The EFSA performs environmental risk assessment (ERA) for single potential stressors such as plantprotection products, genetically modified organisms and feed additives, and for invasive alien speciesthat are harmful to plant health. This ERA focusses primarily on the use or spread of such potentialstressors in an agricultural context, but also considers the impact on the wider environment. It isimportant to realise that the above potential stressors in most cases contribute a minor proportion ofthe total integrated pressure that ecosystems experience. The World Wildlife Fund listed the relativeattribution of threats contributing to the declines in animal populations as follows: 37% fromexploitation (fishing, hunting, etc.), 31% habitat degradation and change, 13% from habitat loss, 7%from climate change, and only 5% from invasive species, 4% from pollution and 2% from disease. Inthis scientific opinion, the Scientific Committee gathered scientific knowledge on the extent of coverageof endangered species in current ERA schemes that fall under the remit of EFSA. The legal basis andthe relevant ecological and biological features used to classify a species as endangered areinvestigated. The characteristics that determine vulnerability of endangered species are reviewed.Whether endangered species are more at risk from exposure to potential stressors than other non-target species is discussed, but specific protection goals for endangered species are not given. Due toa lack of effect and exposure data for the vast majority of endangered species, the reliability of usingdata from other species is a key issue for their ERA. This issue and other uncertainties are discussedwhen reviewing the coverage of endangered species in current ERA schemes. Potential tools, such aspopulation and landscape modelling and trait-based approaches, for extending the coverage ofendangered species in current ERA schemes, are explored and reported
