Understanding the nature and the extent of the effects of PFAS on biodiversity and ecosystem services

Expected Outcome

Proposals are expected to contribute to all the following expected outcomes:

• the mechanistic understanding of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) effects on biodiversity, on ecosystems and on ecosystem services is improved and evaluations of their extent are available;
• research needs to close knowledge gaps and to address issues on biodiversity and ecosystem services are better identified;
• the new knowledge can be integrated by policymakers in their decisions related to biodiversity protection and restoration, environmental protection and protection of human health as well as in socio-economic cost-benefit analysis for policy measures on PFAS.

Scope

PFAS pollution significantly impacts human health and the environment. Addressing PFAS is notably a flagship action under the Water Resilience Strategy[1]. There is growing evidence on impacts on biodiversity above and below ground and water, but more evidence is needed to substantiate the effects on different species, populations and entire ecosystems, and their extent. A European Commission study published on 29 January 2026[2] revealed significant knowledge gaps on the effects of PFAS on biodiversity. In particular, the study underlined the difficulties to estimate and monetise ecosystem services loss because of PFAS, due to a lack of data on ecosystem-level effects.

Proposals should:

• conduct field-based studies, possibly in combination with controlled studies, to better understand the effects of PFAS and their breakdown products on species, populations and on ecosystems and their long-term ecological effects;
• evaluate the nature and the temporal and spatial scale of the effects, including multi-generational effects both on key species and on entire ecosystems;
• explore and apply robust and, where possible, comparable methods to assess the impacts of PFAS on ecosystem services including practical approaches for biophysical and, where relevant, economic valuation that can support policy and decision-making;
• prioritise and justify the PFAS substances or groups of substances (e.g. short versus long chain ones; fluoropolymers; F-gases; ultrashort chain PFAS such as trifluoroacetic acids, etc.) to be addressed, taking into account their occurrence in European ecosystems, relevance for biodiversity impacts and policy relevance, as well as the environmental media through which the pollution takes place (soil, waterbodies, rain, seafoam, polar areas, ocean, air, e.g.);
• take into account bioaccumulation and biomagnification including across the trophic chain, co-exposure of multiple PFAS substances as part of the combination of other toxic substances found in-situ, long term and chronic exposure over prolonged periods of time and uncontrolled environmental variables which may either mitigate or exacerbate the effects of PFAS;
• focus on tissue-specific accumulation and distribution patterns of PFAS when assessing their bioaccumulation and toxicological effects; consider organisms that have received less attention until now[3], for instance apex predators, wild plants including aquatic plants, soil organisms, plankton or low trophic species, and habitats that are fragile and/or endangered but also key cornerstones in functional ecology. Also for plant species that can take up very high amounts of PFAS, such as those used for phytoremediation (for example reed and hemp), it should be investigated whether they are experiencing significantly more negative effects due to these higher PFAS concentrations in their tissue. It is up to the applicant to justify the chosen biodiversity aspect and its PFAS-related relevance. Emphasis on regional focus areas could be considered since high PFAS contamination is often highly localised;
• estimate costs resulting from the loss of ecosystem services due to PFAS pollution;
• explore approaches such as ecosurveillance to monitor ecosystem health, building on effective approaches already in place where available and considering diffuse and points sources of pollution. The identification of indicator species that can be used to monitor ecosystems damaged by PFAS contamination and their recovery after remediation should be sought;
• identify remaining critical knowledge gaps, for which more targeted research will be needed;
• suggest ways for policy makers to integrate the new knowledge in decisions and possible solutions regarding nature protection and restoration, the protection of the environment in general and the protection of human health.

This topic is expected to support the objectives of the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, the EU Soil Strategy for 2030, the EU Water Resilience Strategy and the EU zero pollution action plan.

This topic requires the effective contribution of SSH disciplines and the involvement of SSH experts, institutions as well as the inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, in particular to support the valuation of ecosystem services, the policy uptake of project results, and the development of decision-relevant approaches under uncertainty, in order to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities.

Concrete efforts should be made to ensure that the data produced in the context of the funded projects is FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable), particularly for real-time data feeds, exploring workflows that can provide “FAIR-by-design” data, i.e., data that is FAIR from its generation. Possibilities offered by the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) to store and give access to research data should be considered.

International cooperation is encouraged.

In order to increase synergies and the impact of the projects, all proposals selected for funding should form a cluster and are expected to participate in common networking and joint activities, including with projects from other calls where deemed appropriate. These activities should be included in a dedicated work package, having sufficient budget allocated to it. These activities may include:

• a common dissemination and communication strategy;
• common Data Management Strategy and Common Policy Strategy (including joint policy briefs);
• thematic workshops/trainings/working groups on issues of common interest (e.g. data management and exchange);
• close cooperation with the EC Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity (KCBD)[4] and its Science Service, including participating in answering science to policy requests.

[1] Water resilience strategy - European Commission

[2] New study confirms huge and growing costs of PFAS pollution - Environment

[3] Proposals should build on and complement on-going research activities notably under the co-funded partnership Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals | Parc and the Horizon project TerraChem

[4] https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/biodiversity-knowledge-centre_en