Suchergebnisse

The threat posed by invasive non-native species worldwide requires a global approach to identify which introduced species are likely to pose an elevated risk of impact to native species and ecosystems. To inform policy, stakeholders and management decisions on global threats to aquatic ecosystems, 195 assessors representing 120 risk assessment areas across all six inhabited continents screened 819 non-native species from 15 groups of aquatic organisms (freshwater, brackish, marine plants and animals) using the Aquatic Species Invasiveness Screening Kit. This multi-lingual decision-support tool for the risk screening of aquatic organisms provides assessors with risk scores for a species under current and future climate change conditions that, following a statistically based calibration, permits the accurate classification of species into high-, medium-and low-risk categories under current and predicted climate conditions. The 1730 screenings undertaken encompassed wide geographical areas (regions, political entities, parts thereof, water bodies, river basins, lake drainage basins, and marine regions), which permitted thresholds to be identified for almost all aquatic organismal groups screened as well as for tropical, temperate and continental climate classes, and for tropical and temperate marine ecoregions. In total, 33 species were identified as posing a 'very high risk' of being or becoming invasive, and the scores of several of these species under current climate increased under future climate conditions, primarily due to their wide thermal tolerances. The risk thresholds determined for taxonomic groups and climate zones provide a basis against which area-specific or climate-based calibrated thresholds may be interpreted. In turn, the risk rankings help decision-makers identify which species require an immediate 'rapid' management action (e.g. eradication, control) to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts, which require a full risk assessment, and which are to be restricted or banned with regard to importation and/or sale as ornamental or aquarium/fishery enhancement. Decision support tools AS-ISK Hazard identification Non-native species Risk analysis Climate change

Identification of ecosystem services, i.e. the contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being, has proven instru-mental in galvanising public and political support for safeguarding biodiversity and its benefits to people. Here we synthe-sise the global evidence on ecosystem services provided and disrupted by freshwater bivalves, a heterogenous group of>1200 species, including some of the most threatened (in Unionida) and invasive (e.g.Dreissena polymorpha) taxa globally.Our systematic literature review resulted in a data set of 904 records from 69 countries relating to 24 classes of provision-ing (N=189), cultural (N=491) and regulating (N=224) services following the Common International Classification ofEcosystem Services (CICES). Prominent ecosystem services included (i) the provisioning of food, materials and medicinalproducts, (ii) knowledge acquisition (e.g. on water quality, past environments and historical societies), ornamental andother cultural contributions, and (iii) thefiltration, sequestration, storage and/or transformation of biological andphysico-chemical water properties. About 9% of records provided evidence for the disruption rather than provision ofecosystem services. Synergies and trade-offs of ecosystem services were observed. For instance, waterfiltration by fresh-water bivalves can be beneficial for the cultural service'biomonitoring', while negatively or positively affecting food consumption or human recreation. Our evidence base spanned a total of 91 genera and 191 species, dominated byUnionida (55% of records, 76% of species), Veneroida (21 and 9%, respectively; mainlyCorbiculaspp.) and Myoida(20 and 4%, respectively; mainlyDreissenaspp.). About one third of records, predominantly from Europe and the Amer-icas, related to species that were non-native to the country of study. The majority of records originated from Asia (35%),with available evidence for 23 CICES classes, as well as Europe (29%) and North America (23%), where research waslargely focused on'biomonitoring'. ...

While there is much debate on transformative change amongacademics and policymakers, the discussion on how to governsuch change is still in its infancy. This article argues thattransformative governance is needed to enable thetransformative change necessary for achieving globalsustainability goals. Based on a literature review, the articleunpacks this concept of transformative governance. It is:integrative, to ensure local solutions also have sustainableimpacts elsewhere (across scales, places, issues and sectors);inclusive, to empower those whose interests are currently notbeing met and represent values embodying transformativechange for sustainability; adaptive, enabling learning,experimentation, and reflexivity, to cope with the complexity oftransformative change; and pluralist, recognizing differentknowledge systems. We argue that only when these fourgovernance approaches are: implemented in conjunction;operationalized in a specific manner; and focused onaddressing the indirect drivers underlying sustainability issues,governance becomes transformative. ; publishedVersion

