This report constitutes background material to a Nordic IPBES-like assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Nordic coastal ecosystems and departs from case studies from ten different geographical areas in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) as well as the autonomous areas of Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland. The purpose is to reflect upon the local situation regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services, e.g. status and trends, drivers of change and policies for governance, and what future we are to expect. These case studies describe the situation in the Näätämö catchment area (FI), the Kalix archipelago (SE), the Quark (FI/SE), Lake Puruvesi (FI), the Bay of Lumparn (ÅL/FI), Öresund (SE/DK), the Helgeland archipelago (NOR), the Faroe Islands (DK), the northern coastline of Iceland, and Disko Bay (Greenland/DK), respectively. Consequently, these areas stretch from fresh water areas to ecosystems in the Atlantic Ocean and from urbanised areas with heavy pressures on the ecosystems, e.g. Öresund, to sparsely populated areas, like Greenland with a population of around 0,03 habitants/km2 .
Biodiversity loss can degrade ecosystems and impactthe ability of ecosystems to contribute to people. The last 20 years of ecosystem service research has increased society's interest in fighting the consequences of ecosystem degradation. During the last decades, attitudes towards conservation have been shaped in many ways. According to Mace (2014), "nature for itself" was a key principle during 1960s–1970s supporting concepts such as protected and wilderness areas. Human pressures on nature during the 1980s and early 1990s resulted in extinctions, habitat loss, and pollution, which made it urgent to act for"nature despite of people". That period was followed by a "nature for people" period, in which biodiversity challenges were mainstreamed via concepts such as ecosystem approach, ecosystem services and economic values. The latest paradigm, which was developed by Mace (2014) is called "people and nature". Key concepts in conservation circles include environmental change, resilience, adaptability and socio-ecological systems. Several assessments of the state and trends of biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services have been carried out via various initiatives, such as Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005), followed by the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) assessments and the Aichi biodiversity targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In Europe, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) has generated a lot of new knowledge on the quantification of ecosystem services and use of this information in decision-making. Today, more and more open data is available through research infrastructures, for example, remote sensing data through the Copernicus programme of the European Union and European Space Agency. Naturebased solutions and green and blue infrastructure are becoming popular in landscape planning and highlight different aspects of the socio-ecological (synon. coupled human-environment) systems and their sustainable management. The most significant attempt to highlight the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services globally, has been the establishment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). IPBES has launched a series of thematic and geographical assessments. The European and Central Asian regional assessment has been ongoing parallel to this Nordic IPBES-like assessment that has focused on coastal ecosystems and their services. This assessment covers the Nordic countries, i.e. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, and autonomous areas such as Åland, Faroe Islands and Greenland, which are a unique "biocultural" piece of Earth with unique nature values and well-established societies.
Sustainable development aims at addressing economic, social, and environmental concerns, but the current lack of responsive environmental governance hinders progress. Short-term economic development has led to limited actions, unsustainable resource management, and degraded ecosystems. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) may continue to fall short of achieving significant progress without a better understanding of how ecosystems contribute to achieving sustainability for all people. Ecosystem governance is an approach that integrates the social and ecological components for improved sustainability and includes principles such as adaptive ecosystem co-management, subsidiarity, and telecoupling framework, as well as principles of democracy and accountability. We explain the importance of ecosystem governance in achieving the SDGs, and suggest some ways to ensure that ecosystem services are meaningfully considered. This paper reflects on how integration of these approaches into policies can enhance the current agenda of sustainability.
