Suchergebnisse

In the absence of strong international agreements, many municipal governments are leading efforts to build resilience to climate change in general and to extreme weather events in particular. However, it is notoriously difficult to guide and activate processes of change in complex adaptive systems such as cities. Participatory scenario planning with city professionals and members of civil society provides an opportunity to coproduce positive visions of the future. Yet, not all visions are created equal. In this chapter, we introduce the Resilience, Equity, and Sustainability Qualitative (RESQ) assessment tool that we have applied to compare positive scenario visions for cities in the USA and Latin America. We use the tool to examine the visions of the two desert cities in the Urban Resilience to Extreme Events Sustainability Research Network (UREx SRN), which are Hermosillo (Mexico) and Phoenix (United States).

This study evaluated on-farm implementation and effectiveness of Malaysian seaweed aquaculture policies and regulations that applied the biosecurity concept. The knowledge-attitude-practice (KAP) survey tool was utilised to assess the effectiveness of the biosecurity measures adopted by seaweed stakeholders, including 67 seaweed farmers and ten government extension officers, who were located in the three most productive seaweed producing regions. The KAP results indicated a disconnection between the implementation of biosecurity measures in national policy and uptake by practising farmers. Although farmer's biosecurity knowledge and attitude scores were fair (55.7–64.1%), implementation of practices was poor (36.1–40.6%). The survey data highlighted that a low educational level, combined with the temporary nature of employment in the seaweed sector, contributes to the lower KAP scores. Extension officers are also limited in their ability to support farmers in implementing good biosecurity practices due to their moderate knowledge (57.9%), despite having a good attitude towards biosecurity (76.9%). The implementation of national seaweed policies including biosecurity prevention, and mitigation measures, remains weak due to the limited understanding and ability of the stakeholders to carry out farm risks. By identifying some forthwith gaps, this work highlights where short-term improvements and longer-term goals could be introduced. This study also highlights the importance of translating biosecurity policy into on-the-ground knowledge and stresses the need for economic support to enable a more significant impact in the upstream level of the seaweed aquaculture industry

Indonesia is the world largest producer of the red seaweeds Kappaphycus and Eucheuma; however, this country is facing significant challenges such as disease outbreaks, epiphyte infestations and a loss in seedling quality. Biosecurity practices have been widely adopted in other aquaculture sectors and when enforced can help to limit the introduction and spread of diseases and pests. To assess current capacity for biosecurity in seaweed aquaculture in Indonesia, a systematic analysis of policy frameworks including legislation, regulatory tools, and national standards was conducted. Biosecurity themes and risks were used to evaluate current national biosecurity content. The results identified major challenges faced by the industry in order to implement biosecurity policies in practice. Barriers to implementation included unspecific reference to the seaweed aquaculture sector, limited variety of approaches to biosecurity, limited use of up-to-date scientific evidence, insufficient guidance for the use of precaution and insufficient inclusion of specific biosecurity hazards. In general, although national regulations are currently under revision, current policies indicate a lack of clarity where biosecurity is included. Six recommendations are suggested to incorporate proactive biosecurity actions into current frameworks, with the aim of improving the health and sustainability of the seaweed aquaculture sector in Indonesia.

Each year a significant proportion of global food production is lost to pests and diseases, with concerted efforts by government and industry focussed on application of effective biosecurity policies which attempt to minimise their emergence and spread. In aquaculture the volume of seaweeds produced is second only to farmed fish and red algal carrageenophytes currently represent approximately 42% of global production of all seaweeds. Despite this importance, expansion of the seaweed sector is increasingly limited by the high prevalence of recalcitrant diseases and epiphytic pests with potential to emerge and with the demonstrated propensity to spread, particularly in the absence of effective national and international biosecurity policies. Developing biosecurity policy and legislation to manage biosecurity risk in seaweed aquaculture is urgently required to limit these impacts. To understand current international biosecurity frameworks and their efficacy, existing legislative frameworks were analysed quantitatively for the content of biosecurity measures, applicability to the seaweed industry, and inclusion of risks posed by diseases, pests and non-native species. Deficiencies in existing frameworks included the following: inconsistent terminology for inclusion of cultivated seaweeds, unclear designation of implementation responsibility, insufficient evidence-based information and limited alignment of biosecurity hazards and risks. Given the global importance of the cultivation of various seaweeds in alleviating poverty in low and middle income countries, it is crucial that the relatively low-unit value of the industry (i.e. as compared with other aquatic animal sectors) should not conflate with a perceived low risk of disease or pest transfer, nor the subsequent economic and environmental impact that disease transfer may impact on receiving nations (well beyond their seaweed operations). Developing a clear basis for development of robust international biosecurity policies related to the trade in seaweeds arising from the global aquaculture industry, by first addressing the gaps highlighted in this study, will be crucial in limiting impacts of pests and diseases on this valuable industry and on natural capital in locations where seaweeds are farmed.

