Suchergebnisse

Am 2. und 3. November 2021 trafen sich in Braunschweig Fachleute aus der waldbezogenen Biodiversitätsforschung und dem Monitoring, um fundierte Ideen und Vorschläge zur Erstellung eines nationalen Biodiversitätsmonitorings im Wald (NaBioWald) zu sammeln und einen Überblick über das diesbezügliche Meinungsspektrum zu erlangen. Impulsreferate zeigten Ansprüche, Potenziale und Grenzen bestehender und neuer Walderhebungen in Deutschland aus Sicht der Waldpolitik, dem Nationalen Monitoringzentrum zur Biodiversität (NMZB), den Forstlichen Versuchsanstalten und der Schweiz, die bereits auf Erfahrungen eines etablierten Biodiversitätsmonitorings zurückgreifen kann. In den Fachdiskussionen wurden die möglichen Voraussetzungen, Erfolgsfaktoren, Barrieren und Methoden, sowie das potentielle Erfassungsdesign eines nationalen Biodiversitätsmonitorings im Wald diskutiert. Es wurden Entwicklungsoptionen und Lücken bestehender Flächennetze/Erhebungen analysiert und Akteure für die Qualitätssicherung und Akzeptanz der Konzeption definiert. Ein Monitoring ist notwendig und soll repräsentativ und robust relevante Entwicklungen der verschiedenen Ebenen der Biodiversität aufzeigen. Es soll bestehende nationale Walderhebungen einbinden, andere Erhebungen zur Biodiversität ergänzen sowie die aus ihnen resultierenden Erkenntnisse nutzen und - wo notwendig - neue Erhebungen integrieren. Neben der Biodiversität selbst sollen auch natürliche und anthropogene Einflussgrößen ('Treiber') erfasst werden. Genutzt werden soll es für ein biodiversitätsorientiertes Waldmanagement, für die Politik(-beratung) und Maßnahmensteuerung des Bundes und der Länder und für die Erfüllung von Berichtspflichten. Das Biodiversitätsmonitoring benötigt langfristig gesicherte Ressourcen und klare Verantwortlichkeiten. Als nächstes Ziel soll ein NaBioWald-Konzept ausgearbeitet werden. Die Monitoringaufgabe ist wegen der Komplexität, des Aufwands und der großen räumlichen Abdeckung von Bund und Ländern nur gemeinsam und arbeitsteilig unter Einbezug möglichst aller betroffenen Akteure umsetzbar. Lokale bzw. regionale Ansätze können zusätzlich Beiträge leisten und Schnittstellen schaffen. ; On 2-3 November 2021, experts in forest-related biodiversity research and monitoring met in Braunschweig to discuss the establishment of a harmonised national forest biodiversity monitoring programme (NaBioWald). Keynote speakers gave an overview on demands, potentials, and limits of existing and new forest monitoring surveys in Germany from the perspectives of forest policy, the National Centre for Biodiversity Monitoring (NMZB), forest research institutes, and Switzerland, which can already draw on the experience of a successfully established biodiversity monitoring. During the discussions, requirements, success factors, obstacles, methods, and survey design of monitoring as part of the monitoring were addressed. Further development options and gaps in existing networks/surveys were analysed, stakeholders ensuring the quality and acceptance of a concept were defined. A monitoring should provide representative and robust information on relevant developments of the different levels of forest biodiversity. It should make use of existing national forest surveys, complement other biodiversity surveys and - whenever necessary - integrate new surveys. Natural and anthropogenic influencing factors ("drivers") should be recorded to complement biodiversity assessments. The monitoring shall enable biodiversity-oriented forest management as well as policy advice, serve as a control mechanism for implemented measures by the federal government and the states, and provide a basis for the fulfilment of reporting obligations. A national forest biodiversity monitoring needs long-term funding and clear responsibilities. The next step will be the development of a NaBioWald concept. Due to its complexity, the required resources and its large spatial coverage, the establishment of a national forest biodiversity monitoring depends on the collaboration of federal and state governments with all involved stakeholders. Local or regional approaches can supplement these efforts.

Trust is a central feature of relationships within the Mafia, oppressed minorities, kin groups everywhere, among dissidents, nationalist freedom fighters, ethnic tourists, ethnic middlemen, exchange networks of Kalahari Bushmen, and families subjected to Stalinist social control. Each of these types of trust is examined by a leading scholar and compared with the expectations of neo-Darwinian theory, in particular the theories of kin selection and ethnic nepotism. The result is a fascinating, theoretically focused yet empirically eclectic contribution to the overlapping fields of human ethnology, evolutionary psychology, and bio-politics. The common thread uniting these diverse phenomena is a trusting relationship predicated on altruism. Chapters examine the strengths and limits of human trust under various stressers and temptations to defect. By exploring the relationship between kin and ethnic altruism and showing its sensitivity to culture, Risky Transactions recasts the evolutionary approach to ethnicity as a blend of primordial and instrumental factors

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management.