The COVID-19 pandemic, its impact on the global economy, and current delays in the negotiation of the post-2020 global biodiversity agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity heighten the urgency to build back better for biodiversity, sustainability, and well-being. In 2019, the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) concluded that addressing biodiversity loss requires a transformative change of the global economic system. Drawing on the IPBES findings, this policy perspective discusses actions in four priority areas to inform the post-2020 agenda: (1) Increasing funding for conservation; (2) redirecting incentives for sustainability; (3) creating an enabling regulatory environment; and (4) reforming metrics to assess biodiversity impacts and progress toward sustainable and just goals. As the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear, and the negotiations for the post-2020 agenda have emphasized, governments are indispensable in guiding economic systems and ust take an active role in transformations, along with businesses and civil society. These key actors must work together to implement actions that combine short-term impacts with structural change to shift economic systems away from a fixation with growth toward human and ecological well-being. The four priority areas discussed here provide opportunities for the post-2020 agenda to do so. biodiversity conservation, economic systems, green finance, incentives, metrics, policy, regulation, subsidies, trade, transformative change ; publishedVersion

Adaptive management', which has been defined as the repeated iteration between management action, scientific assessment and revised management action, leading to a strengthened foundation for management, is required by Swedish law to be incorporated into the management of large carnivores. We have evaluated whether the size and/or trend of the brown bear Ursus arctos population in Sweden corresponded to management-decided national objectives during five management regimes during the past 70 years (1943–2013). We found that the objective had been met in only one period, when it had been worded very vaguely. During the last period studied (2008–2013), when management was carried out on the county level and adaptive management was required by the Swedish Government, four of six counties met their trend objectives, but only one of six met the population objectives, although one was close to meeting them. Sociological studies have documented major problems in communication among the members of the county delegations responsible for the management of large carnivores. As adaptive management apparently never has been implemented successfully in brown bear management in Sweden, we recommend that the Delegations for Game Management be mandated to integrate up-to-date, scientifically documented biological information into their decisions. This is not done consistently today. Researchers should be involved in the process to inform about relevant, available information, design testable scientific 'experiments' based on the predicted results of management decisions, and evaluate the results in relation to the predictions, perhaps as members of a 'boundary organization' consisting of researchers, managers and stakeholders. This would require a new management paradigm, because many in Sweden seem to be skeptical to the idea of involving researchers in management.

Adaptive management', which has been defined as the repeated iteration between management action, scientific assessment and revised management action, leading to a strengthened foundation for management, is required by Swedish law to be incorporated into the management of large carnivores. We have evaluated whether the size and/or trend of the brown bear Ursus arctos population in Sweden corresponded to management-decided national objectives during five management regimes during the past 70 years (1943–2013). We found that the objective had been met in only one period, when it had been worded very vaguely. During the last period studied (2008–2013), when management was carried out on the county level and adaptive management was required by the Swedish Government, four of six counties met their trend objectives, but only one of six met the population objectives, although one was close to meeting them. Sociological studies have documented major problems in communication among the members of the county delegations responsible for the management of large carnivores. As adaptive management apparently never has been implemented successfully in brown bear management in Sweden, we recommend that the Delegations for Game Management be mandated to integrate up-to-date, scientifically documented biological information into their decisions. This is not done consistently today. Researchers should be involved in the process to inform about relevant, available information, design testable scientific 'experiments' based on the predicted results of management decisions, and evaluate the results in relation to the predictions, perhaps as members of a 'boundary organization' consisting of researchers, managers and stakeholders. This would require a new management paradigm, because many in Sweden seem to be skeptical to the idea of involving researchers in management.

As wolf populations expand across Europe, many countries face challenges in finding ways to address the concerns of some elements among the rural stakeholders who are being asked to share their landscapes with wolves for the first time in several generations. In these recovery landscapes, wolves are associated with a wide range of conflicts that include economic, psychological, perceptional, social, cultural and political dimensions. A recurring demand concerns the desire to introduce the use of carefully regulated lethal control of wolves, through either culling by state employees or hunting conducted by rural hunters. Introducing such measures can be very controversial, and many critics challenge their legality under the international wildlife conservation instruments that have nurtured wolf recovery. We evaluate this issue for the case of wolves in Norway, which are strictly protected under the Bern Convention. Drawing on the latest results of social science research, we present the multiple lines of argumentation that are often used to justify killing wolves and relate these to the criteria for exceptions that exist under the Bern Convention. We conclude that while the Convention provides apparent scope for allowing the killing of wolves as a means to address conflicts, this must be clearly justified and proportional to the conservation status of wolves so as to not endanger their recovery. ; publishedVersion

