference data. The Task Force also suggested higher magnitudes of effect might be tolerable / sustainable for shorter periods and/or smaller areas of exposure according to the principle that all three dimensions of impact scale are inter-linked (EFSA, 2010; EFSA, 2013), but their relation to real world tolerance has yet to be proven.
As stated above, the magnitude and scale of acceptable impacts need to be defined by risk managers based on underpinning science, together with other considerations.  One important consideration being that an acceptable impact needs to be measurable, to ensure protection goals are met.   For illustrative purposes, an example of how this might be done is given in Table 6.1 and followed throughout Tables 6.2 – 6.7. The spatial scales of impact used are considered suitable for application at three different scales: i) local impacts within 0.1 km of the source / site of exposure, e.g. field margins, edge of field ditches, shore line, river mixing zones; ii) landscape impacts up to 1 km e.g. agricultural, urban or natural and iii) regional scale impacts ranging over distances exceeding 1 km. A linear measure is applied for each SPU/habitat combination which can represent a measure of length, e.g. in the case of flowing water bodies, or of area (as a measure of the radius from the central point of exposure), e.g. for static water bodies and terrestrial habitats. In both cases these metrics are intended to be indicative of scale and require case by case evaluation when used in the derivation of specific protection goals.
The following definitions of ‘sustainable’ levels of impact are based on the premise that effects would be unsustainable if any one of the three dimensions of effect are exceeded. As stated above these proposals are for illustrative purposes only.   They are offered as a means of stimulating debate that requires both scientific underpinning and risk manager involvement to agree actual definitions.
Rules of thumb for designating spatial scale of impact:
 If legal requirement includes EC Regulation 1107/2009 – consider field to edge of field (at least initially).
 If legal requirement includes Habitats Directive – consider specific ‘interest feature’ protected under the Directive.
 If legal requirement includes WFD – consider water body level.
 If ecosystem service is a cultural service – consider landscape or water body level.
Rules of thumb for designating temporal scale of impact:
 If ecosystem service is a cultural service – consider weeks to months (visible growing seasonal).
 If ecosystem service is a supporting service – consider all year round importance and how temporal scale is applicable.
 If attribute includes taxonomic richness or genetic diversity – consider all year round importance, therefore temporal scale may not be applicable, unless some contributing species are migratory.
7. Discussion and Conclusions
	7.1 Discussion
		Steps 1 and 2: Construct a habitat x ecosystem service matrix and assign importance rankings
		Step 3: Ranking potential impact for habitat x ecosystem service combinations using exposure and effects information
		Step 4: Categorising the level of concern for exposed ecosystem services
		Step 5: Defining SPGs for ecosystem services of high and medium concern
	7.2 Conclusions
In considering the EFSA framework developed for pesticides in a broader chemical context and in applying the framework to several case studies, the Task Force found the approach to be conceptually straightforward and logical. However, there were many points in the framework where additional information and more detailed guidance will be required for general applicability to all chemical sectors, including pesticides. A strong theme throughout the Task Force application of the framework was the importance of prioritising at each step in order to manage the time and effort required.  This discussion outlines the key development needs that the Task Force identified at each step.
The first two steps can be considered as i) the development of a reference table of habitats and ii) their importance for ecosystem service provision. This is essential information for the framework approach and although these two steps were considered in that order for the case studies, identification of which habitats would be expected to be exposed to specific chemicals would also be an initial step in applying the framework.
The habitat x ecosystem service matrix provides a flexible method for selecting relevant habitats and then drawing on expert assessments of the importance these habitats can be in providing ESs. The Task Force considered the EUNIS habitat typology a good, multi-level hierarchical classification. Although the case studies developed by the Task Force generally applied habitat classifications at a similar hierarchical level across all habitats, in principle, the hierarchy could effectively use different levels of resolution as required. It is clear that the matrix presented in Table 2.3 requires further work to extend the assessment to all combinations of habitats and ecosystem services. Levels of importance (+ to +++) were collated from key publications that compared multiple ecosystem services across multiple habitats.  Additional information was added by the Task Force where supporting knowledge was available to enable the case studies to better assess specific habitat importance. These were mostly the marine habitats (i.e marine inlets and transitional waters; coastal areas; shelf; open ocean). Sparsely vegetated land was not generally considered in the Task Force case studies, because of low exposure in most case studies and insufficient knowledge.
The matrix can be used with various levels of habitat resolution, for example, all fresh water habitats could be considered as one generic habitat or could be sub-divided into lotic and lentic habitats. Further differentiation of lotic or lentic habitats might also be appropriate for specific chemical emissions, although this level of information would require further development. The down the drain chemicals case study assessed lotic and lentic fresh water habitats separately since exposure of lotic systems was expected to be higher than lentic systems in most cases.
The use of all types of ecosystem services in the initial steps of the framework, as recommended by Maes et al (2014) and EFSA (2010), was considered important in identifying the key SPUs. The Task Force did not consider the completeness of the list but did not identify any gaps arising from the four case studies. Deviations from the EFSA approach included the combining of primary production with photosynthesis where the Task Force considered the SPUs to be essentially similar and the exclusion of abiotic ecosystem services such as oil (for fuel) and flowing water (for power generation), since these were not provided via biotic SPUs. Explicitly including SPUs that provide supporting and other intermediate services was considered a more explicit and informed approach to deriving key groups of SPUs and, therefore, in any subsequent identification of testing strategies for risk assessing the potential impacts on SPGs.
The treatment of biodiversity in the habitat x ecosystem service matrix was identified as a topic requiring further discussion. The Task Force recognised the importance of addressing biodiversity in relation to ecosystem services and adopted the position that biodiversity underpins the delivery of all ecosystem services that are dependent on biotic processes and specific components of biodiversity are explicitly addressed in many individual ecosystem services (e.g. genetic resources, ornamental resources, pollination, pest control, aesthetic value, etc).  Biodiversity, as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity, was considered part of natural capital and not an ecosystem service per se as its inclusion as an ecosystem service would lead to the protection of ‘everything, everywhere’, which is too generic and vague to be useful for scientific risk assessment.  Therefore, the TF did not consider biodiversity as a discrete ecosystem service.  The Task Force identified potential confusion between genetic resources and biodiversity, i.e. both terms could be interpreted as meaning the same ecosystem service. These are defined as completely different ecosystem services and misinterpreting genetic diversity with biodiversity also adds to the issue outlined above. Familiarity with the definitions of ecosystem services and other terms is an important requirement if the EFSA framework is to be applied correctly and efficiently.
The Task Force found the preparation of schematic diagrams of potential routes of exposure helpful in assessing the relative level of exposure each of the habitats could experience from specific chemicals in the case studies. Inclusion of such schematic figures provides a simple and effective communication of exposure. The use of a three coloured traffic light approach proved adequate in ranking and differentiating levels of concern. However, the Task Force observed that different individuals scored (coloured) some cells differently in different case studies, i.e. there were differences in judgement of level of concern. Additional experience and guidance would help minimise such differences. In those case studies where chemical exposure or importance of the habitat for specific ecosystem service provision was negligible for a habitat or a specific ecosystem service, then that row or column in the matrix was dropped from further consideration, e.g. urban, woodland and forest, heathland and shrub, sparsely vegetated land, open ocean. Note that forest habitats could potentially be impacted by POPs, particularly in high altitude Alpine areas, in which atmospheric distillation takes place. Again, the use of a simple traffic light approach helps identify these cases.
