Background: Over the past 10–15 years, a substantial amount of work has been done by the scientific, regulatory, and business communities to elucidate the effects and risks of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment.Objective: This review was undertaken to identify key outstanding issues regarding the effects of PPCPs on human and ecological health in order to ensure that future resources will be focused on the most important areas.Data sources: To better understand and manage the risks of PPCPs in the environment, we used the “key question” approach to identify the principle issues that need to be addressed. Initially, questions were solicited from academic, government, and business communities around the world. A list of 101 questions was then discussed at an international expert workshop, and a top-20 list was developed. Following the workshop, workshop attendees ranked the 20 questions by importance.Data synthesis: The top 20 priority questions fell into seven categories:...

Summary: 1. There is a widely recognized gap between the data generated by researchers and the information required by policy makers. In an effort to bridge the gap between conservation policy and science, we have convened in several countries multiple groups of policy makers, practitioners and researchers to identify priority information needs that can be met by new research in the social and natural sciences. 2. The exercises we have coordinated included identification of priority policy‐relevant research questions in specific geographies (UK, USA, Canada); questions relating to global conservation; questions relating to global agriculture; policy opportunities in the United Kingdom; and emerging global conservation issues or ‘horizon scanning’. 3. We outline the exercises and describe our methods, which are based on principles of inclusivity, openness and democracy. Methods to maximize inclusiveness and rigour in such exercises include solicitation of questions and priorities from an extensive community, online collation of material, repeated voting and engagement with policy networks to foster uptake and application of the results. 4. These methods are transferable to a wide range of policy or research areas within and beyond the conservation sciences.

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals have been established to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. Delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals will require a healthy and productive environment. An understanding of the impacts of chemicals which can negatively impact environmental health is therefore essential to the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, current research on and regulation of chemicals in the environment tend to take a simplistic view and do not account for the complexity of the real world, which inhibits the way we manage chemicals. There is therefore an urgent need for a step change in the way we study and communicate the impacts and control of chemicals in the natural environment. To do this requires the major research questions to be identified so that resources are focused on questions that really matter. We present the findings of a horizon‐scanning exercise to identify research priorities of the European environmental science community around chemicals in the environment. Using the key questions approach, we identified 22 questions of priority. These questions covered overarching questions about which chemicals we should be most concerned about and where, impacts of global megatrends, protection goals, and sustainability of chemicals; the development and parameterization of assessment and management frameworks; and mechanisms to maximize the impact of the research. The research questions identified provide a first‐step in the path forward for the research, regulatory, and business communities to better assess and manage chemicals in the natural environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;9999:1–15. © 2018 SETAC

To maximize the utility of research to decisionmaking, especially given limited financial resources, scientists must set priorities for their efforts

There is a limited understanding of the conditions under which payments for ecosystem services (PES) programmes achieve improvements in ecosystem service (ES) flows, enhance natural resource sustainability or foster sustainable livelihoods. We used a capital asset framework to evaluate PES programmes in terms of their social, environmental, economic and institutional outcomes, focusing on efficiency, effectiveness and equity trade-offs. We found that PES schemes can provide positive conservation and development outcomes with respect to livelihoods, land-use change, household and community incomes, and governance. However, programmes differ with regards to contract agreements, payment modes, and compliance, and have diverse cross-sector institutional arrangements that remain primarily state-structured and external donor-financed. There is a consistent lack of focus on evaluating and fostering human, social and institutional capital. This reflects general inattention to how PES programmes consider the causal links between ES and outcomes. To enhance ES production and PES scheme accessibility and participation, we recommend strengthening the linkages between ES production and land-use practices, boosting private and voluntary sector involvement, encouraging property rights and tenure reform, improving financial viability, and adequately accounting for the distribution of programme costs and benefits among participants