In Norway, as in many other countries, a government-sponsored campaign against large carnivores was waged well into the twentieth century and eventually led to the disappearance of gray wolves (Canis lupus) from the country.1 By the 1960s, the species was considered functionally extinct both in Norway and neighboring Sweden. In 1971, wolves received legal protection under Norwegian law.2 Occasionally in subsequent years,wolves dispersing fromthe Russian-Finnish population made it into the Scandinavian Peninsula. In 1983, in the south-central Swedish–Norwegian border area, two of these immigrants produced a first litter of wild Scandinavian wolf pups again. The Scandinavian wolf population has been growing since and numbers over 400 individuals today, although only a small part of the population lives on the Norwegian side of the border. The threats faced by Scandinavian wolves include inbreeding, low levels of tolerance by some sectors of the rural public, and high levels of poaching.3 Since the official status of wolves in Norway switched from vermin to a protected species, wolf conservation and management has been an increasingly contested topic in the country, with the controversy generally peaking every time the Norwegian government authorizes a winter wolf hunt.4 Whereas some Norwegian citizens would like to seemanymore wolves in the country than the currently estimated 65– 68 animals (plus another 25wolves or sowhose range straddles the Sweden–Norway border), others would rather see them all disappear once more.5 The latest chapter in the Norwegian wolf saga began in summer 2016 when Parliament agreed on a new wolf policy. In the follow-up implementation of this national policy, the relevant RegionalManagement Authorities earmarked a total of 47 wolves—two-thirds of the national population— for culling in order to reduce sheep depredation, only to see the Climate and Environment Minister reverse this decision and reduce the number of wolves to be killed to 15.6 One international treaty has been an influential feature in debates on Norway's wolf policy during the past three decades: the Council of Europe's 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.7 The discourse has, unfortunately, been affected by some tenacious misunderstandings concerning the compatibility of Norway's constantly evolving wolf policy with the Convention. Our aim in this article is to reduce the confusion in this regard, in order to promote a constructive and well-informed debate regarding the future of wolf conservation and management in Norway. An added advantage of this focus is that it entails the legal analysis of certain features of the Bern Convention, the relevance of which extends far beyondNorwegian wolves, as they apply to European wildlife conservation at large. ; publishedVersion

1. Invasive alien species are recognized as a significant anthropogenic threat to freshwater ecosystems, because they may bring about the local extinction of native species and the collapse of habitat types of special conservation concern. 2. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is an important legislative tool for the protection of water bodies in the European Union. It requires the assessment of the ecological status of water bodies and the enforcement of measures for water bodies that fail to achieve at least 'good' ecological status. However, the WFD does not explicitly mention alien species. 3. This article presents a three-tiered approach for the incorporation of data on alien species into WFD assessments of freshwater bodies in Norway. If relevant data on WFD parameters are available for the water body under consideration, its ecological status should be inferred from those data. Otherwise, ecological status should be assessed using evidence of the effects that the alien species have on biological quality elements in comparable water bodies. If neither of these options is feasible, the ecological status should be classified according to the ecological effect score of the alien species present, as obtained from the Generic Ecological Impact Assessment of Alien Species (GEIAA). 4. It is further recommended that a water body cannot be assigned 'high ecological status' if at least one alien species is present. If more than one alien species is present, the status is determined by the species with the highest impact. 5. Ecological, geographical, historical, and taxonomic delimitation criteria for this assessment method are presented, together with a list of the alien species that at present fulfil these delimitations in Norway. 6. The management implications of the recommendations are that more Norwegian freshwater bodies are likely to require measures, and that further data must be collected. Most of the recommendations are transferable to other countries, although they may require adjustment. dispersal, ...

1. Recovering or threatened carnivore populations are often harvested to minimise their impact on human activities, such as livestock farming or game hunting. Increasingly, harvest quota decisions involve a set of scientific, administrative and political institutions operating at national and sub- national levels whose interactions and collective decision- making aim to increase the legitimacy of management and ensure population targets are met. In practice, however, as-sessments of how quota decisions change between these different actors and what consequences these changes have on population trends are rare.2. We combine a state-space population modelling approach with an analysis of quota decisions taken at both regional and national levels between 2007 and 2018 to build a set of decision- making models that together predict annual har-vest quota values for Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in Norway.3. We reveal a tendency for administrative decision- makers to compensate for consistent quota increases by political actors, particularly when the lynx popula-tion size estimate is above the regional target. Using population forecasts based on the ensemble of decision- making models, we show that such buffering of po-litical biases ensures lynx population size remains close to regional and national targets in the long term.4. Our results go beyond the usual qualitative assessment of collaborative gov-ernance systems for carnivore management, revealing a system of checks and balances that, in the case of lynx in Norway, ensures both multi-stakeholder participation and sustainable harvest quotas. Nevertheless, we highlight impor-tant inter- regional differences in decision- making and population forecasts, the socio- ecological drivers of which need to be better understood to prevent fu-ture population declines.5. Synthesis and applications. Our work analyses the sequence of decisions lead-ing to yearly quotas for lynx harvest in Norway, highlighting the collaborative and structural processes that together shape harvest ...