The Task Force initially aimed to only use the relative level of exposure to rank the level of concern for each habitat x ecosystem service combination. Although exposure was indeed acknowledged as the main driver along with importance of habitats for ecosystem service provision, additional chemical-related factors were also identified and applied. These refinements are described in Chapter 4 and include use of prior knowledge of chemical fate, behaviour and toxicity such as contamination of the (human) food chain, the range of potentially impacted species (more species exposed may lead to broader potential impacts, unless there is scope for compensation via functional redundancy) and the potential for both direct and indirect chemical impacts. There was also potential for additional factors to lead to reduced ranking, for example, due to the lower sensitivity of micro-organisms compared to higher organisms.
Assessing the level of potential impact due to chemical exposure was difficult for some ecosystem services. This was particularly pertinent for cultural services, for example education and inspiration could be considered likely to be always potentially impacted if the relevant habitats are exposed. Also, there can be differences in how different cultures perceive and value ecosystem services. Additional research to document and reference such differences would reduce uncertainties and inaccuracies in assessing levels of concern for impacts on cultural ecosystem services.
Although the identification of SPUs in this step is needed, the use of icons representative of the main taxonomic and functional groups was considered an appropriate level of resolution and a helpful summary at this step in the framework.
In order to streamline the assessment of exposed habitat x ecosystem service combinations, the Task Force devised a prioritisation matrix (Chapter 2, Table 2.6). Only those combinations assessed as medium or high concern were investigated further in the case studies. This was simply to focus the Task Force resources on the combinations of higher concern, although including prioritising steps into the framework in general use is an important option to help align resources to the required level of assessment. Those combinations considered to be of low concern may still be important depending on the requirements of the specific protection goal description, i.e. how comprehensive it needs to be in informing subsequent risk assessment.
At this step, the Task Force ensured that potentially impacted service providing units in habitat and ecosystem service combinations identified as medium and high concern were identified at a suitable level of resolution for subsequent specific protection goal description. Access to reference tables of the key service providing units likely to occur in specific habitats helps complete this task and aids consistency. Since each habitat x ecosystem service cell requires relevant service providing units to be listed, the Task Force adopted a numerical superscript to simplify presentation of this information.
Population and application of the tables reported in Chapter 6 was made with a high degree of uncertainty. This was because of the lack of detailed guidance and knowledge in deciding ecological entities, attributes and especially scale of potential impact. The Task Force considered that the six dimensions in EFSA’s guidance (ecological entity, attributes, magnitude of effect, temporal and spatial scale of effect and the degree of certainty required) provide a good basis for describing specific protection goals. However, more ecological knowledge is required in order for risk managers to define the acceptable magnitude and scale of impact based on underpinning science, together with other considerations. The Task Force did not assess the level of uncertainty required because of insufficient experience and guidance.
There is clearly a complex range of regulatory guidance to consider (see Chapter 3) but there remains a general lack of detail on specific protection goals in all but a few legal instruments. One notable exception is the derivation of ecological quality objectives under OSPAR, which clearly defines acceptable magnitudes, spatial and temporal scales of impact for key indicators or ecological populations in the North Sea (Table C1.3). For the most effective use of the ecosystem service approach, i.e. to utilise a habitat focus for setting specific protection goals, guidance on application of the various chemical sector specific regulations to land use scenarios is required. The Task Force considered that the use of legal requirement information should be made explicit, i.e. whether it is used to inform the specific protection goal or to use as additional information to ensure that a subsequent risk assessment is appropriately scoped.
The scope of the Task Force objectives effectively concluded with the derivation of specific protection goals for selected case studies. How these specific protection goals might be used in subsequent chemical risk assessment (prospective and retrospective) was not considered, but this is a key next step in practical application of the EFSA framework. In addition to the development of testing and modelling approaches needed to assess impacts on the service providing units that underpin specific protection goals, there is a need to define acceptable effects from unacceptable ‘adverse’ environmental effects, e.g. using retrospective or diagnostic methods.
Applying the ecosystem services concept to derive environmental specific protection goals brings the potential for greater spatial resolution in chemical risk assessment, i.e. specific protection goals can be derived for specific land-uses or landscape typologies. It, therefore, can be considered as one approach that could facilitate increasing the environmental relevance of risk assessments, a need identified by several scientific advisory groups, e.g. EC Scientific Committees. Whilst increasing environmental relevance in this way has scientific merit, the practical outcome of defining spatially explicit protection goals to inform risk assessment for a range of chemical sectors requires further investigation and evaluation. The Task Force recommends that such further work is initiated to more fully determine the practical application of the ecosystem services approach. One such activity is the CEFIC LRi project, ECO 27, Chemicals: Assessment of Risks to Ecosystem Services (CARES), which was initiated in 2015 to gain a consensus between regulatory, academic and industrial stakeholders for a road map for implementing an ecosystem services approach to informing chemical risk assessment. The project will be completed early 2017.
The EFSA framework represents a top-down approach for deriving specific protection goals for habitats expected to be exposed to specified anthropogenic chemicals. In principle, the framework can be applied to a broad range of chemicals and exposure scenarios. With modifications, clarity on terminology / definitions and further development and guidance, the framework could provide a methodical approach for the identification and prioritisation of ecosystems and services which are most at risk. Prioritised habitats and key service providing units could form the focus for subsequent risk assessment.
Glossary
Biodiversity “The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” (UN Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), Article 2, 1992a).
Ecosystem “The system composed of physical-chemical-biological processes active within a space-time unit of any magnitude” (Lindeman, 1942).
“A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit” (UN, 1992a).
Ecosystem approach “Environmental management based on our best understanding of the ecological interactions and processes necessary to sustain ecosystem composition, structure and function” (Christensen et al, 1996).
Ecosystem services (ES) Direct and indirect contribution of ecosystems to human well-being (TEEB, 2010a).
“The benefits people derive from ecosystems – the support of sustainable human well-being that ecosystems provide” (Costanza et al, 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005b) … “arising from the interaction of society, the built economy, and ecosystems (social, built and natural capital)” (Costanza et al, 2014).
Ecosystem services approach Establishing “the linkages between ecosystem structures and process functioning … which are understood to … lead directly or indirectly to valued human welfare benefits” (Turner and Daily, 2008).
Final services Those components of nature that are enjoyed, consumed or used to yield human well-being (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007).
Intermediate services Those components of nature that are not enjoyed, consumed or used directly to yield human well-being (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007).
Natural Capital The elements of nature that directly or indirectly produce value or benefits to people, including ecosystems, species, freshwater, land, minerals, the air and oceans, as well as natural processes and functions (UK NCC, 2014).
“The biophysical components of ecosystems – land, water, air, minerals, biodiversity” (Costanza, 2008).
Service-providing units (SPU) Biological components that provide, or might provide in the future, a recognised ecosystem service at some temporal or spatial scale (Luck et al, 2003).
