Suchergebnisse

The global growth in energy demand continues, but the way of meeting rising energy needs is not sustainable. The use of biomass energy is a widely accepted strategy towards sustainable development that sees the fastest rate with the most of increase in power generation followed by strong rises in the consumption of biofuels for transport. Agriculture, forestry and wood energy sector are the leading sources of biomass for bioenergy. However, to be acceptable, biomass feedstock must be produced sustainably. Bioenergy from sustainably managed systems could provide a renewable and carbon neutral source of energy. Bioenergy systems can be relatively complex, intersectoral and site- and scale-specific. The environmental benefits of biomass-for-energy production systems can vary strongly, depending on site properties, climate, management system and input intensities. Bioenergy supply is closely linked to issues of water and land use. It is important to understand the effects of introducing it as well as it is necessary to promote integrated and synergic policies and approaches in the sectors of forestry, agriculture, energy, industry and environment. Biofuels offer attractive solutions to reducing GHG emissions, addressing energy security concerns and have also other socio-economic advantages. Currently produced biofuels are classified as first-generation. Some first-generation biofuels, such as for example ethanol from corn possibly have a limited role in the future transport fuel mix, other ones such as ethanol from sugarcane or biodiesel made from oils extracted from rerennial crops, as well as non-food and industrial crops requiring minimal input and maintenance and offering several benefits over conventional annual crops for ethanol production are promising. Sugarcane ethanol has greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoidance potential; can be produced sustainably; can be cost effective without governments support mechanisms, provide useful and valuable co-products; and, if carefully managed with due regard given to sustainable land use, can support the drive for sustainable development in many developing countries. Sugarcane ethanol - currently the most effective biofuel at displacing GHG emissions - is already mitigating GHGs in Brazil. Jatropha curcas L., a multipurpose, drought resistant, perennial plant has gained lot of importance for the production of biodiesel. However, it is important to point out that nearly all of studies have overstated the impacts of first-generation biofuels on global agricultural and land markets due to the fact that they have ignored the role of biofuel by-products. However, feed by-products of first-generation biofuels, such as dried distillers grains with soluble and oilseed meals are used in the livestock industry as protein and energy sources mitigates the price impacts of biofuel production as well as reduce the demand for cropland and moderate the indirect land use consequences. The production of second generation biofuels is expected to start within a few years. Many of the problems associated with first-generation biofuels can be solved by the production of second generation biofuels manufactured from abundant ligno-cellulosic materials such as cereal straw, sugar cane bagasse, forest residues, wastes and dedicated feedstocks (purpose-grown vegetative grasses, short rotation forests and other energy crops). These feedstocks are not food competitive, do not require additional agricultural land and can be grown on marginal and wasteland. Depending on the feedstock choice and the cultivation technique, second-generation biofuel production has the potential to provide benefits such as consuming waste residues and making use of abandoned land. As much as 97-98% of GHG emissions could be avoided by substituting a fossil fuel with wood fuel. Forest fertilization is an attractive option for increasing energy security and reducing net GHG emission. In addition to carbon dioxide the emissions of methane and nitrous oxides may be important factors in GHG balance of biofuels. Forest management rules, best practices for nitrogen fertilizer use and development of second generation technologies use reduce these emissions. Soils have an important role in the global budget of greenhouse gases. However, the effects of biomass production on soil properties are entirely site and practice-specific and little is known about long-term impact. Soil biological systems are resilient and they do not show any lasting impacts due to intensive site management activities. Land management practices can change dramatically the characteristic and gas exchange of an ecosystem. GHG benefits from biomass feedstock use are in some cases significantly lower if the effects of direct¹ or indirect (ILUC²) land use change are taken into account. LUC and ILUC can impact the GHG emission by affecting carbon balance in soil and thus ecosystem. To understand carbon fluxes in an ecosystem large ecosystem units and time scale are critical. Mitigation measures of the impact of land use change on greenhouse gas emissions include the use of residues as feedstock, cultivation of feedstock on abandoned arable land and use of feedstock by-products as substitutes for primary crops as animal feed. Cropping management is the other key factor in estimating GHG emissions associated with LUC and there is significant opportunity to reduce the potential carbon debt and GHG emissions through improved crop and soil management practices, including crop choice, intensity of inputs, harvesting strategy, and tilling practices. Also a system with whole trees harvesting with nutrient compensation is closely to being greenhouse-gas-neutral. Biochar applied to the soil offers a direct method for sequestrating C and generating bioenergy. However, the most recent studies showing that emissions resulting from ILUC are significant have not been systematically compared and summarized and current practices for estimating the effects of ILUC suffer from large uncertainties. Therefore, it seems to be delicate to include the ILUC effects in the GHG emission balance at a country level. The land availability is an important factor in determining bioenergy sustainability. However, even though food and biofuel/biomass can compete for land, this is not inevitably the case. The pattern of completion competition will e.g. depend on whether food security policies are in place. Moreover, the great potential for uncomplicated biomass production lies in using residues and organic waste, introduction of second generation biofuels which are more efficient in use of land and bioresources as well as restoration of degraded and wasted areas. Agroforestry has high potential for simultaneously satisfying many important objectives at ecosystems, economic and social levels. For example, as a very flexible, but low-input system, alley cropping can supply biomass resources in a sustainable way and at the same time provide ecological benefits in Central Europe. A farming system that integrates woody crops with conventional agricultural crops/pasture can more fully utilize the basic resources of water, carbon dioxide, nutrients, and sunlight, thereby producing greater total biomass yield. Overall, whether food prices will rise in parallel to an increase in biofuel demand will depend, more on trade barriers, subsidies, policies and limitations of marketing infrastructure than on lack of physical capacity. There are plant species that provide not only biofuel resources but also has the potential to sequestrate carbon to soil. For example, reed canary grass (RCG, Phalaris arundinacea L.) indicates the potential as a carbon sink. Harvest residues are increasingly utilized to produce energy. Sweden developed a series of recommendations and good-practice guidelines (GPG) for whole tree harvesting practices. Water has a multifarious relationship to energy. Biofuel production will have a relatively minor impact on the global water use. It is critically important to use low-quality water sources and to select the crops and countries that (under current production circumstances) produce bioenergy feedstock in the water-efficient way. However, local and regional impacts of biofuel production could be substantial. Knowledge of watershed characteristics, local hydrology and natural peak flow patterns coupled with site planning, location choice and species choice, are all factors that will determine whether or not this relationship is sustainable. For example, bioethanol's water requirements can range from 5 to 2138 L per liter of ethanol depending on regional irrigation practices. Moreover, sugarcane in Brazil evaporates 2,200 liters for every liter of ethanol, but this demand is met by abundant rainfall. Biomass production can have both positive and negative effects on species diversity. However, woodfuel production systems as well as agroforestry have the potential to increase biodiversity. A regional energy planning could have an important role to play in order to achieve energy-efficient and cost-efficient energy systems. Closing the loop through the optimization of all resources is essential to minimize conflicts in resource requirements as a result of increased biomass feedstock production. A systems approach where the agricultural, forestry, energy, and environmental sectors are considered as components of a single system, and environmental liabilities are used as recoverable resources for biomass feedstock production has the potential to significantly improve the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of biofuels. The LCA (life cycle analysis) approach takes into account all the input and output flows occurring in biomass production systems. The source of biomass has a big impact on LCA outcomes and there is a broad agreement in the scientific community that LCA is one of the best methodologies for the GHG balance calculation of biomass systems. Overall, maximizing benefits of bioenergy while minimizing negative impacts is most likely to occur in the presence of adequate knowledge and frameworks, such as for example certification systems, policy and guidelines. Criteria for achieving sustainability and best land use practices when producing biomass for energy must be established and adopted. ___________ ¹ Direct land-use change occurs when feedstock for biofuels purposes (e.g. soybean for biodiesel) displace a prior land-use (e.g. forest), thereby generating possible changes in the carbon stock of that land. ² Indirect land-use change (ILUC) occurs when pressure on agriculture due to the displacement of previous activity or use of the biomass induces land-use changes on other lands.

