Recovery in environmental risk assessments at EFSA

Tabs

Article
Scientific Committee
Acknowledgements

The Scientific Committee wishes to thank the members of the working group, chairs* and scientific secretariat# of the working group on the overarching elements of environmental risk assessment (recovery) for drafting this scientific opinion: Franz Bigler, Theo Brock*, Geoff Frampton, Christer Hogstrand, Robert Luttik, Fabrice Martin-Laurent, Christopher John Topping and Wopke Van Der Werf as well as the following EFSA staff members for their support: Angelo Maggiore, Agnes Rortais#, Reinhilde Schoonjans, Franz Streissl, Sara Tramontini, Maria Vittoria Vettori, Sybren Vos and Stefania Volani

EFSA Journal
EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4313 [85 pp.].
doi
10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4313
Panel members at the time of adoption
Simon More, Alicja Mortensen, Antonia Ricci, Vittorio Silano, Katrine Helle Knutsen, Guido Rychen, Hanspeter Naegeli, Dominique Turck, Michael John Jeger, Colin Ockleford, Diane Benford, Thorhallur Halldorsson, Anthony Hardy, Hubert Noteborn, Josef R. Schlatter, Roland Solecki
Type
Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
On request from
EFSA
Question Number
EFSA-Q-2013-00902
Adopted
11 November 2015
Published
3 February 2016
Affiliation
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
Note
Abstract

EFSA performs environmental risk assessments (ERAs) for single potential stressors such as plant protection products, genetically modified organisms and feed additives and for invasive alien species that are harmful for plant health. In this risk assessment domain, the EFSA Scientific Committee recognises the importance of more integrated ERAs considering both the local and landscape scales, as well as the possible co-occurrence of multiple potential stressors that fall under the remit of EFSA, which are important when addressing ecological recovery. In this scientific opinion, the Scientific Committee gathered scientific knowledge on the potential for the recovery of non-target organisms for the further development of ERA. Current EFSA guidance documents and opinions were reviewed on how ecological recovery is addressed in ERA schemes. In addition, this scientific opinion is based on expert knowledge and data retrieved from the literature. Finally, the information presented in this opinion was reviewed by experts from the relevant EFSA Panels, European risk assessment bodies and through an open consultation requesting input from stakeholders. A conceptual framework was developed to address ecological recovery for any assessed products, and invasive alien species that are harmful for plant health. This framework proposes an integrative approach based on well-defined specific protection goals, scientific knowledge derived by means of experimentation, modelling and monitoring, and the selection of focal taxa, communities, processes and landscapes to develop environmental scenarios to allow the assessment of recovery of organisms and ecological processes at relevant spatial and temporal scales.

Keywords
Recovery, resilience, trait-based assessment, semifield experiments, mechanistic models, field monitoring, focal species and landscapes
Print on demand
Number of Pages
85