Abbreviations
AEL Associated Emission Level
AQFD Air Quality Framework Directive
BAP Biodiversity Action Plan
BAT Best Available Techniques
BD Birds Directive
BPR Biocidal Products Regulation
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CICES Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
CLPR Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation
CMS Convention on Migratory Species
CNP Carbon:Nitrogen:Phosphorus
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
COMAH Control of Major Accident Hazard
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
EC European Commission
EcoQO Ecological Quality Objective
ED Endocrine Disruptor
Ee Eco-engineers
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EFSA European Food Safety Authority
ELD Environmental Liability Directive
ELVs Emission Limit Values
E-PRTR European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
EQSD Environmental Quality Standards Directive
EQSs Environmental Quality Standards
ERA Environmental Risk Assessment
EU European Union
EUNIS European Nature Information System
FCS Favourable Conservation Status
FSA Food Standards Agency
FSR Food Standards Regulations
GES Good Environmental Status
GPD Groundwater Protection Directive
HD Habitats Directive
IED Industrial Emissions Directive
IPCS International Programme for Chemical Safety
MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MAES Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services
MPHU Medicinal Products for Human Use
MPVU Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use
MS Member State
MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive
OSPAR Oslo Paris Commission
PBT Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic
PEC Predicted Environmental Concentration
PNEC Predicted No-Effect Concentration
POP Persistent organic pollutants
PPP Plant Protection Products
PPPR Plant Protection Products Regulations
QSR Quality Status Report
REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
SAICM Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management
SC Stockholm Convention
SCCS Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety
SCENIHR Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
SCHER Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks
SPA Special Protection Area
SPGs Specific Protection Goals
SPU Service-providing units
SSAD Sewage Sludge Application Directive
TAG Technical Advisory Group
TBT Tributyltin
TEEB The Economics for Ecosystems and Biodiversity
TGD Technical Guidance Document
TSS Thematic Soil Strategy
UN United Nations
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
US EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
WFD Water Framework Directive
WTP Willingness to pay
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Bibliography
Bayne BL. 1975. Aspects of physiological condition in Mytilus edulis (L), with special reference to the effects of oxygen tension and salinity. In Barnes H, ed, Proceedings of the 9th European Marine Biology Symposium. Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen, UK, pp 213-238.
Beder S. 2006. Environmental Principles and Policies: An interdisciplinary introduction. Earthscan, London, UK (reprinted 2010), pp 304.
Boxall AB, Rudd MA, Brooks BW, Caldwell DJ, Choi K, Hickmann S, Innes E, Ostapyk K, Staveley JP, Verslycke T, Ankley GT, Beazley KF, Belanger SE, Berninger JP, Carriquiriborde P, Coors A, DeLeo PC, Dyer SD, Ericson JF, Gagné F, Giesy JP, Gouin T, Hallstrom L, Karlsson MV, Larsson DGJ, Lazorchak JM, Mastrocco F, McLaughlin A, McMaster ME, Meyerhoff RD, Moore R, Parrott JL, Snape JR, Murray-Smith R, Servos MR, Sibley PK, Straub JO, Szabo ND, Topp E, Tetreault GR, Trudeau VL, Van Der Kraak G. 2012. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: What are the big questions? Environ Health Perspect 120(9):1221-1229.
Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are Ecosystem Services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63(2-3):616-626.
Braat LC, de Groot R. 2012. The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services 1(1):4-15.
Brock TCM, Arts GHP, Maltby L, Van den Brink PJ. 2006. Aquatic risks of pesticides, ecological protection goals, and common aims in European Union legislation. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2(4):e20-e46.
Brown AR, Hosken DJ, Balloux F, Bickley LK, LePage G, Owen SF, Hetheridge MJ, Tyler CR. 2009. Genetic variation, inbreeding and chemical exposure – combined effects in wildlife and critical considerations for ecotoxicology. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364(1534):3377-3390.
Brown AR, Gunnarsson L, Kristiansson E, Tyler CR. 2014. Assessing variation in the potential susceptibility of fish to pharmaceuticals, considering evolutionary differences in their physiology and ecology. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 369(1656). pii: 20130576.
Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59-67.
CBD SBSTTA (Convention on Biological Diversity, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice). 2000. Recommendation V/10 Ecosystem approach: further conceptual elaboration. Recommendations adopted by the SBSTTA fifth meeting, 31 January - 4 February 2000, Montreal. https://www.cbd.int/doc/recommendations/sbstta-05/full/sbstta-05-rec-en.pdf
CDOIF (Chemical and Downstream Oil Industries Forum). 2013. Guideline: Environmental risk tolerability for COMAH establishments, version 1. HSE, London, UK. http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/committees/cif/environmental-risk-assessment.pdf
CEFIC. 2013. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – What are they all about? http://www.cefic.org/Documents/IndustrySupport/RC tools for SMEs/Document Tool Box/Biodiversity-and-Ecosystem-services_What-are-they-all-about.pdf
Chapman PM. 2002. Integrating toxicology and ecology: putting the “eco” into ecotoxicology. Mar Pollut Bull 44(1):7-15.
Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S, D’Antonio C, Francis R, Franklin JF, MacMahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ, Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee RG. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6(3):665-691.
CMS. 1979. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (as amended 2003). http://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/instrument/cms_convtxt_english.pdf
Comber MHI, Girling A, den Haan KH, Whale G. 2015. Oil Refinery Experience with the Assessment of Refinery Effluents and Receiving Waters Using Biologically Based Methods. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Volume 11, Number 4. pp. 653–665
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260.
Costanza R. 2008. Natural capital. In Cleveland CJ, ed, Encyclopedia of Earth [online]. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Natural_capital
Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 26:152-158.
DETR. 1999. Guidance on the Interpretation of Major Accident to the Environment for the Purposes of the COMAH Regulations. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. HMSO, Norwich, UK, pp 48.
Devos Y, Romeis J, Luttik R, Maggiore A, Perry JN, Schoonjans R, Streissl F, Tarazona JV, Brock TCM. 2015. Optimising environmental risk assessments. EMBO Reports 16:1060-1063.