Preventing environmental degradation and alleviating poverty are the twin challenges of sustainable development. Participatory forest management (PFM) takes the challenge of preventing the degradation of forest resources while sustaining forest-based benefits to people's livelihoods. Yet, effective implementation of PFM requires a more profound understanding of the actual place of forest resources in the livelihoods of rural households and the role of forest-based activities in alleviating poverty. This study is conducted in Southern Ethiopia in the Oromia region in the district of Dodola. It examines the context of a PFM initiated by the government in the 1990s. The main objectives of the study are to examine the role of the forest resource in the livelihoods of the local people and to describe the nature of forest use in order to understand the performance and perception of collective forest management. Data were collected through a series of household surveys and group discussions over a one year period supplemented by key informant interviews. The results of the study show that forest products are important sources of income contributing to 34% and 53% of household per capita income and per capita cash income, respectively. Forest income is an important buffer against extreme poverty by filling seasonal gaps of income and by serving as safety net in times of income crisis. Forest income also provides the opportunity to diversify livelihoods, particularly for low income groups. Households' decisions on livelihood strategies including dependence on forest income are associated with socioeconomic and geographical factors. Furthermore, the performance of user groups and the attitudes and intention of households towards participating in collective management are associated with level of income and dependence on forest income. User groups that are more dependent on forest income and have higher heterogeneity in terms of dependence on the forest resource have shown lower performance. Forest dependent households have also shown a less favorable attitude and intention towards engaging in planting activities. The study concludes that socioeconomic differences and the differentiated roles and values of forest products in the livelihoods of members of user groups are related to the success of participatory management and thus are important aspects to be considered in designing participatory forest management arrangements. It is recommended that a better outcome in terms of poverty alleviation can be achieved if pro-poor forest-based activities are specifically considered in planning conservation and development interventions.

