International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control

Human–wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence‐based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human–wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2‐day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human–wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals; have measurable outcome‐based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long‐term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation.     

The social implications of using drones for biodiversity conservation

Unmanned aerial vehicles, or ‘drones’, appear to offer a flexible, accurate and affordable solution to some of the technical challenges of nature conservation monitoring and law enforcement. However, little attention has been given to their possible social impacts. In this paper, I review the possible social impacts of using drones for conservation, including on safety, privacy, psychological wellbeing, data security and the wider understanding of conservation problems. I argue that negative social impacts are probable under some circumstances and should be of concern for conservation for two reasons: (1) because conservation should follow good ethical practice; and (2) because negative social impacts could undermine conservation effectiveness in the long term. The paper concludes with a call for empirical research to establish whether the identified social risks of drones occur in reality and how they could be mitigated, and for self-regulation of drone use by the conservation sector to ensure good ethical practice and minimise the risk of unintended consequences.     

An improved and simple method for removal of arsenic from drinking water

<正>Arsenic (As) is a naturally occurring element. The toxicity of arsenic is dependent on the specific arsenic species, and the concentration and duration of exposure to the arsenic species(Moe et al., 2016). Chronic human exposure to high concentrations of inorganic arsenic species has been associated with     

Virological Quality of Irrigation Water in Leafy Green Vegetables and Berry Fruits Production Chains

This study condenses data acquired during investigations of the virological quality of irrigation water used in production of fresh produce. One hundred and eight samples of irrigation water were collected from five berry fruit farms in Finland (1), the Czech Republic (1), Serbia (2), and Poland (1), and sixty-one samples were collected from three leafy green vegetable farms in Poland, Serbia, and Greece. Samples were analyzed for index viruses of human or animal fecal contamination (human and porcine adenoviruses, and bovine polyoma viruses), and human pathogenic viruses (hepatitis A virus, hepatitis E virus, and noroviruses GI/GII). Both index and pathogenic viruses were found in irrigation water samples from the leafy green vegetables production chain. The data on the presence of index viruses indicated that the highest percentage of fecal contamination was of human origin (28.1 %, 18/64), followed by that of porcine (15.4 %, 6/39) and bovine (5.1 %, 2/39) origins. Hepatitis E virus (5 %, 1/20) and noroviruses GII (14.3 %, 4/28) were also detected. Samples from berry fruit production were also positive for both index and pathogenic viruses. The highest percentage of fecal contamination was of human origin (8.3 %, 9/108), followed by that of porcine, 4.5 % (4/89) and bovine, 1.1 % (1/89) origins. Norovirus GII (3.6 %, 2/56) was also detected. These data demonstrate that irrigation water used in primary production is an important vehicle of viral contamination for fresh produce, and thus is a critical control point which should be integrated into food safety management systems for viruses. The recommendations of Codex Alimentarius, as well as regulations on the use of water of appropriate quality for irrigation purposes, should be followed.     

Guide values for contaminated sites in Baden-Württemberg

The treatment of hazardous sites in Baden-Württemberg is based on three legal documents: the state waste disposal art (LAbfG, 1990), the assessment committee directive (KommissionsVO, 1990), and the guide values directive (UM & SM B-W, 1993). The guide values directive was commonly issued by the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment of the state of Baden-Württemberg (UM & SM B-W, 1993) and contains a three-level hierarchy of numerical criteria and rules which serve as both screening levels during the investigation and as remediation objectives. The decision for the appropriate level of remediation is based on feasibility and environmental balance considerations. The levels are ordered as follows:

? Level 1 (Background-Values) On principle, all remediations have to be based first on background levels. In the case of lack of feasibility or negative environmental balance for level-1 objectives use-specific requirements are considered next.

? Level 2 (Assessment-Values for Worst Case Exposure Conditions) The generic requirements underlying level 2 afford appropriate protection for humans regarding the most sensitive uses of the environment. At least four resources are considered on this level: Ground-water as such and its use, the health of humans on contaminated sites, and soil with respect to growth and quality of plants. Barriers against migration of the contaminants, the effect of dilution, and abandonment of certain uses, etc., are not taken into consideration on level 2.

? Level 3 (Site-Specific Requirements) Lack of feasibility or a negative environmental balance of level-2 objectives lead to consideration of site-specific circumstances which may alleviate the requirements. With respect to groundwater, the distinction is again necessary between groundwater as a resource and the use of groundwater. On level 3 the guideline gives rules of how to derive site-specific remediation objectives for groundwater in the form of concentrations and fluxes of contaminants after taking into account barriers, dilution, and the abandonment of uses.

The guideline is the only directive of its kind in the world that regulates both concentrations and fluxes of contaminants into groundwater.