Ecosystem Health最新文献

This review examines national and regional approaches and challenges to forest health monitoring in Australia. Divergent management priorities for forests and plantations within Australia have resulted in differing interpretations of what is meant by forest health. This in turn has influenced the approaches taken to monitoring forest health. The commercial forest sector has taken a simplistic approach, focusing on the surveillance of tree condition and the extent of damaging agents that directly affect tree productivity. Resources for this task are generally restricted to high-value plantations. In order to fulfil their obligations to sustainable forest management most State forestry agencies are committed to developing regional Sustainable Forest Management monitoring programs. At the federal level there is a commitment to complying with several international conservation agreement including the Montreal Process. Forest health in these programs tends to be poorly defined. Some States have established, or are planning monitoring programs based on intensive measurements in permanent sites or plots. While current forest health monitoring programs in Australia are state-based, the need for coordination and compatibility of assessment and reporting systems is recognized. Several national and state fora exist, for example, the national Forest Health Committee and the state-based Forest Health Advisory Committees. These groups have the potential to develop and coordinate the linkage from the regional-based forest health monitoring programs up to the national level. A major driver of this process, however, will be individual State's priorities and available resources and funding.

Canada's forests cover more than 418 million hectares, 45% of our land area, and represent a diverse range of ecosystems including mixed hardwood stands in southeastern Canada, temperate rain forests of British Columbia and dwarf forests of the arctic tundra. The size and diversity of the forest presents interesting challenges to forest health assessment. The Canadian Forest Service (CFS) now recognizes that “forest health” encompasses more than the incidence and distribution of insect pests and diseasecausing organisms and that forests are perceived as healthy when ecological processes are maintained and pest populations are operating within natural ranges of variability. Different stakeholders are also seen as having varying definitions of forest “health.” For example, the forest industry may focus on health as it relates to timber productivity, whereas environmental advocates may focus on ecological integrity. The assessment and reporting of forest health in Canada is currently being accomplished through cooperation among federal and provincial governments, academia, and industry. An interagency program is being developed where broad-scale geographic coverage will be linked to national forest inventory plots, current pest conditions monitored by provincial agencies, research on specific disturbance agents carried out regionally, and an overall synthesis of national forest health undertaken by the Canadian Forest Service.

A set of interventions was undertaken between 1995 and 1999 to improve the quality of life and human health in Cayo Hueso, an inner city community in Central Havana. The municipality and community organizations contacted the agency responsible for public and environmental health in Cuba (INHEM) to evaluate whether these improvements were as effective and efficient as possible, so as to assist in planning further interventions in this and other communities. With the aid of international researchers, an effort was made to strengthen the community's capacity to apply an ecosystem health approach, adapting the analytical framework (DPSEEA: driving force–pressure–state–exposure–effects–action) developed for this purpose by the World Health Organization. A series of workshops and focus groups with community representatives and researchers was conducted in late 1999 and early 2000 to develop appropriate indicators for the analysis. Interventions were grouped into those relating to improved housing, the physical community infrastructure (e.g., water, sewage, street lights), and the socio-cultural environment (e.g., programs for youths and seniors). The DPSEEA framework was embraced by the community and used to define indicators at the individual, household, and neighborhood levels; the community-researcher team then collectively elaborated the methodology to obtain the needed information. Data collection is now underway with the process having triggered a series of new partnerships, including other communities (comparison groups) now eager to learn from the Cayo Hueso interventions. With the capacity to apply this approach strengthened, the community is preparing to use the results of the analyses to set new priorities and pursue longer-term ecosystem health interventions.