In Sweden, the agricultural sector uses an estimated 3.7 TWh per year as electricity or fuel. About 34% of this total is estimated to be used in the production of beef, pork, eggs and milk, including the spreading of manure. Some energy is also used for harvesting ley and cereals as feed, which is not included. Most of the energy used is in the form of electricity (approx 63%). All these estimates are based on a 1981-1984 survey by Nilsson & Påhlstorp (1985). Most of the technical equipment is still the same today on farms of comparable size and production methods. However, herds of pigs and cattle are larger now, and therefore new equipment is being used. The average Swedish dairy farm is 39% larger (49 cows) than the EU-15 average (35.5 cows) and herd size is growing rapidly. The climate in winter at the study farms is not as cold as that in central Europe or northern Sweden, although air temperature was below 0ºC for about 3 months in 2006 (average -0.1ºC, Dec-Feb.) In the period June-August, the average temperature was 17.8ºC in 2005 and 19.1ºC in 2006. It only exceeded 30ºC for a period longer than three hours on seven occasions. Because of the climate, it is necessary to have artificial heating in buildings for sows (farrowing section). In all other buildings the animals produce enough heat themselves to keep the house warm. When breeding cattle or dry sows some farmers accept a low inside temperature. Swedish animal welfare legislation requires more space per animal than most other countries. Slatted floors in lying areas are only permissible for fattening steers. Cages for laying hens have to include a sand-bath, nest and perches. Another difference is that sows can only be kept in crates occasionally and can never be tied up. The purpose of this study was to collect data on energy use on modern farms of a size and with a level of technical equipment that could be expected to be in use for the next 10-15 years. The data obtained were then added to data from Nilsson & Påhlstorp (1985).The survey was conducted on 16 farms with buildings mainly constructed during the past 10 years and with modern equipment. All these farms except one were in the south of Sweden (Skåne, Halland, Lat. 55-56ºN) and the last one 180 km south-east of Stockholm (Lat. 58ºN). The study was structured as follows: - Four complete dairy farms were studied in detail and another three were studied because they had interesting technical equipment that was not installed on the first four farms. - Three farms with pigs were studied. One had an FTS-system (Farrowing To Slaughter in the same pen), one a farrowing-growing system (Farrowing to approx. 25 kg/11 weeks in the same pen), and one had fattening pigs (approx. 25-110 kg). - Two farms with laying hens were studied. One had furnished cages and the other had laying hens on floors. - Two broiler houses were studied. - Four different types of grain dryers were studied: batch drier, circulating batch drier, continuous drier and batch-in-bin drier with multiple stirring augers. To measure electricity use, electricity meters of the type used by power companies were installed. These meters distinguishing between feeding, ventilation, light, manure handling and, for some plants, cleaning/disinfection, heating, milking and packing of eggs. When all these were measured there was still some more electricity that was impossible to measure or to distribute to the right category. This was categorised as Miscellaneous. Meters were also installed for estimating the power (W) used at one piglet farm and at two dairy farms. The data were processed and are included in the appendices in order to allow estimations to be made for other farms and evaluations to reduce the use of energy (power). In milk production, energy use was between 930 and 1540 kWh/cow per year (0.125-0.203 kWh/L milk). The functions that used most energy were milking and feeding, which together used 65-75% of total energy. On farms that used a wheel loader and tractor for mixing Total Mixed Ration (TMR), energy consumption was higher than on those farms that used electrical engines for mixing. One litre of diesel was set to 9.8 kWh. Production of piglets (approx. 25 kg) used 689 kWh/sow per year, which means about 28.7 kWh/25 kg pig (assuming 24 piglets/sow & year). During the fattening period (25-110 kg), energy use was 20 kWh per pig. The total energy requirement to produce finishing pigs from birth to 110 kg was thus 48.7 kWh/110 kg pig or 1163 kWh/sow per year, assuming a sow produces 24 piglets per year. This can be compared with the FTS-system, which uses 2431 kWh/sow per year. This difference is not completely caused by different breeding systems but is more likely to be due to difference in buildings, and therefore to a greater need for energy for lighting and ventilation, and a higher temperature in the farrowing unit. The farm that used less energy heated the breeding areas with a heat-pump, while another used diesel as fuel. Most energy was used for heating (including the use of heat lamps). If the building for dry sows needs mechanical ventilation and artificial light, then this leads to a greater use of energy. Egg production with laying hens in furnished cages used 3.1 kWh/year per hen, while a system with free hens used 5.0 kWh/year per hen. Light and ventilation fans used most energy, but were also the functions that showed the greatest differences between the systems. The difference in energy used for light is most probably due to the higher light intensity and to the two extra hours of light each day in the system with free layers. In broiler production, the largest use of energy was heating (84%), followed by light (10.7%) and ventilation (3.6%). The energy needed to produce one broiler (1.5 kg) was an estimated 0.91 kWh. This value is an average of five batches due to large variations between batches. The use of electricity differed from 6% to 20% between similar houses. All the grain driers except the batch-in-bin drier used between 4.2 and 9.1 kWh per 1000 kg of grain during 2005 and 2006. Due to bad weather conditions the use of energy was 30% higher in 2006. The batch-in-bin dryer used 12.0 kWh per 1000 kg of grain 2006. Due to different technical standards the values are not directly comparable, but the data are valid for the separate functions.