Each year a significant proportion of global food production is lost to pests and diseases, with concerted efforts by government and industry focussed on application of effective biosecurity policies which attempt to minimise their emergence and spread. In aquaculture the volume of seaweeds produced is second only to farmed fish and red algal carrageenophytes currently represent approximately 42% of global production of all seaweeds. Despite this importance, expansion of the seaweed sector is increasingly limited by the high prevalence of recalcitrant diseases and epiphytic pests with potential to emerge and with the demonstrated propensity to spread, particularly in the absence of effective national and international biosecurity policies. Developing biosecurity policy and legislation to manage biosecurity risk in seaweed aquaculture is urgently required to limit these impacts. To understand current international biosecurity frameworks and their efficacy, existing legislative frameworks were analysed quantitatively for the content of biosecurity measures, applicability to the seaweed industry, and inclusion of risks posed by diseases, pests and non-native species. Deficiencies in existing frameworks included the following: inconsistent terminology for inclusion of cultivated seaweeds, unclear designation of implementation responsibility, insufficient evidence-based information and limited alignment of biosecurity hazards and risks. Given the global importance of the cultivation of various seaweeds in alleviating poverty in low and middle income countries, it is crucial that the relatively low-unit value of the industry (i.e. as compared with other aquatic animal sectors) should not conflate with a perceived low risk of disease or pest transfer, nor the subsequent economic and environmental impact that disease transfer may impact on receiving nations (well beyond their seaweed operations). Developing a clear basis for development of robust international biosecurity policies related to the trade in seaweeds arising from the global aquaculture industry, by first addressing the gaps highlighted in this study, will be crucial in limiting impacts of pests and diseases on this valuable industry and on natural capital in locations where seaweeds are farmed.

Each year a significant proportion of global food production is lost to pests and diseases, with concerted efforts by government and industry focussed on application of effective biosecurity policies which attempt to minimise their emergence and spread. In aquaculture the volume of seaweeds produced is second only to farmed fish and red algal carrageenophytes currently represent approximately 42% of global production of all seaweeds. Despite this importance, expansion of the seaweed sector is increasingly limited by the high prevalence of recalcitrant diseases and epiphytic pests with potential to emerge and with the demonstrated propensity to spread, particularly in the absence of effective national and international biosecurity policies. Developing biosecurity policy and legislation to manage biosecurity risk in seaweed aquaculture is urgently required to limit these impacts. To understand current international biosecurity frameworks and their efficacy, existing legislative frameworks were analysed quantitatively for the content of biosecurity measures, applicability to the seaweed industry, and inclusion of risks posed by diseases, pests and non-native species. Deficiencies in existing frameworks included the following: inconsistent terminology for inclusion of cultivated seaweeds, unclear designation of implementation responsibility, insufficient evidence-based information and limited alignment of biosecurity hazards and risks. Given the global importance of the cultivation of various seaweeds in alleviating poverty in low and middle income countries, it is crucial that the relatively low-unit value of the industry (i.e. as compared with other aquatic animal sectors) should not conflate with a perceived low risk of disease or pest transfer, nor the subsequent economic and environmental impact that disease transfer may impact on receiving nations (well beyond their seaweed operations). Developing a clear basis for development of robust international biosecurity policies related to the trade in seaweeds arising from the global aquaculture industry, by first addressing the gaps highlighted in this study, will be crucial in limiting impacts of pests and diseases on this valuable industry and on natural capital in locations where seaweeds are farmed.

Urban resilience has gained considerable popularity in planning and policy to address cities' capacity to cope with climate change. While many studies discuss the different ways that academics define resilience, little attention has been given to how resilience is conceptualized across different urban contexts and among the actors that engage in building resilience 'on the ground'. Given the implications that resilience frames can have for the solutions that are pursued (and who benefits from them), it is important to examine how transformative definitions of urban resilience are in practice. In this paper, we use data from a survey of nine US and Latin American and Caribbean cities to explore how the concept is framed across multiple governance sectors, including governmental, non-governmental, business, research, and hybrid organizations. We examine these framings in light of recent conceptual developments and tensions found in the literature. The results highlight that, in general across the nine cities, framings converge with definitions of resilience as the ability to resist, cope with, or bounce back to previous conditions, whereas sustainability, equity, and social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) perspectives are rarely associated with resilience. There are noticeable differences across cities and governance actors that point to geographic and political variation in the way resilience is conceptualized. We unpack these differences and discuss their implications for resilience research and practice moving forward. We argue that if resilience is going to remain a major goal for city policies into the future, it needs to be conceived in a more transformative, anticipatory, and equitable way, and acknowledge interconnected SETS.