The policy term green infrastructure highlights the need to maintain functional ecosystems as a foundation for sustainable societies. Because forests are the main natural ecosystems in Europe, it is crucial to understand the extent to which forest landscape management delivers functional green infrastructures. We used the steep west-east gradient in forest landscape history, land ownership, and political culture within northern Europe's Baltic Sea Region to assess regional profiles of benefits delivered by forest landscapes. The aim was to support policy-makers and planners with evidence-based knowledge about the current conditions for effective wood production and biodiversity conservation. We developed and modeled four regional-level indicators for sustained yield wood production and four for biodiversity conservation using public spatial data. The western case study regions in Sweden and Latvia had high forest management intensity with balanced forest losses and gains which was spatially correlated, thus indicating an even stand age class distribution at the local scale and therefore long-term sustained yields. In contrast, the eastern case study regions in Belarus and Russia showed spatial segregation of areas with forest losses and gains. Regarding biodiversity conservation indicators, the west-east gradient was reversed. In the Russian, Belarusian, and Latvian case study regions, tree species composition was more natural than in Sweden, and the size of contiguous areas without forest loss was larger. In all four case study regions, 54-85% of the total land base consisted of forest cover, which is above critical fragmentation thresholds for forest landscape fragmentation. The results show that green infrastructures for wood production and biodiversity conservation are inversely related among the four case study regions, and thus rival. While restoration for biodiversity conservation is needed in the west, intensified use of wood and biomass is possible in the east. However, a cautious approach should be applied because intensification of wood production threatens biodiversity. We discuss the barriers and bridges for spatial planning in countries with different types of land ownership and political cultures and stress the need for a landscape approach based on evidence-based collaborative learning processes that include both different academic disciplines and stakeholders that represent different sectors and levels of governance.
Rewilding is positioned as 'post'-conservation through its emphasis on unleashing the autonomy of natural processes. In this paper, we argue that the autonomy of nature rhetoric in rewilding is challenged by human interventions. Instead of joining critique toward the 'managed wilderness' approach of rewilding, however, we examine the injustices this entails for keystone species. Reintroduction case studies demonstrate how arbitrary standards for wildness are imposed on these animals as they do their assigned duty to rehabilitate ecosystems. These 'Goldilocks' standards are predicated on aesthetic values that sanction interventions inconsistent with the premise of animal sovereignty. These include culling, relocations and sterilizations of animals that demonstrate the kind of autonomy championed in rewilding rhetoric. Drawing from Donaldson and Kymlicka's framework for political animal categories, we conclude by arguing that rewilding needs to re-position itself in one of two ways. Either it should align itself more closely to mainstream conservation and embrace full animal sovereignty without Goldilocks conditions, or it should commit to taking full responsibility for reintroduced animals, including supplementary feeding and care.
This report presents the outcome of the joint work of PhD students and senior researchers working with DNA-based biodiversity assessment approaches with the goal to facilitate others the access to definitions and explanations about novel DNA-based methods. The work was performed during a PhD course (SLU PNS0169) at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) in Uppsala, Sweden. The course was co-organized by the EU COST research network DNAqua-Net and the SLU Research Schools Focus on Soils and Water (FoSW) and Ecology - basics and applications. DNAqua-Net (COST Action CA15219, 2016-2020) is a network connecting researchers, water managers, politicians and other stakeholders with the aim to develop new genetic tools for bioassessment of aquatic ecosystems in Europe and beyond. The PhD course offered a comprehensive overview of the paradigm shift from traditional morphology-based species identification to novel identification approaches based on molecular markers. We covered the use of molecular tools in both basic research and applied use with a focus on aquatic ecosystem assessment, from species collection to the use of diversity in environmental legislation. The focus of the course was on DNA (meta)barcoding and aquatic organisms. The knowledge gained was shared with the general public by creating Wikipedia pages and through this collaborative Open Access publication, co-authored by all course participants.