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management.

Aims: Primary forests are critical for forest biodiversity and provide key ecosystem services. In Europe, these forests are particularly scarce and it is unclear whether they are sufficiently protected. Here we aim to: (a) understand whether extant primary forests are representative of the range of naturally occurring forest types, (b) identify forest types which host enough primary forest under strict protection to meet conservation targets and (c) highlight areas where restoration is needed and feasible. Location: Europe. Methods: We combined a unique geodatabase of primary forests with maps of forest cover, potential natural vegetation, biogeographic regions and protected areas to quantify the proportion of extant primary forest across Europe's forest types and to identify gaps in protection. Using spatial predictions of primary forest locations to account for underreporting of primary forests, we then highlighted areas where restoration could complement protection. Results: We found a substantial bias in primary forest distribution across forest types. Of the 54 forest types we assessed, six had no primary forest at all, and in two-thirds of forest types, less than 1% of forest was primary. Even if generally protected, only ten forest types had more than half of their primary forests strictly protected. Protecting all documented primary forests requires expanding the protected area networks by 1,132 km2 (19,194 km2 when including also predicted primary forests). Encouragingly, large areas of non-primary forest existed inside protected areas for most types, thus presenting restoration opportunities. Main conclusion: Europe's primary forests are in a perilous state, as also acknowledged by EU's "Biodiversity Strategy for 2030." Yet, there are considerable opportunities for ensuring better protection and restoring primary forest structure, composition and functioning, at least partially. We advocate integrated policy reforms that explicitly account for the irreplaceable nature of primary forests and ramp up protection and restoration efforts alike.

Aims Primary forests are critical for forest biodiversity and provide key ecosystem services. In Europe, these forests are particularly scarce and it is unclear whether they are sufficiently protected. Here we aim to: (a) understand whether extant primary forests are representative of the range of naturally occurring forest types, (b) identify forest types which host enough primary forest under strict protection to meet conservation targets and (c) highlight areas where restoration is needed and feasible. Location Europe. Methods We combined a unique geodatabase of primary forests with maps of forest cover, potential natural vegetation, biogeographic regions and protected areas to quantify the proportion of extant primary forest across Europe's forest types and to identify gaps in protection. Using spatial predictions of primary forest locations to account for underreporting of primary forests, we then highlighted areas where restoration could complement protection. Results We found a substantial bias in primary forest distribution across forest types. Of the 54 forest types we assessed, six had no primary forest at all, and in two-thirds of forest types, less than 1% of forest was primary. Even if generally protected, only ten forest types had more than half of their primary forests strictly protected. Protecting all documented primary forests requires expanding the protected area networks by 1,132 km(2)(19,194 km(2)when including also predicted primary forests). Encouragingly, large areas of non-primary forest existed inside protected areas for most types, thus presenting restoration opportunities. Main conclusion Europe's primary forests are in a perilous state, as also acknowledged by EU's "Biodiversity Strategy for 2030." Yet, there are considerable opportunities for ensuring better protection and restoring primary forest structure, composition and functioning, at least partially. We advocate integrated policy reforms that explicitly account for the irreplaceable nature of primary forests and ramp up protection and restoration efforts alike.

Aims: Primary forests are critical for forest biodiversity and provide key ecosystem services. In Europe, these forests are particularly scarce and it is unclear whether they are sufficiently protected. Here we aim to: (a) understand whether extant primary forests are representative of the range of naturally occurring forest types, (b) identify forest types which host enough primary forest under strict protection to meet conservation targets and (c) highlight areas where restoration is needed and feasible. Location: Europe. Methods: We combined a unique geodatabase of primary forests with maps of forest cover, potential natural vegetation, biogeographic regions and protected areas to quantify the proportion of extant primary forest across Europe's forest types and to identify gaps in protection. Using spatial predictions of primary forest locations to account for underreporting of primary forests, we then highlighted areas where restoration could complement protection. Results: We found a substantial bias in primary forest distribution across forest types. Of the 54 forest types we assessed, six had no primary forest at all, and in two-thirds of forest types, less than 1% of forest was primary. Even if generally protected, only ten forest types had more than half of their primary forests strictly protected. Protecting all documented primary forests requires expanding the protected area networks by 1,132km2 (19,194km2 when including also predicted primary forests). Encouragingly, large areas of non-primary forest existed inside protected areas for most types, thus presenting restoration opportunities. Main conclusion: Europe's primary forests are in a perilous state, as also acknowledged by EU's "Biodiversity Strategy for 2030." Yet, there are considerable opportunities for ensuring better protection and restoring primary forest structure, composition and functioning, at least partially. We advocate integrated policy reforms that explicitly account for the irreplaceable nature of primary forests and ramp up protection and restoration efforts alike.