Three alternative scenarios to the much debated present organisation of the Lithuanian State forest sector are examined: (i) the integrated, where all functions are delegated to one central administrative authority – the Danish prototype, (ii) the commercialised, where State forests are managed by a commercial State company – the Irish prototype, and (iii) the minimalistic, where only negligible forest areas of special importance remain in State ownership – the Swedish prototype. The scenarios are assessed according to six imperatives: (i) sort out the ambiguity of the present structure, (ii) increase the profitability, (iii) reduce the level of public spending, (iv) accommodate changes in ownership structure, (v) rely on a holistic approach, and (vi) comply with the national forest policy. If adopted, any of the scenarios would most likely improve the various elements of State forestry, although in substantially different ways. Politicians will take the final decision that may be supported by the findings of this study.

The IGBP Land Use Land Cover Change program ended in November 2005 with sessions at the IHDP 6th Open Meeting in Bonn. This book is based on a session at that meeting convened by the editors, and presents other important topics and areas. Included are chapters based on papers presented at this meeting and invited contributions that cover important geographical and thematic issues not addressed at the meeting. In particular, there will be a balance between old agricultural regions (eg. Mediterranean, Indo-Gangetic Plains, Andes, Southern Africa, and upland Southeast Asia) and regions recently converted to agriculture, for example, the Brazilian Cerrado, the Yucatan Penninsula, and Bolivian Chapare. Systematic themes to be explored in this book include the impacts of trade liberalisation, the impacts of narcotics as crops, technological change, new regionally based agricultural organizations, migration impacts on agricultural land use, and agricultural intensification.

Effective conservation planning and landscape management are supported by relevant, up-to-date scientific information. However, practitioners don't always have ready access to the large, rapidly-changing body of scientific information and science is not necessarily targeted at the most important issues for managers. Facilitating knowledge exchange between scientists and practitioners is a significant, ongoing challenge. In Australia, regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) bodies are responsible for strategic landscape management planning. The Federal Government has funded NRM bodies to incorporate climate change adaptation strategies into updated plans, and concurrently funded research consortia to provide supporting scientific information. We present the Wet Tropics cluster project 'Knowledge to manage land and sea' as a model for facilitating co-operation between research and practice. A "brokering hub" brings scientists and practitioners together to make collaborative decisions about research direction, the allocation of project resources, and long-term science-planning partnerships in the region. The first stage of the project involved an analysis of the major impacts of climate change on socio-economic-ecological systems in the Wet Tropics cluster region, producing a report that synthesises scientific knowledge and expert opinion in relation to the key issues for NRM groups, identified through an iterative, collaborative process. The report is directly relevant to NRM groups and has been adapted for use in planning workshops and other stakeholder engagement activities. The project is currently focussed on participatory planning work, including co-identification of priority adaptation pathways, as well as the delivery of spatial tools for prioritising carbon and biodiversity planting.