EC. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Communities L 327/1-72 of 22.12.2000. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02000L0060-20090625&from=EN
EC. 2001. Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Off J Eur Communities L 311/67-128 of 28.11.2001. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:311:0067:0128:en:PDF
EC. 2004. Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. Off J Eur Union L 143/56-75 of 30.04.2004. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32004L0035&from=EN
EC. 2006a. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Off J Eur Union L 396/1-849 of 30.12.2006. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R1907&from=en
EC. 2006b. COM/2006/0231 Final. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. Commission of the European Communities. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0231:FIN:EN:PDF
EC. 2006c. COM/2006/0232 Final. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/CE. Commission of the European Communities. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0232:FIN:EN:PDF
EC. 2006d. Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration. Off J Eur Union L 372/19-31 of 27.12.2006. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006L0118&from=EN
EC. 2006e. Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and amending Council Directives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC. Off J Eur Union L 33/1-17 of 04.02.2006. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:033:0001:0017:EN:PDF
EC. 2008a. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Off J Eur Union L 164/19-40 of 25.06.2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056&from=en
EC. 2008b. Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. Off J Eur Union L 152/1-44 of 11.06.2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:152:0001:0044:EN:PDF
EC. 2008c. Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. Off J Eur Union L 353/1-1355 of 31.12.2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:353:0001:1355:en:PDF
EC. 2008d. Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Off J Eur Union L 348/84-97 of 24.12.2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:348:0084:0097:EN:PDF
EC. 2009a. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Off J Eur Union L 309/1-50 of 24.11.2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:309:0001:0050:EN:PDF
EC. 2009b. Commission Directive 2009/9/EC of 10 February 2009 amending Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for veterinary use. Off J Eur Union L 44/10-61 of 14.02.2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:044:0010:0061:EN:PDF
EC. 2011a. COM/2011/0571 Final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. European Commission. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0571:FIN:EN:PDF
EC. 2011b. COM/2011/0244 Final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. European Commission. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0244:FIN:EN:PDF
EC. 2011c. Assessment and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Reporting formats for the period 2007-2012. Art.17 Reporting Formats 2007-2012. European Commission. http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/monitoring/Art_17_Reporting_Formats.pdf
EC. 2012. Commission note on setting conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/commission_note2.pdf
EC. 2013. COM/2013/0249 Final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. pp 11 06.05.2013. European Commission. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0249:FIN:EN:PDF
EC. 2014. General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020. Living well, within the limits of our planet. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg pp 87. ftp://ftp.unccd.int/disk1/Library/Adlib_Catalogued_books/340_Publication7EAP%28EN%29.pdf
EEC. 1979. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Off J Eur Communities L 103/1-18 of 25.04.1979. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31979L0409:en:HTML
EEC. 1986. Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture. Off J Eur Communities L 181/6-12 of 04.07.1986. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31986L0278&from=EN
EEC. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off J Eur Communities L 206/7-50 of 22.07.1992. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043&from=EN
EFSA. 2010. EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR). Scientific Opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecotoxicology (SANCO/3268/2001 and SANCO/10329/2002). European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy. EFSA Journal 8(10):1821 [55 pp]. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1821.pdf
EFSA. 2013. EFSA Guidance Document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy. EFSA Journal 11(7):3295 [268 pp]. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3295.pdf
EFSA. 2014a. 19th Scientific Colloquium on Biodiversity as Protection Goal in Environmental Risk Assessment for EU Agro-ecosystems. Summary report, European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/doc/583e.pdf
EFSA. 2014b. EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR). Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non-target terrestrial plants. European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy. EFSA Journal 12(7):3800 [163 pp]. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3800.pdf
EU. 2010a. Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (Recast). Off J Eur Union L 334/17-119 of 17.12.2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075&from=EN
EU. 2010b. Regulation 1235/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 on amending, as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products. Off J Eur Union L 348/1-16 of 31.12.2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:348:0001:0016:EN:PDF
EU. 2010c. Commission Decision 2010/477/EU of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (notified under document C(2010)5956). Off J Eur Union L 232/14-24 of 02.09.2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010D0477%2801%29&from=EN
EU. 2011. Commission Regulation (EU) No 546/2011 of 10 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards uniform principles for evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products. Off J Eur Union L 155/127-175 of 11.06.2011. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:155:0127:0175:EN:PDF
EU. 2012a. Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products. Off J Eur Union L 167/1-122 of 27.06.2012. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:167:0001:0123:EN:PDF
EU. 2012b. Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the Control of Major-Accident Hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC. Off J Eur Union L 197/1-37 of 24.07.2012. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012L0018&from=EN
EU. 2012c. Directive 2012/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels. Off J Eur Union L 327/1-13 of 27.11.2012. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012L0033&from=EN
Forbes VE, Calow P, Sibly RM. 2008. The extrapolation problem and how population modeling can help. Environ Toxicol Chem 27(10):1987-1994.
Forbes VE, Calow P, Grimm V, Hayashi TI, Jager T, Katholm A, Palmqvist A, Pastorok R, Salvito D, Sibly R, Spromberg J, Stark J, Stillman RA. 2011. Adding value to ecological risk assessment with population modeling. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 17(2):287-299.
French Environmental Code. Article L 110-1 paragraph II. http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/1963/13739/version/3/file/Code_40.pdf
GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution). 1986. Environmental Capacity. An approach to marine pollution prevention. Rep Stud GESAMP No. 30, pp 49.
Gómez-Baggethun E, Gren Å, Barton DN, Langemeyer J, McPhearson T, O’Farrell P, Andersson E, Hamstead Z, Kremer P. 2013. Chapter 11: Urban ecosystem services. In Elmqvist T et al, eds, Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities: A Global Assessment. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_11
Groffman PM, Baron JS, Blett T, Gold AJ, Goodman I, Gunderson LH, Levinson BM, Palmer MA, Paerl HW, Peterson GD, LeRoy Poff N, Rejeski DW, Reynolds JF, Turner MG, Weathers KC, Wiens J. 2006. Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9(1):1-13. http://landscape.zoology.wisc.edu/People/Turner/groffman2006ecosys.pdf
Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2008. England’s Terrestrial Ecosystem Services and the Rationale for an Ecosystem Approach. Full Technical Report, pp 89, Defra Project Code NR0107 (Table 4.2, p 25). http://www.ecosystemservices.org.uk/reports.htm
Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. www.cices.eu
Hanley N, Barbier EB. 2009. Pricing nature: Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, London, UK, pp 353.
Harrison PA, Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Berry PM, Bugter R, de Bello F, Feld CK, Grandin U, Harrington R, Haslett JR, Jongman RHG, Luck GW, Martins da Silva P, Moora M, Settele J, Sousa JP, Zobel M. 2010. Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv 19(10):2791-2821.
Hommen U, Baveco JM, Galic N, van den Brink PJ. 2010. Potential application of ecological models in the European environmental risk assessment of chemicals. I: Review of protection goals in EU directives and regulations. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6(3):325-337.
Ibrahim L, Preuss TG, Ratte HT, Hommen U. 2013. 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. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 20(4):2679-2687.
IFPRI, GIPB (International Food Policy Research Institute, Global Partnership Initiative for Plant Breeding Capacity Building). 2008. Plant Genetic Resources for Agriculture, Plant Breeding, and Biotechnology: Experiences from Cameroon, Kenya, the Philippines, and Venezuela. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00762, April 2008. 60 pp. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/ifpridp00762.pdf
IUCN. 2012. The IUCN red list of threatened species™: 2001 Categories and Criteria (version 3.1). International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/RL-2001-001-2nd.pdf
Koeppel AF, Wu M. 2013. Surprisingly extensive mixed phylogenetic and ecological signals among bacterial Operational Taxonomic Units. Nucleic Acids Res 41(10):5175-5188.
KPMG and NVI (Natural Value Initiative). 2011. Biodiversity and ecosystem services. Risk and opportunity analysis within the pharmaceutical sector. 32 pp. http://www.naturalvalueinitiative.org/download/documents/Publications/Biodiversity%20and%20Ecosystem%20Services%20report%20July%202011.pdf
Landers DH, Nahlik AM. 2013. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS). EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA.
Lindeman RL. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23(4):399-417.
Luck GW, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR. 2003. Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 18(7):331-336.
Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Liquete C, Braat L, Berry P, Egoh BN, Puydarrieux P, Fiorina C, Santos-Martín F, Paracchini ML, Keune H, Wittmer H, Hauck J, Fiala I, Verburg PH, Condé S, Schägner JP, San Miguel-Ayanz J, Estreguil C, Ostermann OP, Barredo Cano JI, Pereira HM, Stott A, Laporte V, Meiner A, Olah B, Royo Gelabert E, Spyropoulou R, Petersen J-E, Maguire C, Zal N, Achilleos E, Rubin A, Ledoux L, Murphy P, Fritz M, Brown C, Raes C, Jacobs S, Raquez P, Vandewalle M, Connor D, Bidoglio G. 2013. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf
Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Murphy P, Paracchini ML, Barredo Cano JI, Grizzetti B, Cardoso A, Somma F, Petersen J-E, Meiner A, Royo Gelabert E, Zal N, Kristensen P, Bastrup-Birk A, Biala K, Romao C, Piroddi C, Egoh BN, Fiorina C, Santos-Martín F, Naruševičius V, Verboven J, Pereira HM, Bengtsson J, Gocheva K, Marta-Pedroso C, Snäll T, Estreguil C, San Miguel J, Braat L, Grêt-Regamey A, Perez-Soba M, Degeorges P, Beaufaron G, Lillebø A, Abdul Malak D, Liquete C, Condé S, Moen J, Östergård H, Czúcz B, Drakou EG, Zulian G, Lavalle C. 2014. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. Indicators for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 2nd Report – Final, February 2014. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/2ndMAESWorkingPaper.pdf
Maltby L. 2013. Ecosystem services and the protection, restoration, and management of ecosystems exposed to chemical stressors. Environ Toxicol Chem 32(5):974-983.
Meissle M, Álvarez-Alfageme F, Malone LA, Romeis J. 2012. 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. In Supporting Publications: 2012:EN-334. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy, pp 170. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/334e.htm
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005a. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 100 pages.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005b. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 155 pages.
Moe SJ, De Schamphelaere K, Clements WH, Sorensen MT, Van den Brink PJ, Liess M. 2013. Combined and interactive effects of global climate change and toxicants on populations and communities. Environ Toxicol Chem 32(1):49-61.
Nahlik AM, Kentula ME, Fennessy MS, Landers DH. 2012. Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecol Econ 77:27-35.
National Research Council. 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Nienstedt KM, Brock TCM, van Wensem J, Montforts M, Hart A, Aagaard A, Alix A, Boesten J, Bopp SK, Brown C, Capri E, Forbes VE, Köpp H, Liess M, Luttik R, Maltby L, Sousa JP, Streissl F, Hardy AR. 2012. Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides. Sci Total Environ 415(1):31-38.
Norton BG. 1992. A new paradigm for environmental management. In Costanza R, Norton BG, Haskell BD, eds, Ecosystem Health: New goals for environmental management. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp 23-41.
OECD. 2015. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/oecdguidelinesforthetestingofchemicals.htm
OSPAR. 1992. Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. (as amended 2007). http://www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/ospar_convention_e_updated_text_2007.pdf
OSPAR. 2009. Report of the Utrecht Workshop - Regional assessment. Publication Number 468/2009. OSPAR Commission. http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/p00468_Utrecht_workshop_report.pdf
OSPAR. 2010. The OSPAR system of ecological quality objectives for the North Sea. Quality Status Report 2010. http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/EcoQO/EcoQO_P01-16_complete.pdf
Ragas AMJ. 2011. Trends and challenges in risk assessment of environmental contaminants. J Integr Environ Sci 8(3):195-218.
SAICM (Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, United Nations Environment Programme, World Health Organisation). 2006. SAICM texts and resolutions of the International Conference on Chemicals Management. http://www.saicm.org/images/saicm_documents/saicm%20texts/SAICM_publication_ENG.pdf
SANCO (Santé des Consommateurs). 2002. Guidance document on aquatic ecotoxicology in the context of the Directive 91/414/EEC. European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, SANCO/3268/2001 rev. 4 (final). SANCO, Brussels, Belgium, pp 62. http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/guidance/wrkdoc10_en.pdf
SC. 2001. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) (as amended 2009, 2011). http://chm.pops.int/TheConvention/Overview/TextoftheConvention/tabid/2232/Default.aspx
SCHER, SCENIHR, SCCS. 2012. Preliminary report: Addressing the New Challenges for Risk Assessment. SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks), SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety). European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
SCHER, SCENIHR, SCCS. 2013. Making Risk Assessment More Relevant for Risk Management. SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks), SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety). European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
Science for Environment policy. 2015. Ecosystem services and the environment. In-depth report 11 produced for the European Commission, DG Environment by the Science communication Unit, UWE, Bristol.
Slocombe DS. 1993. Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management. BioScience 43(9):612-622.
Sneath PHA, Sokal RR. 1973. Numerical taxonomy: The principles and practice of numerical classification. Chapter 3 Taxonomic evidence. WH Freeman and Company, San Francisco, USA, pp 68-113.
Tallis H, Polasky S. 2009. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:265-283.
TEEB. 2010a. Ecological and Economic Foundations. In Pushpam Kumar, ed, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Earthscan, London and Washington.
TEEB. 2010b. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
Turner RK, Daily GC. 2008. The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural Capital Conservation. Environ Resour Econ 39(1):25-35.
UK National Ecosystem Assessment. 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UK NCC. 2014. Towards a Framework for Defining and Measuring changes in Natural Capital, Natural Capital Committee Working Paper 1. UK Natural Capital Committee.
UN. 1972. United Nations Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, Principle 21. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&articleid=1503
UN. 1992a. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
UN. 1992b. United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 15. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163
UNCLOS. 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea (updated 2013). http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
UNEP. 1998. United Nations Environment Programme Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Report of the workshop on the Ecosystem Approach Lilongwe, Malawi, 26-28 January 1998. UNEP/CBD/COP/4/Inf.9, pp 15. https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-04/information/cop-04-inf-09-en.pdf
UNEP. 2006. Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A synthesis report based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, pp 76.
Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Harrison PA, Luck GW, Berry P, Bugter R, Dawson TP, Feld CK, Harrington R, Haslett JR, Hering D, Jones KB, Jongman R, Lavorel S, Martins da Silva P, Moora M, Paterson J, Rounsevell MDA, Sandin L, Settele J, Sousa JP, Zobel M. 2008. Review paper on concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services. http://www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_ES_Concepts_Summary.pdf
Vorkamp K, Riget FF. 2014. A review of new and current-use contaminants in the Arctic environment: Evidence of long-range transport and indications of bioaccumulation. Chemosphere 111:379-395.
Wainger L, Mazzotta M. 2011. Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: a framework for relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environ Manage 48(4):710-733.
Wali MK, Evrendilek F, Fennessy MS. 2010. The environment: science, issues, and solutions. Ch 7 Energy flows and ecosystem productivity. pp 115-136. CRC Press, Taylor Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Waylen KA, Hastings EJ, Banks EA, Holstead KL, Irvine RJ, Blackstock KL. 2014. The need to disentangle key concepts from ecosystem-approach jargon. Conserv Biol 28(5):1215-1224.