In all parts of the world the sea is a source of life, of energy, of food, of commerce, of fun. Its water, wind, and waves are all in demand – as a playground for pleasure-seekers and nature-lovers, as a highway for international commerce, as a home for unique communities of wildlife and people. All this is also true for the Bothnian Sea, a part of the northern European Baltic Sea between Finland and Sweden. The Bothnian Sea is used by two neighbouring highly developed societies. There are many demands on its resources, and its open spaces are highly coveted areas for developments such as wind power farms. This relatively sparsely habitated corner of the world is also, at least at times, a place of wild seas and ancient heritage. Like planning on land, maritime spatial planning is a process that has to incorporate ideals of the public good and the various politically-anchored ways to define this, taking in to account private development interests as well as the physical realities of limited natural resources and fragile ecosystems. This book provides an introduction to the Bothnian Sea and the ideas around maritime spatial planning for its offshore areas. We have tried to present a balance between the perspectives of competing interests. As this has been a pilot initiative, we have not aimed to give you ready answers, but instead try to provoke further debate. The Bothnian Sea and its future are in your hands. The editor
International hydroacoustic surveys have been conducted in the Baltic Sea since 1978. The starting point was the cooperation between the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) in Lysekil, Sweden, and the Institute fur Hochseefisherei und Fishverarbeitung in Rostock, German Democratic Republic, in October ¨ 1978, which produced the first acoustic estimates of total biomass of herring and sprat in the Baltic main basin (Håkansson et al., 1979). Since then there has been at least one annual hydroacoustic survey for herring and sprat and results have been reported to ICES. The Baltic International Acoustic Survey (BIAS), is mandatory for the countries that have exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Baltic Sea, and is a part of the Data Collection Framework as stipulated by the European Council and the Commission (Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 and the Commission Data Collection Framework (DCF) web page1 ). The IMR in Lysekil is part of the Department of Aquatic Resources within Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and is responsible for the Swedish part of the EU DCF and surveys in the marine environment. The Institute assesses the status of the marine ecosystems, develops and provides biological advices for the sustainable use of the aquatic resources. The BIAS survey is co-ordinated and managed by the ICES working group WGBIFS. The main objective of BIAS is to assess herring and sprat resources in the Baltic Sea. The survey provides data to the ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS).
International hydroacoustic surveys have been conducted in the Baltic Sea since 1978. The starting point was the cooperation between Institute of Marine Research (IMR) in Lysekil, Sweden and the Institute fur Hochseefisherei und Fishverarbeitung in Rostock, German Democratic Republic in October 1978, ¨ which produced the first acoustic estimates of total biomass of herring and sprat in the Baltic Main basin (H˚akansson et al., 1979). Since then there has been at least one annual hydroacoustic survey for herring and sprat stocks and results have been reported to ICES. The Baltic International Acoustic Survey (BIAS), is mandatory for the countries that have exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Baltic Sea, and is a part of the Data Collection Framework as stipulated by the European Council and the Commission (Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 and the Commission Data Collection Framework (DCF) web page1 ). IMR in Lysekil is part of the Department of Aquatic Resources within Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and is responsible for the Swedish part of the EU DCF and surveys in the marine environment. The Institute assesses the status of the marine ecosystems, develops and provides biological advices for managers for the sustainable use of aquatic resources. The BIAS survey are co-ordinated and managed by the ICES working group WGBIFS. The main objective of BIAS is to assess herring and sprat resources in the Baltic Sea. The survey will provide data to the ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS).
