| 1. |
- Hunka, Agnieszka D., 1978-, et al.
(author)
-
Ecological risk assessment of pesticides in the EU : What factors and groups influence policy changes?
- 2015
-
In: Journal of Risk Research. - Abingdon : Routledge. - 1366-9877 .- 1466-4461. ; 18:9, s. 1165-1183
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- For the last couple of years, European environmental risk assessment (ERA) regulations have undergone significant changes. The new 1107/2009 directive which came into effect in 2011 has triggered an on-going debate on defining specific protection goals for ERA. During this period, we conducted a study on policy change among the most influential ERA stakeholders from Europe. We interviewed 43, purposively sampled, participants from the European safety authorities, plant protection product industry and academia. Transcribed interviews underwent thematic analysis conducted separately by two coders. As we followed the advocacy coalition framework, our findings focus on stakeholders processes, interrelations and values behind the ERA policy change. The main challenges emerging from our analysis turned out to be the slow uptake of scientific developments into ERA and very broadly defined protection goals. The use of safety factors and cut-off criteria left risk assessors with many uncertainties. With ERA in its current form it turned out to be impossible to determine whether the current scheme is over- or under-protective. Still, the study shows that the problem of over- or under-protectiveness lies deep in the perception of stakeholders and depends greatly on their priorities. Academics strive for better ecological relevance as a priority. They have concerns that ERA is oversimplified. Regulators worry that ERA relies too much on risk mitigation and is possibly not protective enough, but at the same time, the majority believes that the assessment is well established and straightforward to follow. Industry representatives would like to see ERA based more on probabilistic risk assessment. Recent changes, according to risk assessment and management practitioners have led to an inevitable increase in complexity, which is not perceived as a positive thing, and does not necessarily translate into better risk assessment. © 2014 Taylor & Francis.
|
|
| 3. |
- Selck, H., et al.
(author)
-
Assessing and managing multiple risks in a changing worldThe Roskilde recommendations
- 2017
-
In: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. - Hoboken, NJ : Wiley. - 0730-7268 .- 1552-8618. ; 36:1, s. 7-16
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Roskilde University (Denmark) hosted a November 2015 workshop, Environmental RiskAssessing and Managing Multiple Risks in a Changing World. This Focus article presents the consensus recommendations of 30 attendees from 9 countries regarding implementation of a common currency (ecosystem services) for holistic environmental risk assessment and management; improvements to risk assessment and management in a complex, human-modified, and changing world; appropriate development of protection goals in a 2-stage process; dealing with societal issues; risk-management information needs; conducting risk assessment of risk management; and development of adaptive and flexible regulatory systems. The authors encourage both cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to address their 10 recommendations: 1) adopt ecosystem services as a common currency for risk assessment and management; 2) consider cumulative stressors (chemical and nonchemical) and determine which dominate to best manage and restore ecosystem services; 3) fully integrate risk managers and communities of interest into the risk-assessment process; 4) fully integrate risk assessors and communities of interest into the risk-management process; 5) consider socioeconomics and increased transparency in both risk assessment and risk management; 6) recognize the ethical rights of humans and ecosystems to an adequate level of protection; 7) determine relevant reference conditions and the proper ecological context for assessments in human-modified systems; 8) assess risks and benefits to humans and the ecosystem and consider unintended consequences of management actions; 9) avoid excessive conservatism or possible underprotection resulting from sole reliance on binary, numerical benchmarks; and 10) develop adaptive risk-management and regulatory goals based on ranges of uncertainty. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:7-16. (c) 2016 SETAC
|
|