Intro -- Climate and Conservation -- Contents -- Foreword -- Preface -- PART I: Setting the Context -- Chapter 1: Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Opportunities -- Climate Change and Biodiversity -- Past and Future Changes -- Consequences for Conservation -- Need for Scape-scale Management and Conservation -- Responding to the Threat of Climate Change -- Opportunities -- Overview of the Book -- Chapter 2: Landscape and Seascape Climate Change Planning and Action -- Selecting Focal Species, Processes, and Ecosystems -- Framing Climate-informed Conservation Goals -- Assessing Climate Change Impacts -- Identifying and Prioritizing Adaptation Actions -- Implementing Actions at a Scape Scale -- Monitoring and Revisiting Plans -- Conclusions -- Acknowledgments -- PA RT 2: Equatorial and Tropical Landscapes -- Chapter 3:Albertine Rift, Africa -- Introduction to the Region -- Historical Overview of Conservation and Science Initiatives -- Current Conservation in the Region -- Regional Effects of Climate Change -- Approaches to Conservation under Climate Change -- Landscape Conservation Needs Assessment in Response to Climate Change -- Roadblocks and Opportunities -- Conclusion and Recommendations -- Chapter 4: The Brazilian Amazon -- Introduction to the Region -- Historical Overview of Conservation and Science Initiatives -- Current Conservation in the Region -- Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon -- Regional Effects of Climate Change -- Roadblocks and Opportunities -- Approaches to Conservation under Climate Change -- Conclusion and Recommendations -- Chapter 5 :Mesoamerican Biological Corridor -- Introduction to the Region -- Historical Overview of Conservation and Science Initiatives -- Paseo Pantera:Path of the Jaguar -- Formation of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) -- Regional Effects of Climate Change.

The beetle Osmoderma eremita has received much attention in the last few years, as it is among those species with the highest priority in the European Union's Habitat Directive. In this paper the species is evaluated as a potential indicator and umbrella species for the endangered beetle fauna in tree hollows. To be useful as an indicator of a species rich fauna it should be easy to inventory and be strongly correlated with the presence of other species. An umbrella species is a species which is so demanding that the protection of this species will automatically save many others. The species richness of saproxylic beetles and occupancy of O. eremita were surveyed in tree hollows in an area in southeastern Sweden by assessing presence/absence of living and dead adults (including fragments) and larvae. The species richness was higher when O. eremita was present, both at tree and stand level. Several threatened species were associated with the presence of O. eremita, whereas others did not correlate with occurrence of O. eremita. As O. eremita is easy to find and identify, it is useful as an indicator of stands with a rich beetle fauna in tree hollows. O. eremita is possible to use as an umbrella species, because if measures are taken to conserve O. eremita, many other species in the same habitat are also conserved. However, there are some beetles in tree hollows which seem to be more sensitive to habitat fragmentation than O. eremita, and may go extinct if only O. eremita is taken into consideration.

In the past century, European agriculture has undergone profound changes. Through technical advances and structural changes, productivity is snowballing while farmland ecosystems are increasingly affected. These changes are taking place not only at the field scale through increased inputs and outputs, but also at the landscape scale through landscape simplification, with ecological effects being attributable to changes at both scales. While the decline of many farmland organisms in response to agricultural intensification is the most apparent effect, many of the biological functions provided by the systems biodiversity (so called ecosystem services such as pollination, nutrient cycling etc.) are also threatened, which could have great economical implications. To counter negative effects of agricultural intensification, EU Member States are using agri-environmental schemes (AESs) to incite farmers to use environmentally friendly practices. However, the effects of these schemes have been questioned both on the uncertain effects on biodiversity and on farmers' reluctance to participate. Many studies have tried to relate AES participation to characteristics of schemes, or demographics of farms and farmers including attitudes. Farmers seem to prefer schemes with flexible contract terms that only infer small changes in farm management. However, linking AES participation to farm characteristics is problematic, and studies often reach opposing results. Regarding ecological effects, lack of clearly stated objectives and the low scientific quality of the CMEF evaluations cloud the assessment of measures. Further, the effects of AESs have been found to vary with landscape composition (cleared/complex) and between taxa. With a deeper understanding of how AES effects interact with the landscape and how farmers relate to conservation initiatives, there are opportunities to improve scheme design. Collection of baseline data, evidence‐based measures and result-­based payments are examples of ways to advance AESs. To increase farmer engagement in AESs, participatory approaches play an important part in bridging the attitudinal gap between conservationists, legislation and farmers.