Knowledge and valuation of ecosystem services are important components for reaching the governmental goals for improving the natural environments. Recreational fishing has more than one million practitioners nationwide.Knowledge about the fishers and their catches increases the ability to assess whether the ecosystem services are retained. In addition, it gives means for evaluating the actions for the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of oceans, lakes and rivers. Knowledge of recreational fishing is also needed in order to follow up the details in its environmental objectives relating to outdoor recreation, tourism industry and the governmental goals in the open-air policy. The EU's common fisheries policy, the Swedish environmental policy and Swedish fisheries policy all emphasize that ecosystem-based management should be implemented. Thus, there are needs for knowledge of the ecosystems which are exploited by humans. Fish populations are important components of aquatic ecosystems, and are affected by the surrounding environment, while they themselves affect the structures of the aquatic food-webs. Fishes often have regulatory functions in the ecosystems, and thereby contribute to valuable ecosystem services in addition to the more obvious services as providing food and recreation for humans. Mostly issues regarding the impacts of fishing-related activities on fish populations have been focused on commercial fishing. A widespread and intensive commercial fishing may lead to the depletion of stocks or, at worst, a collapse of the fish populations; the fish population reaching such low levels that recovery may be difficult. In recent years the knowledge of the impact of recreational fishing on aquatic systems has increased, but still the effects of recreational fishing on ecosystem are relatively poorly studied, compared to commercial fisheries. For many, it may be difficult to accept that recreational fishing may affect fish populations; each fisher/angler favour just their own fisheries without bearing in mind that although the small influence from each individual fisherman may be small, it will be significant when many fishermen harvest from the same stock. Recreational fishing and its effects on the aquatic ecosystems are often neglected in fisheries science, mainly due to the lack of data to estimate recreational fishing harvest with a sufficient resolution to calculate the effort and landings of recreational fisheries. In this report, we try to give an overall picture of the fish species needing increased knowledge in order to get an estimate of harvest in recreational fisheries and thereby the effect on fish populations. Furthermore, we also try to give a picture of international studies and finally to give examples of methods concerning how and to what extent one may conduct studies in Sweden. Our proposal is largely based on combining different surveys in specific areas that we believe can be used to scale-up the results. We suggest data collation of recreational fishing is concentrated to areas with public waters, because in other water bodies the land owner has sovereignty under the law. The focus areas we point out are those already having some data collection, both in terms of recreational fishing and environmental monitoring / stock assessment and where there are non-fishing protective areas nearby. Collection of data should not be made in all areas at every year; three areas are suggested to become intensive areas (data collection every year) and the remaining areas data collection will take place every three years - on a rolling schedule. The sampling methods we recommend are national survey (i.e. mail and telephone surveys), recording of catches in fishing tourism, voluntary catch registration of individual anglers, collection of data from fishing competitions, on-site inventory of fishing effort (e.g. count fetter and trailers), inventory of catch per effort (e.g. by creel-surveys) and fish tagging studies. For the west coast we propose one focus area, Älgöfjorden. At the coasts of Bohuslän County and the northern part of Halland County the fishing pressure is high for lobster and crab and therefore a focus area should be established in this area. We suggest that data are collected by on-site visits for inventorying fishing effort (counting numbers of pots / buoys / fishing people), combined with catch registration can return an estimates on catch per effort, and this can then be applied to a larger area. Another potential focus area is the area around Torhamn (Blekinge) which, for example, is popular area recreational fishing for pike. Torhamn is one of three national reference areas for coastal fish monitoring on the East Coast and has been monitored since 2002. It is also desirable to study aspects of fishing mortality in recreational fisheries. To our knowledge, there are no national studies that have explored the effects of catch-and-release in natural environments over long periods of time. The Bråviken Bay is a relatively limited and well-defined area having considered high recreational fishing pressure, but large time series from fish monitoring programmes are lacking. This site will give good opportunities for studying pike, pikeperch and to some extent also sea trout, data collection is suggested to take place every third year. An adjacent area is Kvädöfjärden having fish monitoring time series from 1989. Closely situated to Kvädöfjärden is Licknevarpefjärden where fishing has been prohibited since 1970. Additional areas that are of interest to follow up with some regularity are Asköfjärden, Gålö and / or Lagnö in the Stockholm archipelago. In the future it might be fruitful to shift data collection intensity between Torhamn in Blekinge and an area in Stockholm archipelago. Such decision should be based on factors like where the most practical solutions / contact network can be found. In the Gulf of Bothnia angling with nets, traps and similar gears are relatively widespread. We suggest that Långvind Bay in Gävleborg County, is an area for the study of recreational fishing in a relatively sparsely populated county and is most likely typical for large parts of the Gulf of Bothnia. Data collection is suggested to take place every year. As for the Gulf of Bothnia the recreational fishery in the Bothnian Bay are mainly targeting the whitefish, sea trout and, to some extent also perch. By monitoring the recreational fisheries in Kinnbäcksfjärden near Piteå, we hope to be able to describe the local recreational fishing patterns and then apply these values for catch per effort for most of the coastal strip of the Bothnian Bays. Recreational fishing is widespread in all of the five largest lakes in Sweden, and there is a need for data collection in all five. In Lake Vänern, Lake Vättern and Lake Mälaren there are fish monitoring data of good quality and regularity. However, in the two smallest lakes, Lake Hjälmaren and Lake Storsjön in Jämtland County, few test fishing areas and few studies regarding recreational fishing have been made. For Lake Vättern we suggest that data collection is done every year; especially the archipelago in the northern part of the lake will be an excellent area for the study of recreational fishing for pike. In the other four lakes we propose that data collection is made every third year. By studying recreational fishing - its practitioners, scope, gear-use, and harvest, it will be possible to achieve a more detailed view of how recreational fishing is done and how it varies along the Swedish coast and in the five largest lakes. Such knowledge is important for the managers of common fisheries resources and the monitoring of environmental status and evaluating the recreational goals established by the Swedish governments.