Urban resilience has gained considerable popularity in planning and policy to address cities' capacity to cope with climate change. While many studies discuss the different ways that academics define resilience, little attention has been given to how resilience is conceptualized across different urban contexts and among the actors that engage in building resilience 'on the ground'. Given the implications that resilience frames can have for the solutions that are pursued (and who benefits from them), it is important to examine how transformative definitions of urban resilience are in practice. In this paper, we use data from a survey of nine US and Latin American and Caribbean cities to explore how the concept is framed across multiple governance sectors, including governmental, non-governmental, business, research, and hybrid organizations. We examine these framings in light of recent conceptual developments and tensions found in the literature. The results highlight that, in general across the nine cities, framings converge with definitions of resilience as the ability to resist, cope with, or bounce back to previous conditions, whereas sustainability, equity, and social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) perspectives are rarely associated with resilience. There are noticeable differences across cities and governance actors that point to geographic and political variation in the way resilience is conceptualized. We unpack these differences and discuss their implications for resilience research and practice moving forward. We argue that if resilience is going to remain a major goal for city policies into the future, it needs to be conceived in a more transformative, anticipatory, and equitable way, and acknowledge interconnected SETS.

The European Union (EU) has recently published its first list of invasive alien species(IAS) of EU concern to which current legislation must apply. The list comprises speciesknown to pose great threats to biodiversity and needs to be maintained and updated.Horizon scanning is seen as critical to identify the most threatening potential IAS thatdo not yet occur in Europe to be subsequently risk assessed for future listing. Accord-ingly, we present a systematic consensus horizon scanning procedure to derive a rankedlist of potential IAS likely to arrive, establish, spread and have an impact on biodiversityin the region over the next decade. The approach is unique in the continental scaleexamined, the breadth of taxonomic groups and environments considered, and themethods and data sources used. International experts were brought together to addressfive broad thematic groups of potential IAS. For each thematic group the experts firstindependently assembled lists of potential IAS not yet established in the EU but poten-tially threatening biodiversity if introduced. Experts were asked to score the specieswithin their thematic group for their separate likelihoods of i) arrival, ii) establishment,iii) spread, and iv) magnitude of the potential negative impact on biodiversity within theEU. Experts then convened for a 2‐day workshop applying consensus methods to com-pile a ranked list of potential IAS. From an initial working list of 329 species, a list of 66species not yet established in the EU that were considered to be very high (8 species),high (40 species) or medium (18 species) risk species was derived. Here, we presentthese species highlighting the potential negative impacts and the most likely biogeo-graphic regions to be affected by these potential IAS.

The European Union Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 on invasive alien species (IAS) establishes an EU-wide framework for action to prevent, minimise and mitigate the adverse impacts of IAS on biodiversity and centres around the development of a list of IAS of EU Concern. The initial list of IAS of EU concern will be based on available risk assessments compliant with agreed minimum standards but horizon scanning is seen as critical to inform future updating of the list, in order to prioritise the most threatening new and emerging IAS. A workshop was held with the overarching aim of reviewing and validating an approach to horizon scanning to derive a ranked list of IAS which are likely to arrive, establish, spread and have an impact on biodiversity or related ecosystem services in the EU over the next decade. The agreed horizon scanning approach involved two distinct phases: i) Preliminary consultation between experts within five thematic groups to derive initial scores; ii) Consensus-building across expert groups including extensive discussion on species rankings coupled with review and moderation of scores across groups. The outcome of the horizon scanning was a list of 95 species, including all taxa (except microorganisms) within marine, terrestrial and freshwater environments, considered as very high or high priority for risk assessment ; Le Règlement de l'Union Européenne (UE) 1143/2014 sur les espèces notices envahissantes (EEE) établit un cadre d'actions à l'échelle européenne pour prévenir, réduire au minimum et atténuer les impacts négatifs des EEE sur la biodiversité, et se concentre sur le développement d'une liste d'EEE de préoccupation européenne. La liste initiale d'EEE de préoccupation européenne est basée sur les analyses de risque disponibles conformes aux standards minimums reconnus. Mais l'horizon scanning est essentiel pour informer les mises à jour futures de la liste, dans le but de prioritiser les EEE nouvelles et émergentes les plus menaçantes. Un workshop a été organisé avec pour but général d'évaluer et de valider une approche d'horizon scanning en vue de produire une liste ordonnée d'EEE susceptibles d'arriver, de s'établir, de se disperser et de présenter un impact sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques associés dans l'UE durant la prochaine décennie. L'approche d'horizon scanning avalisée comprenait deux phases distinctes: i) Une consultation préliminaire entre experts au sein de cinq groups thématiques pour produire des scores initiaux ii) L'établissement de consensus au travers des groups d'experts incluant une discussion approfondie sur les classements des espèces, combinée à une évaluation et une modération des scores entre groupes. Le résultat de l'horizon scanning consistait en une liste de 95 espèces, comprenant tous les types taxonomies (excepté des microorganismes) au sein des environnements marins, terrestres et d'eau douce, et considérées comme étant de priorité très élevée à élevée pour la réalisation d'analyses de risque