WFD-TAG. 2014. Water Framework Directive UK Technical Advisory Group. Resources. [online] http://www.wfduk.org/resources
WHO/UNEP/OECD/ILO (World Health Organisation / United Nations Environment Programme / Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development / International Labour Organisation). 2004. International Programme for Chemical Safety (IPCS) Risk Assessment Terminology Part 1: IPCS/OECD Key Generic Terms used in Chemical Hazard/Risk Assessment, WHO Document Production Services, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.inchem.org/documents/harmproj/harmproj/harmproj1.pdf
Appendix A: Cross tabulation of MA, TEEB and CICES classification systems
Source: http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes/ecosystem-services-categories-in-millennium-ecosystem-assessment-ma-the-economics-of-ecosystem-and-biodiversity-teeb-and-common-international-classification-of-ecosystem-services-cices
Appendix B: EUNIS habitat code descriptions
Descriptions of EUNIS habitat codes used in Table 2.2. A complete list of EUNIS habitat codes and descriptions are available via the European Environment Agency web site (http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp)
Appendix C: Summary of EU environmental legislation and conventions with ecological protection goals relating to chemicals
	Table C1.1: Legislation and conventions focusing on chemicals and requiring prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA)
	Table C1.2: Legislation and conventions focusing on chemicals and requiring prospective ERA and/or retrospective environmental surveillance, monitoring and impact assessment
	Table C1.3: Legislation and conventions also affecting chemicals and requiring prospective ERA and/or retrospective environmental surveillance, monitoring and impact assessment
APPENDIX D: Comments on potential impacts of case study chemicals on single ESs
	Case study 1: Oil refinery discharge
	Case study 2: Oil dispersants
	Case study 3: Down the drain chemicals
	Case study 4: POPs
The potential impacts shown in Table 4.1 could only be manifested if appropriate controls are not in place. Oil refineries are complex and may therefore have more than one discharge. The main waste stream(s) where petroleum products may enter the discharge would be related to the main process area and, even if diffuser systems are used, this discharge would be considered as a point source entry into an estuary. Once discharged the refinery effluents (and components thereof) will undergo redistribution and dilution into many aquatic habitats. For example, there can be distribution via tidal flow into freshwater lotic environments, freshwater and coastal wetlands and especially into estuarine and marine coastal waters and beyond. Site specific circumstances such as geography, hydrography and complexity of the refinery will influence both the types of environments and degree of impacts of refinery effluent discharges. The potential for impacts to occur is mitigated by prospective controls based on permissible levels of contaminants as defined by EU and local regulations. For example, in the EU refinery effluent discharges come under the auspices of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) (2010/75/EU). The legislative framework for regulating emissions from industrial sites to the air, water and soil in which Best Available Techniques (BATs) are applied with Associated Emission Levels (BAT-AELs). There are specific requirements for a range of sectors and controls and BAT-AELs for a range of contaminants present in refinery effluents are stipulated in the refinery best available techniques reference document (Refinery BREF).
Food: Potential contamination affecting food quality of fish / shellfish stocks or aquaculture in estuarine coastal areas. Dilution will reduce potential impacts on shelf areas. This can be a concern because of the perception that petroleum hydrocarbons can affect the taste (taint) fish and shellfish.
Fibre and fuel: Potential impacts on wetlands supporting natural fibre and fuel plants. Although hydrocarbons can adversely affect plants and wetlands major (i.e. catastrophic) impacts are usually associated with oil spills and there have been controls on ‘free oil’ being discharged for many years.
Genetic resources: Covers whole biota – biodiversity.
Biochemical / natural medicines Products (derivatives) from the biota used as medicines etc., rather than the potential, which differentiates it from genetic resources.
Ornamental resources (flowers, aquarium plants and fish etc.): Potential for direct impacts on aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates (molluscs, corals, crustacea).
Freshwater: Limited potential for contamination of freshwater bodies and associated wetlands.
Pollination: Limited, indirect effects on pollinating insects that may breed along coastal and wetland areas.
Pest and disease regulation: Potential to effect organisms responsible for pest and disease regulation, similar to genetic resources.
Climate regulation: Potential for direct effects on marine algae and invertebrates (e.g. corals) acting as CO2 sink.
Air quality regulation: Potential for effects on primary producers.
Water regulation: Potential impact on reef builders.
Erosion regulation: Direct effects on aquatic plants and algae and on marine algae and marsh grass which stabilise sediments; effects on marine molluscs and corals that build reefs.
Natural hazard regulation: Similar to ‘erosion regulation’; all SPUs involved in maintenance of ecosystem resilience towards stressors like storms, waves, floods etc.
Invasion resistance: Effects on plants and algae and on aquatic invertebrates and vertebrates which form stable communities in which alien species cannot easily establish (‘weakening’), zebra mussels, lamprey, snails, etc.
Water purification / soil remediation / waste treatment: May impact semi-aquatic (wetland, marginal) and aquatic plants in freshwater ecosystems and transitional waters, the latter eliminating pollutants from water and increasing oxygen concentrations which improves overall biological activity.
Cultural Services as a whole area this is difficult to define for refinery effluents. The presence of a large manufacturing site is likely to have a negative impact on how these are evaluated. There are often negative perceptions because even low levels of oil contamination are visible (oil sheens) and in many areas natural hydrocarbon sheens (e.g. originating from vegetation) can be mistaken for those originating from a refinery. Odour of any discharges (more likely from the manufacturing sites themselves rather than discharges) can enhance negative perceptions.
Spiritual and religious values: Perceptions see above.
Education and inspiration: Potential effects on aquatic organisms and possibly birds If discharges are properly controlled should not occur. There are many sites operating and discharging without any adverse impacts on wetlands, RAMSAR sites etc.
Recreation and ecotourism: Direct and indirect effects on various organisms perceived as having recreational value (hunting, fishing, bird and other wildlife watching). Could potentially occur in the event of poorly controlled discharges but mainly likely to be perception.
Cultural diversity and heritage: Perceptions.
Aesthetic values: Similar to education, inspiration and recreation in that visible loss of particular species, will have impact. Mainly likely to be perception but odour could influence aesthetic value.
Sense of place:
Primary production and photosynthesis: Direct effects on macrophytes and algae. For refinery effluents this can be both a positive and negative impact. Refinery effluents can provide a source of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) and food for bacteria which can help stimulate productivity.
Soil formation and retention: n/a
Nutrient cycling: Effects on micro-organisms, plants and algae involved in nutrient cycling.
Food: Direct and indirect effects on palatable organisms in aquatic ecosystems near shore and off shore, magnitude of effects expected to decrease with distance from source / application due to depth, dispersion (dilution and wave action).
Fibre and fuel: Limited impact on biological fibre and fuel.
Genetic resources: Direct and indirect effects on organisms in aquatic ecosystems, magnitude of effects expected to decrease with distance from source / application due to depth, dilution, and dispersion. Lower potential impact on mobile organisms. Potential impact on those organisms in the near surface zone, which are typically those organisms that have an ability to reproduce effectively.
Biochemical / natural medicines: Potential for temporary effects on marine organisms used in biochemistry and as medicinal research (fish, algae, corals).
Ornamental resources: Potential for temporary effects on aquatic invertebrates used for ornamental purposes (e.g. corals, molluscs, aquarium fish).
Fresh water: Direct potential if applied in freshwater river scenario (i.e. drinking water), otherwise limited impact.
Pollination: Negligible impact
Pest and disease regulation: Potential for temporary exposure to marine species resulting in possible short term lowering of immune system (i.e. added stress).
Climate regulation: Potential for direct effects on marine algae and invertebrates (e.g. corals) acting as CO2 sink.
Air quality regulation: Potential for localised temporary impacts to air quality.
Water regulation: Limited potential for water regulation effects.
Erosion regulation: Limited direct impact on soil erosion may have impact on vegetation which in turn stabilises soil / sediment along coastal areas.
Natural hazard regulation: Potential impact on coastal vegetation and coral reefs which provide protection from natural hazards such as storms, waves and tidal impacts.
