Key considerations to inform operational EU-specific protection goals: An example for non-target terrestrial plants.

This paper complements recent considerations of specific protection goals (SPG) to inform risk assessments for non-target terrestrial plants (NTTP) in the European Union. The SPG options in-field appear to be of the most disruptive potential from agronomic perspective and are therefore investigated in more detail. Overarching prerequisites have been identified that need to be accounted for to ensure that any of the potential SPG options remain operational in a sustainable agricultural context. As soon as crop production is considered a desired ecosystem service for the in-field, its specific requirements in the context of sustainable agriculture have to be factored in. Good agricultural practices (GAPs), potential ecosystem disservices (e.g. weeds, pests and diseases) and supporting and regulating services need to be considered to ensure a successful and sustainable delivery of the ecosystem service crop production. Concerning in-field SPG options for NTTP specifically GAPs related to integrated weed management (IWM) require detailed assessment, as they individually and in combination have the purpose of weed control. Therefore, they result in specific implications to the environment, ecosystem services and biodiversity within the context of sustainable agricultural production. When diverging in-field ecosystem services are considered for the same context, the protection goals options require an additional assessment of synergies and trade-offs between the relevant ecosystem services (e.g. crop production, climate regulation and aesthetic values), a corresponding weighing and prioritization. Similarly, for biodiversity conservation, the trade-offs and synergies between sustainable crop production and specific habitat requirements need to be accounted for. Consequently, an interdisciplinary approach can ensure that SPG are operational by integrating a broad understanding of cropping systems, the environmental impact of the tools a farmer uses and the link between habitat availability, the impact of any of the applied tools on habitat quality and the broader landscape context. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:905-910. © 2021 Bayer AG, BASF SE and Syngenta. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Informations de copyright

© 2021 Bayer AG, BASF SE and Syngenta. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).