The European Union Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 on invasive alien species (IAS) establishes an EU-wide framework for action to prevent, minimise and mitigate the adverse impacts of IAS on biodiversity and centres around the development of a list of IAS of EU Concern. The initial list of IAS of EU concern will be based on available risk assessments compliant with agreed minimum standards but horizon scanning is seen as critical to inform future updating of the list, in order to prioritise the most threatening new and emerging IAS. A workshop was held with the overarching aim of reviewing and validating an approach to horizon scanning to derive a ranked list of IAS which are likely to arrive, establish, spread and have an impact on biodiversity or related ecosystem services in the EU over the next decade. The agreed horizon scanning approach involved two distinct phases: i) Preliminary consultation between experts within five thematic groups to derive initial scores; ii) Consensus-building across expert groups including extensive discussion on species rankings coupled with review and moderation of scores across groups. The outcome of the horizon scanning was a list of 95 species, including all taxa (except microorganisms) within marine, terrestrial and freshwater environments, considered as very high or high priority for risk assessment ; Le Règlement de l'Union Européenne (UE) 1143/2014 sur les espèces notices envahissantes (EEE) établit un cadre d'actions à l'échelle européenne pour prévenir, réduire au minimum et atténuer les impacts négatifs des EEE sur la biodiversité, et se concentre sur le développement d'une liste d'EEE de préoccupation européenne. La liste initiale d'EEE de préoccupation européenne est basée sur les analyses de risque disponibles conformes aux standards minimums reconnus. Mais l'horizon scanning est essentiel pour informer les mises à jour futures de la liste, dans le but de prioritiser les EEE nouvelles et émergentes les plus menaçantes. Un workshop a été organisé avec pour but général d'évaluer et de valider une approche d'horizon scanning en vue de produire une liste ordonnée d'EEE susceptibles d'arriver, de s'établir, de se disperser et de présenter un impact sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques associés dans l'UE durant la prochaine décennie. L'approche d'horizon scanning avalisée comprenait deux phases distinctes: i) Une consultation préliminaire entre experts au sein de cinq groups thématiques pour produire des scores initiaux ii) L'établissement de consensus au travers des groups d'experts incluant une discussion approfondie sur les classements des espèces, combinée à une évaluation et une modération des scores entre groupes. Le résultat de l'horizon scanning consistait en une liste de 95 espèces, comprenant tous les types taxonomies (excepté des microorganismes) au sein des environnements marins, terrestres et d'eau douce, et considérées comme étant de priorité très élevée à élevée pour la réalisation d'analyses de risque

The European Union (EU) has recently published its first list of invasive alien species (IAS) of EU concern to which current legislation must apply. The list comprises species known to pose great threats to biodiversity and needs to be maintained and updated. Horizon scanning is seen as critical to identify the most threatening potential IAS that do not yet occur in Europe to be subsequently risk assessed for future listing. Accordingly, we present a systematic consensus horizon scanning procedure to derive a ranked list of potential IAS likely to arrive, establish, spread and have an impact on biodiversity in the region over the next decade. The approach is unique in the continental scale examined, the breadth of taxonomic groups and environments considered, and the methods and data sources used. International experts were brought together to address five broad thematic groups of potential IAS. For each thematic group the experts first independently assembled lists of potential IAS not yet established in the EU but potentially threatening biodiversity if introduced. Experts were asked to score the species within their thematic group for their separate likelihoods of i) arrival, ii) establishment, iii) spread, and iv) magnitude of the potential negative impact on biodiversity within the EU. Experts then convened for a 2-day workshop applying consensus methods to compile a ranked list of potential IAS. From an initial working list of 329 species, a list of 66 species not yet established in the EU that were considered to be very high (8 species), high (40 species) or medium (18 species) risk species was derived. Here, we present these species highlighting the potential negative impacts and the most likely biogeographic regions to be affected by these potential IAS