Human alteration of natural systems, and its consequences are of great concern and the impact on global ecosystems is one of the biggest threats that biodiversity stands before. Translocations of invasive species, as well as intraspecific contingents with non-native genotypes, whether they are deliberate or unintentional, are one such alteration and its consequences are continuously being assessed. The mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) is the most numerous and widespread duck in the world and a flagship in wetland conservation. It is also an important game species which is heavily restocked for hunting purposes, especially in Europe where over three million ducklings are released every year. Because of its hunted status, its abundance, and the number of released individuals, it can serve as a model species to study effects of releases, both for conservation and restocking for hunting, on wild populations. In this thesis the status of the mallard was assessed in the Nordic countries and the effects of releases on the wild populations were studied by mining historical ringing data, comparing morphology of present-day wild, farmed, and historical mallards, and analyzing phylogeography of wild and farmed mallards in Europe. The status of the mallard population in the Nordic countries are generally good, however, a joint effort of European countries is needed to monitor and manage the population. A significant difference between wild and farmed mallards concerning longevity, migration, bill morphology and genetic structure was also found, together with signs of cryptic introgression of farmed genotypes in the wild population with potential fitness reduction as a result. The effect is however limited by that only a fraction of released farmed mallards reach the breeding season due to low survival. A natural captive environment is crucial to keep individuals wild-like with high survival rates after release. However, with an introgression of potentially maladapted farmed genotypes leading to a reduction in fitness, a low survival of released mallards would favor the wild population. A legislative change regarding obligation to report numbers, provenance, and release sites of farmed mallard should be considered, together with practical solutions of ringing and genetic monitoring of released mallards.
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.
Agriculture provides the most essential service to mankind, as production of crops in sufficient amounts is necessary for food security and livelihood. This chapter examines the question of whether organic agriculture can produce enough food to meet future demand. This question relates to a moral imperative and any evaluation must therefore be based on objective scientific facts excluding ideological bias, political correctness, economic incentives or environmental opinions. The chapter begins by defining the conditions necessary for a stringent evaluation of crop yields and explains potential pitfalls. Yield data from national statistics, organic and conventional long-term experiments and comparative studies are then compiled and evaluated, followed by a discussion of the main factors behind low-yielding production. In a global perspective, the scientific literature shows that organic yields are between 25 and 50% lower than conventional yields, depending on whether the organic system has access to animal manure. The amount of manure available on organic farms is usually not sufficient to produce similar crop yields as in conventional systems and therefore green manures are commonly used. However, organic crop yields reported for rotations with green manure require correction for years without crop export from the field, which reduces average yield over the crop rotation. When organic yields are similar to those in conventional production, nutrient input through manure is usually higher than nutrient addition in conventional agriculture, but such high inputs are usually only possible through transfer of large amounts of manure from conventional to organic production. The main factors limiting organic yields are lower nutrient availability, poorer weed control and limited possibilities to improve the nutrient status of infertile soils. It is thus very likely that the rules that actually define organic agriculture, i.e. exclusive use of manures and untreated minerals, greatly limit the potential to increase yields. Our analysis of some yield-related statements repeatedly used by advocates of organic agriculture reached the following conclusions: Organic manure is a severely limited resource, unavailable in quantities sufficient for sustaining high crop yields; legumes are not a free and environmentally sound N source that can replace inorganic fertilisers throughout; and low native soil fertility cannot be overcome with local inputs and untreated minerals alone. Agricultural methods severely limiting crop yields are counter-productive. Lower organic yields require compensation through expansion of cropland – the alternative is famine. Combining expected population growth and projected land demand reveals that low-yielding agriculture is an unrealistic option for production of sufficient crops in the future. In addition, accelerated conversion of natural ecosystems into cropland would cause significant loss of natural habitats. Further improvement of conventional agriculture based on innovations, enhanced efficiency and improved agronomic practices seems to be the only way to produce sufficient food supply for a growing world population while minimising the negative environmental impact.
