Perspectives of the scientific community on the status of ecological risk assessment

Abstract

Views from a wide variety of practicing environmental professionals on the current status of ecological risk assessment (ERA) indicate consensus and divergence of opinion on the utility and practice of risk assessment. Central to the debate were the issues of whether ERA appropriately incorporates ecological and scientific principle into its conceptual paradigm. Advocates argue that ERA effectively does both, noting that much of the fault detractors find with the process has more to do with its practice than its purpose. Critics argue that failure to validate ERA predictions and the tendency to over-simplify ecological principles compromise the integrity of ERA and may lead to misleading advice on the appropriate responses to environmental problems. All authors felt that many improvements could be made, including validation, better definition of the ecological questions and boundaries of ERA, improved harmonization of selected methods, and improvements in the knowledge base. Despite identified deficiencies, most authors felt that ERA was a useful process undergoing evolutionary changes that will inevitably determine the range of environmental problems to which it can be appropriately applied. The views expressed give ERA a cautious vote of approval and highlight many of the critical strengths and weaknesses in one of our most important environmental assessment tools.