Over the past century, the potential for aquatic species to expand their ranges in Europe has been enhanced both as a result of the construction of new canals and because of increased international trade. A complex network of inland waterways now connects some previously isolated catchments in southern (Caspian, Azov, Black, Mediterranean seas) and northern (Baltic, North, Wadden, White seas) Europe, and these waterways act as corridors for nonnative species invasions. We have developed a conceptual risk assessment model for invasive alien species introductions via European inland waterways, with specific protocols that focus on the development of environmental indicators within the socioeconomic context of the driving forces-pressures-state-impact-response framework. The risk assessment protocols and water quality indicators on alien species were tested for selected ecosystems within 3 main European invasion corridors, and these can be recommended for application as part of the Common Implementation Strategy of the European Commission Water Framework Directive, which aims to provide a holistic risk-based management of European river basins. The conceptual structure of the online Risk Assessment Toolkit for aquatic invasive alien species is provided and includes 3 main interlinked components: online risk assessment protocols, an early warning system, and an information transmitter for risk communication to end users.

No abstract

A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries-in the UN's Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius-to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for 'safe'. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests. The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature.

A novel weed has recently emerged, causing serious agronomic damage in one of the most important maize-growing regions of Western Europe, the Northern Provinces of Spain. The weed has morphological similarities to a wild relative of maize and has generally been referred to as teosinte. However, the identity, origin or genetic composition of ‘Spanish teosinte’ was unknown. Here, we present a genome-wide analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data for Spanish teosinte, sympatric populations of cultivated maize and samples of reference teosinte taxa. Our data are complemented with previously published SNP datasets of cultivated maize and two Mexican teosinte subspecies. Our analyses reveal that Spanish teosinte does not group with any of the currently recognized teosinte taxa. Based on Bayesian clustering analysis and hybridization simulations, we infer that Spanish teosinte is of admixed origin, most likely involving Zea mays ssp. mexicana as one parental taxon, and an unidentified cultivated maize variety as the other. Analyses of plants grown from seeds collected in Spanish maize fields and experimental crosses under controlled conditions reveal that hybridization does occur between Spanish teosinte and cultivated maize in Spain, and that current hybridization is asymmetric, favouring the introgression of Spanish teosinte into cultivated maize, rather than vice versa.

No abstract

Biological invasions have been object of ecological research for years. As one objective, natural scientists investigate the effects of invasive species on ecosystems and their functioning (Levine et al. 2003). However, impacts on ecosystems are also of relevance for society. Changes in ecosystems affect humans insofar as ecosystems provide goods and services, such as fresh water, food and fibres or recreation, which might be altered due to invasive species. Therefore, impacts of biological invasions should be an object of socio-economic interest, which is also demanded by the Convention on Biological Diversity (2002).This chapter aims at providing elements for the analysis of impacts of invasive species from the socio-economic point of view. Such an analysis is politically relevant, since impacts are the focal point of every decision to establish an appropriate management regime. For an all-encompassing analysis, an integrative framework is needed to structure the information on impacts. For that purpose, the concept of ecosystem services (Chap. 13) is introduced (Sect. 19.2). Alternative decisions on the appropriate management of invasive species face trade-offs between outcomes and impacts. For handling such trade-offs, evaluation is needed.As discussed in Sect. 19.3, perception presents the prerequisite of an explicit evaluation. Finally, different evaluation methods are introduced so as to value the information about impacts during the decision-making process (Sect. 19.4).

The recent context of global food emergency and ecological crisis has increased the relevance of people's struggle for food sovereignty (FSv), which promotes the transformation of the dominant food system and claims 'the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems'. Revisiting two Spanish and Catalan articles developing FSv indicators, this article aims at discussing the need and utility of developing FSv indicators at different territorial levels. Confronting these two territorial scales, the paper also identifies common steps that can facilitate other future processes of building FSv indicators. As a conclusion, the paper suggests that these processes of building indicators can contribute to providing political direction at different geographical scales for the implementation of the FSv proposal. At the same time, they favor the movement's self-reflexivity in its practices while supporting the collective shaping of future actions.

The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Europe has been characterized by controversy. In 2002, the European Union introduced the concept of ''coexistence'' as a compromise solution that, through the establishment of science-based technical measures, should allow the market to operate freely while reducing policy conflicts on GMOs. However, the concept remains highly contested and the technical measures difficult to apply. This paper presents qualitative research on the conceptualization and implementation of the coexistence framework in two regions of Spain (Catalonia and Aragon), where 42% and 55% of maize was GM in 2006, respectively. In this context, the concept of coexistence and its proposed implementation both fail to resolve previous conflicts and actually work to generate new ones through the individualization of choice and impacts. Considerations of the social conditions in which the technology and the management measures are implemented were not taken into account. This resulted in the promotion of biotechnological agriculture over other alternatives.