This workshop was the result of many hours of planning and hard work by a committee consisting of Nora Casson, Diane Orihel, Gordon Goldsborough, Scott Forbes, Elise Watchorn, Scott Higgins and Pascal Badiou. The workshop was facilitated by Sheldon McLeod and the report writing was led by Marliese Peterson and Nora Casson. Marliese Peterson also coordinated the note taking during the workshop, and was assisted by Madeline Stanley, Chris Hope, Jill Watling, Alexandra Goodman, and Hailey Robichaud. ; Lake Manitoba is a large, shallow prairie lake located in central Manitoba. The lake and watershed are subject to numerous environmental pressures including climate change, land use change, and regulation of water levels, particularly during the operation of the Portage Diversion which diverts water from the Assiniboine River into Lake Manitoba. There are substantial gaps in our scientific knowledge about the ecology, limnology, and hydrology of Lake Manitoba, which limit our ability to make informed management decisions. A science workshop was convened at the University of Winnipeg in December 2015 to summarize the state of knowledge around water quality and ecosystem functioning in Lake Manitoba and its watershed, identify key knowledge gaps, and develop ways to address these gaps. The workshop was attended by 34 participants from universities, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations, all of whom had particular expertise in one of four theme areas: Water Levels & Regulation; Watershed Management & Landscape Processes; Water Quality; and Ecology & Wetlands. This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the workshop, and can be used to help guide research priorities into the future. While specific, detailed recommendations were made in each theme area, two major recommendations emerged across all themes. The first recommendation is the existence of critical data gaps which must be filled before progress can be made on understanding ecosystem functioning. These gaps include physical data (e.g. bathymetric, meteorological and LiDAR data), water quality data (e.g. off-shore water chemistry, tributary nutrient loading), and ecological data (e.g. algal community composition, zooplankton characterization, macroinvertebrates population estimates). Furthermore, we do not understand the extent of spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the Lake Manitoba system. Much of the monitoring that does take place occurs along the edges of the lake during the open water season, resulting in large gaps in our understanding of processes occurring in the middle of the lake or during the winter. Without filling these critical data gaps, our scientific understanding of the system is incomplete and we are limited in our ability to make recommendations to resource managers and stakeholders. The second general recommendation that emerged is the need to coordinate research activities across disciplines and agencies. Lake Manitoba and its watershed are complex ecosystems which are connected to the landscape and other waterbodies, including Lakes Winnipeg and Winnipegosis. To this end, we propose establishing a Manitoba Great Lakes Research Consortium to coordinate and disseminate research across Manitoba's Great Lakes. Such an organization could also facilitate a repository to make data collected from Lake Manitoba and connected ecosystems accessible to researchers and stakeholders. While there are major gaps in our understanding of ecosystem functions in Lake Manitoba and its watershed, this report provides a way forward. For the gaps that were identified as the most pressing, workshop participants outlined plans of action to address these gaps, including identifying collaborators, potential sources of funding, and timelines to achieve these goals. These next steps will be useful to researchers, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations as they move forward to address the issues facing Lake Manitoba. ; Environment Canada, University of Winnipeg, University of Manitoba, Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Ducks Unlimited, International Institute for Sustainable Development

Agricultural Landscapes: History, Status and Challenges -- Exploring Agricultural Landscapes: Recent Progress and Opportunities for Eurasia -- Optimizing Agricultural Landscapes: Measures Towards Prosperity and Sustainability -- The Russian Food Security Doctrine: Historical Roots and Major Limitations -- The Work of VV Dokuchaev in the Chernozem Zone of Russia: a Contribution to Productive and Sustainable Agrolandscapes, and a Basis for Recent Research -- Renewable Resources from Agriculture and Forestry – State of Use and Innovative Concepts in Germany -- Promising Agricultural Management Practices and Soil Threats in Europe and China -- Long-Term Field Experiments (LTEs) – Importance, Overview, Soil Organic Matter.