Water purification / soil remediation / waste treatment: May impact semi-aquatic (wetland, marginal) and aquatic plants in freshwater ecosystems and transitional waters.
Spiritual and religious values: Potential for direct effects on wetlands (coastal marshes) and aquatic plants; potential for direct and indirect effects on water birds and marine mammals valued in different religion expression.
Education and inspiration (education includes research): Potential for direct effects on aquatic organisms in various ecosystems, as well as coastal landscape dynamics.
Recreation and ecotourism: Potential for temporary effects with ability to access resources during application period, short-term population fluctuations, indirect effects on presumption of long term injury and stigma to region.
Cultural diversity and heritage: Potential for temporary indirect effect to ‘way of life’.
Aesthetic values: Similar to temporary visual effects to coastal environment (i.e. beaches, marshes).
Sense of place: cf. aesthetic values, even open water has a sense of place ‘aquatic wilderness’ for sailing.
Primary production: Potential for temporary direct and localised effects on plankton, marine algae and coastal plants communities.
Soil formation and retention: Potential for direct effect on coast marsh grass which in turn may affect soil and sediment retention.
Nutrient cycling: Temporary direct effects on plankton and algae (wetlands, margins) which transform nutrients.
Two principal emission routes: 1) land application of sewage sludge and aqueous sewage effluent in order to fertilise and irrigate agricultural crops and grassland (pasture for grazing by livestock and wild game); 2) discharge of sewage effluent to surface waters (lotic and lentic freshwaters, inlets, transitional and coastal waters) are considered when assessing the likely exposure and impact of down the drain chemicals on habitats and ecosystem services:
Food: 1) Potential negative impact of chemical contamination contravening food quality standards or safe intake limits for humans. There may be occasional direct negative impacts on crop growth although such impacts would probably be rapidly identified. 2) Aqueous discharges to surface waters can directly affect surface water bodies (inland to coastal) potentially contaminating edible fish and shellfish stocks and/or impacting aquaculture yields. Despite higher dilution in coastal areas, local fisheries may be impacted via contamination of nursery grounds in inlets and transitional waters. Discharges may disperse causing less severe impacts on adjacent wetlands and shelf sea areas.
Fibre and fuel: 1) Fibre and fuel product quality and yield may be reduced. 2) Aqueous discharges impact on surface water bodies and, to a lesser extent, associated wetlands potentially reducing the quality and yield of natural fibre and fuel plants (e.g. reeds, willow, peat, macroalgae / alginates). NB: quality standards for chemical contaminants in fibre and fuel products are less stringent compared to food products therefore exposure related impacts are perceived to be less.
Genetic resources: 1) Occasional direct impacts on species representing genetic resources, although such impacts would likely be rapidly identified. 2) Aqueous discharges impact upon plant and animal species representing genetic resources and being sensitive to chemical contaminants.
Biochemical / natural medicines (proteins, peptides or other products / derivatives of genetic resources): 1) and 2) Impact risks on these ecosystem services / products are the same as for genetic resources.
Ornamental resources (flowers, aquarium plants and fish etc.): 1) Occasional direct impacts on wild flowers or other decorative plant species (and associated fauna). 2) Aqueous discharges impact on species which are sensitive to chemical contaminants. In each case, tolerant species increase in abundance, but the range of species is likely to decline.
Freshwater: 1) Cropland / grassland exposure to dtdc can impact primary producers, eco-engineers and decomposers involved in filtration and purification of water, which are key for the recharge of aquifers and surface freshwater bodies. Exposure / impact is expected to be moderate due to limited application in terms of land area and season, i.e. irrigation water is applied in the dry season when uptake and transpiration by plants is greatest. 2) Aqueous discharges can impact on freshwater communities (e.g. primary producers, detritivores) involved in the provision of freshwater.
Pollination: 1) Fertilising / irrigation of crop / grassland leads to moderate chemical exposure and direct impact on pollinators. Seasonal application of irrigation water (during the dry, summer season) coincides with plant flowering and pollination periods. However, exposure and impact is expected to be moderate due to limited application in terms of land area. Another potential impact of toxicants in sewage / sewage sludge is on plant reproductive parts (e.g. reduced flowering) which may indirectly affect pollinators. 2) Aqueous discharges can impact indirectly upon adjacent wetlands and associated pollinators, but again exposure and impact are expected to be moderate only.
Pest and disease regulation: 1) Fertilising / irrigation of crop / grassland potentially leads to major chemical exposure and impact on saprophytic fungi and predatory insects. This ecosystem service is linked very closely with genetic diversity and food web / ecosystem complexity. 2) Aqueous discharges containing down the drain chemicals can impact upon predatory fish feeding on pests and vectors for diseases.
Climate regulation: 1) Fertilising / irrigation of crop / grassland is expected to lead to negligible impact on climate regulation due to CO2 consumption by photosynthesising plants, since application is limited in terms of land area and impacts will be counterbalanced by increased crop growth and productivity due to nutrient additions. 2) Aqueous discharges containing down the drain chemicals can disperse impacting more widely and significantly upon aquatic plants (microalgae and macrophytes), which contribute to climate regulation.
Air quality regulation: 1) Fertilising / irrigation of crop / grassland is expected to lead to negligible impact on vegetation acting as a sink for airborne pollutants (e.g. dust). 2) Aqueous discharges containing down the drain chemicals can disperse impacting upon aquatic plants (micro-, macroalgae and macrophytes), which contribute to air quality regulation.
Water regulation: 1) Fertilising / irrigation of crop / grassland with sewage sludge / sewage water is likely to impact soil organisms (e.g. earthworms, voles) which ensure favourable physical soil conditions (infiltration rates, water holding capacity). 2) Aqueous discharges containing down the drain chemicals may negatively affect semi-aquatic and aquatic plants in freshwater ecosystems which retard water flow. Effluents reaching marine habitats may impact reef builders which protect coastal areas from flooding from extreme tidal flows.
Erosion regulation: cf. Natural hazard regulation.
Natural hazard regulation: 1) Fertilising / irrigation of crop / grassland is likely to have negligible negative impacts on plant growth and coverage, the latter reducing erosion and denudation of fertile soils. 2) Aqueous discharges containing down the drain chemicals may negatively affect semi-aquatic (marginal, pioneer, saltmarsh) and aquatic plants which stabilise soils and sediments. In marine habitats, effluents may impact reef builders and mussel banks which stabilise coastlines and offer protection from wave action and storm surges.
Water purification / soil remediation / waste treatment: 1) Fertilising / irrigation of crop / grassland could negatively affect soil micro-organisms involved in water purification. 2) Aqueous discharges containing down the drain chemicals may impact semi-aquatic (wetland, marginal) and aquatic plants in freshwater ecosystems and transitional waters, capable of removing pollutants from water and increasing oxygen concentrations, which improves overall biological activity.
Spiritual and religious values: 1) Occasional direct impacts on wild flowers or other decorative plant species (and associated fauna). 2) Aqueous discharges may impact organisms of different trophic levels in wetlands, freshwater ecosystems and transitional waters. Mainly conspicuous and attractive organisms are expected to provide this service.
Education and inspiration: 1) Occasional direct impacts on wild flowers or other decorative and fascinating plant species (and associated fauna). 2) Aqueous discharges may impact organisms of different trophic levels in wetlands, freshwater ecosystems and transitional waters. Education and inspiration will mainly be provided by conspicuous and attractive organisms, e.g. wetland and marginal flowering plants, birds in marshland and corals and fish in reefs.