1. Atlantic salmon populations have declined in recent decades. Many of the threats to the species during its freshwater and coastal residency periods are known, and management approaches are available to mitigate them. The global scale of climate change and altered ocean ecosystems make these threats more difficult to address. 2. Managers need to be aware that promoting strong, healthy, and resilient wild populations migrating from rivers is the optimal approach currently to reduce the impacts of changing ecosystems and low marine survival. We argue that a fundamental strategy should be to ensure that the highest number of wild smolts in the best condition leave from rivers and coastal areas to the ocean. There is great scope for water quality, river regulation, migration barriers, and physical river habitat improvements. 3. Maintenance of genetic integrity and diversity of wild populations by eliminating interbreeding with escaped farmed salmon, eliminating poorly planned stocking, and reducing impacts that reduce population sizes to dangerously low levels will support the ability of Atlantic salmon to adapt to changing environments. Reducing the impacts from aquaculture and other human activities in coastal areas can greatly increase marine survival in affected areas. 4. As most of the threats to wild salmon are the result of human activities, a focus on human dimensions and improved communication, from scientific and management perspectives, needs to be increasingly emphasized. When political and social will are coupled with adequate resources, managers often have the tools to mitigate many of the threats to wild salmon. aquaculture, catchment management, climate change, conservation evaluation, fish, habitat management, hydropower, ocean, river ; publishedVersion

Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 aims at the deployment of Green Infrastructure (GI) and the restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. We assess different alternatives for the spatial planning of GI and ecosystem restoration across the European Union by using spatial conservation prioritization tools. We compared three different scenarios for the identification of priority areas in which the ecosystem service potential, beneficiaries (i.e. people) and ecosystem condition play different roles. As an example of GI restoration, we also assessed the cost-effectiveness of removal of invasive alien species in the areas prioritized under each scenario. The comparative assessment of the spatial alternatives for GI shows synergies and conflicts. We found that GI could be efficiently established close to densely populated areas, since high multi-functionality is delivered in these locations (close to human settlements). However, restoration costs, such as the removal of invasive alien species, were higher in such areas given the influence of urban pressures. We also found that GI prioritized in areas under poor ecosystem condition would require a larger spatial extent of implementation, due to a lower ecosystem service potential per unit area. Given the scarcity of resources for investment in GI and ecosystem restoration, win-win situations should be identified where GI designation can deliver several policy objectives simultaneously. The prioritization framework we have presented here could also be applied at the country or regional level to support local planning. Multi-functionality Ecosystem service potential Beneficiaries Habitat conservation status Ecosystem condition Ecosystem restoration ; publishedVersion

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is a relatively new approach to ocean management and has been widely implemented worldwide. Ideally, MSP should be established as a public process that analyzes and distributes human activities across space and time to achieve ecological, economic and social goals, which historically have been accomplished exclusively in the political arena. However, in most cases MSP seems to be driven primarily by economic interests rather than by sociocultural goals. In this paper, we discuss how integrating the missing sociocultural layers into MSP can help to reduce governance rigidity, promote adaptability in decision-making, support environmental justice, and improve MSP acceptance and uptake. In particular, we focus on identifying possible points of connection between MSP and frameworks based on social-ecological system theory, including co-management and other democratic and empowering alternatives. We conclude by proposing a new definition of the MSP process that is more inclusive, and mindful of users' rights and sociocultural objectives. If we bridge the gap between the dominant economic rhetoric and a de facto sociocultural-ecological system approach, we are likely to improve the chances of the MSP process succeeding on both the human and nature fronts. ecosystem based management, human dimension, Marine Spatial Planning, stakeholder participation, sociocultural values, inclusive process ; publishedVersion

Many attempts have been made worldwide to implement community-based conservation to gain a more inclusive protection of biological diversity and ecosystem services. In a recent national reform, the management of protected areas was devolved from the Norwegian government to local conservation boards. The main goals were to reduce local resistance toward conservation and ameliorate threats to biodiversity. We assessed the attainment of these goals a decade after implementation. We synthesized literature published since the onset of the reform and results from a survey (N = 936). Despite the limited inclusion of stakeholders and experience-based knowledge by local conservation boards, survey data show that community-based conservation arrangements are supported by residents. Conservation has been tailored to the local context by balancing sustainable use and protection, but there are some discontent with the opportunities for rural development. Managers report that biological diversity is threatened in 27% of the protected areas. Climate change and increased visitation are major conservation challenges that need to be addressed by the boards, but their mandate and capacity appear inadequate to cope with these challenges. Few studies have evaluated the conservation impact of the reform and we therefore suggest this as a priority for future research.