Biodiversity conservation is an important contemporary issue on global, EU and national policy agendas. However, in the face of human economic development, the important question is how to protect, maintain and restore biodiversity, without compromising economic and social dimensions of sustainability. Two sectors that can to a large extent influence biodiversity are forestry and road infrastructure development. Forestry is a sector very important for biodiversity conservation, since a large amount of protected and threatened species resides in forest ecosystems and many natural processes crucial for biodiversity occur in the forest. In addition, forests and woodlands form a network of habitats for many area-demanding species. Due to intensive forest management and fragmentation of forest and woodlands many elements of biodiversity are threatened, including species, habitats and processes. Road infrastructure development is another process that can negatively influence biodiversity. A growing network of transport infrastructure without doubt affects the functionality of the forest habitat networks. Negative effects include traffic mortality due to road collisions and barrier effect for individuals caused by high traffic volume, noise, wide roads and fencing. Cumulative effects of the infrastructure development can also lead to a loss of different elements of biodiversity at the landscape scale. Poland, with a legacy of less intensive forest management and still without a well-developed road infrastructure, is fortunate in terms of biodiversity maintenance. Due to economic underdevelopment of some regions of the country, Poland is rich in natural values including specialized species, functional habitat networks and ecological processes. However, after entering the European Union, Poland has started a process of rapid economic development, mainly with the help of EU funding. Enhancing road infrastructure is presently a key issue of economic development in this country. Dramatic growth in the amount of new roads can have large scale consequences for the biodiversity of the country, and can even influence biodiversity at the European scale. Policies aiming at biodiversity maintenance underline the need for implementing sustainability ideas in the planning and management for biodiversity. Traditionally, economic, environmental and social pillars of sustainability are identified. To be able to balance these three dimensions in the efforts for biodiversity conservation, there is a need to incorporate social dimensions in the nature science research concerning biodiversity. Especially, consideration of local attitudes is necessary in planning for biodiversity conservation. The aim of this thesis is to examine actors' attitudes and underlying values in two situations of conflict related to biodiversity conservation in Poland. One case concerns forest management in a biodiversity hot-spot, Białowieża forest and the other is about a development of a controversial road project of Augustów bypass. The results show that differences in attitudes may have various sources. The knowledge possessed by actors, their values, as well as scale at which they perceived biodiversity issues were identified as the main reasons for different attitudes. It was observed that in general, the actors whose attitudes were more "ecologically oriented" had to a large extent a cognitive view, that is their attitudes were mainly based on cognition (ecological knowledge) while "socially" or "economically oriented" actors' attitudes were more connected to emotions. In addition to differing attitudes, lack of trust was recognized in both cases as a factor escalating the conflict. The results showed also that legal issues are crucial to consider when biodiversity conservation is at stake. The results may have implications for the practical biodiversity conservation, since they show that both learning and legal incentives would be beneficial for the biodiversity conservation in controversial planning cases. This calls for the need for neutral forum for efficient public participation, communication and trust building between the actors and learning about important issues
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.