Recreation and ecotourism: In Europe, ecotourism may be impacted to a minor extent because sewage sludge / irrigation water is unlikely to be applied in landscapes managed for their conservation value, although lotic or lentic water bodies in such areas could be exposed via wastewater discharges. 1) Direct and indirect effects on various organisms perceived as having recreational value (painting, hunting, walking, bird watching). 2) Effects on recreational fishing, e.g. contaminated fish, reduced fish population sizes. Reduced water quality, affecting recreational swimming.
Cultural diversity and heritage: 1) Occasional direct minor impacts on wild flowers or other decorative plant species (and associated fauna), whilst major effects overtly impacting on the appearance of a landscape are expected to be rare. 2) Aqueous discharges may impact organisms of different trophic levels in wetlands, freshwater ecosystems and transitional waters. Cultural diversity and heritage will mainly be provided by conspicuous and attractive organisms, e.g. wetland and marginal flowering plants, birds in marshland and corals and fish in reefs.
Aesthetic values: Similar to cultural diversity, i.e. only major effects that really change the appearance of a landscape are expected to play a role and these are expected to be rare. 1) Direct effects on cropland and grassland plants. 2) Direct effects on aquatic and marginal plants.
Sense of place: cf. Aesthetic values.
Primary production: 1) Direct effects on plants, that produce biological material used in ecosystem functioning and maintenance in cropland and grassland. 2) Direct effects on macrophytes, freshwater and marine algae and blue-green algae.
Soil formation and retention: 1) Effects on cropland and grassland decomposers and eco-engineers such as invertebrates (e.g. earthworms) and vertebrates (e.g. moles); effects on terrestrial plants which retain soil via physical mechanisms, e.g. root structure. 2) Effects on decomposers and eco-engineers in semi-terrestrial habitats (e.g. floodplains, margins of rivers and lakes); contact to contaminated water either directly (flooding) or via high groundwater table.
Nutrient cycling: 1) Direct effects on cropland, grassland decomposers (soil microbes, earthworms, gastropod snails) that directly or indirectly increase availability of nutrients for growth. 2) Equivalent effects on aquatic taxa, e.g. micro-organisms, algae, macro-invertebrates, molluscs.nutrients
Whilst exposure across the environment can be considered to be similar, the same cannot be said when it comes to human exposure (it is assumed that humans will not eat food (SPU) from urban environments). Additionally, urban environments are not seen as pristine environments. This explains our rationale to allocate a "no impact" level of concern to the urban environment for food and also the cultural services such as sense of place.
Shrubs, heathland and tundra.
Cropland has been removed as croplands are of little relevance for Arctic regions.
Food: In the Arctic environment, food web structure is often characterised by short food chains with highly specialised top predators at the highest trophic levels. Thus, top predators representing high trophic levels may be at risk from elevated levels of POPs in their prey. Many biological factors favour the accumulation of POPs in the Arctic environment. Usually, Arctic fauna have slower growth rates and store more lipids than those at lower latitude. This feature favours higher concentration of POPs and therefore, food is expected to be the most impacted provisioning service.
Spiritual and religious values: Concern for contamination of wildlife present in a range of Arctic habitats where the pristine status of the environment may be expected.
Education and inspiration: POPs may accumulate in organisms of different trophic levels in wetlands, freshwater ecosystems, transitional waters and marine habitats. Education and inspiration may be provided by conspicuous and attractive organisms, e.g. marine and terrestrial mammals, birds and fish.
Recreation and ecotourism: Concern largely associated with potential for reduced abundance of higher vertebrates (birds and mammals) and some fish.
Cultural diversity and heritage: Concern for contamination of wildlife present in a range of Arctic habitats where the pristine status of the environment may be expected.
Aesthetic values: Might potentially be affected by bioaccumulation as the status of the pristine environment has been influenced.
Sense of place: Might potentially be affected by bioaccumulation as the status of the pristine environment has been influenced.
In general cultural services are expected to be at risk of being highly impacted by the presence of POPs. There is growing worldwide public awareness due to the fact that POPs can be detected at relatively high concentrations in an environment considered as pristine. In addition the bioaccumulative properties of POPs make secondary consumer species such as polar bears, cetaceans and seals particularly vulnerable. These concerns have led to international initiatives such as Stockholm convention, to prohibit the dispersion of POPs. In this context, cultural services are significantly impacted by POPs.
Other ecosystem services are expected to be marginally impacted by POPs, if at all.
Members of the Task force
L. Maltby (Co-Chairman)  University of Sheffield
UK - Sheffield
S. Marshall (Co-Chairman) Unilever SEAC
UK - Bedford
R. Brown University of Exeter
UK - Exeter
M. Hamer Syngenta
UK - Bracknell
P. Kabouw BASF SE
D - Limburgerhof
S. Nadzialek Albemarle Europe
B - Louvain-la-Neuve
F. Schnöder Dupont de Nemours
D - Neu-Isenburg
A. Solga Bayer CropScience AG
D - Monheim
G. Whale Shell
UK - Chester
R. Woods ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences
USA - Annandale, NJ
M. Galay Burgos ECETOC
B - Brussels
Members of the Scientific Committee
(Peer Review Committee)
B. van Ravenzwaay (Chairman) BASF
Senior Vice President - Experimental Toxicology D - Ludwigshafen
R. Bars Bayer CropScience
Team Leader, Toxicology Research F - Sophia Antipolis
P. Boogaard Shell Health
Senior Toxicologist NL -The Hague
A. Flückiger F. Hoffmann - La Roche
Chief Occupational Health Officer CH - Basel
H. Greim Technical University München
Institute of Toxicology and Environmental Hygiene D – München
R. Hunziker Dow Europe
Toxicology Consultant Lead CH - Horgen
F. Lewis * Syngenta
Global Platform Lead UK - Bracknell
G. Malinverno Solvay
Global Governmental and Regulatory Affairs I - Milano
L. Maltby University of Sheffield
Professor of Environmental Biology UK - Sheffield
S. Marshall Unilever SEAC
Environmental Science Leader UK - Bedford
M.L. Meisters DuPont de Nemours
Manager Health and Environmental Sciences EMEA B - Mechelen
_________________________
* Responsible for primary peer review.
MEMBERS OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (cont’d)
M. Pemberton Systox
Director UK - Wilmslow
C. Rodriguez Procter and Gamble
Principal Toxicologist, Corporate Central Product Safety B - Strombeek-Bever
D. Salvito RIFM
Vice President, Environmental Sciences USA - Woodcliff Lake, NJ
J. Snape AstraZeneca
Associate Director - SHE Research and Foresight UK - Macclesfield
J. Tolls Henkel
Director Environmental Safety Assessment D - Düsseldorf
S. van der Vies VU University Medical Center
Professor of Biochemistry NL - Amsterdam
C.J. van Leeuwen * KWR Watercycle Research Institute
Principal Scientist NL - Nieuwegein
R. Zaleski ExxonMobil
Exposure Sciences Section Head USA - Annandale, NJ
_________________________
* Responsible for primary peer review.
ECETOC PUBLISHED REPORTS
The full catalogue of ECETOC publications can be found on the ECETOC website: http://www.ecetoc.org/publications
Blank Page
                        

Similer Documents