The state of Florida's estuaries and future needs in estuarine research: Part 2. an academic research agenda (review draft)

As a program supporting academic research that addresses recognized societal needs, the Florida Sea Grant Program is developing a research theme area on estuaries to provide a uniquely academic product that will augment mission-oriented research undertaken by government and by the private sector. This report is not a call for proposals. It does not prescribe a specific research plan. Rather, it is a concept paper designed to focus research on two broad "organizing themes": (1) the hydrology of Florida's estuaries, and (2) the impact of cyclic environmental variability on estuarine function. (46pp.

Public Participation GIS in the UK and USA: A cross cultural analysis

March 19-2

Seafloor characterization using airborne hyperspectral co-registration procedures independent from attitude and positioning sensors

The advance of remote-sensing technology and data-storage capabilities has progressed in the last decade to commercial multi-sensor data collection. There is a constant need to characterize, quantify and monitor the coastal areas for habitat research and coastal management. In this paper, we present work on seafloor characterization that uses hyperspectral imagery (HSI). The HSI data allows the operator to extend seafloor characterization from multibeam backscatter towards land and thus creates a seamless ocean-to-land characterization of the littoral zone

GIS Application to Support Land Administration Services in Ghana: Institutional Factors and Software Developments

In June 1999, the Ghanaian Government launched a new land policy document that sought to address some fundamental problems associated with land administration and management in the country. The document identified the weak land administration system as a particular problem and recommended the introduction of computer-aided information systems in the ‘lands sector’. In 2001, the Government made further proposals to prepare and implement a Land Administration Programme (LAP) to provide a better platform for evolving an efficient land administration that would translate the ‘National Land Policy’ into action. Thus, an up-to-date land information system (LIS), supporting efficient management of land records, is to be constructed, which provides a context for the research reported in this paper. We document two aspects of our research on the adoption of GIS by the Lands Commission Secretariat (LCS) which form part of a pilot project in GIS diffusion. Part one of the paper mainly outlines the empirical results arising from fieldwork undertaken during 2001 to determine the information and GIS requirements of the LCS in relation to their routine administrative processes and to identify the critical factors that are required to ensure that any new GIS applications are successfully embraced. Part two explains the prototype software system developed using ArcView 3.2 and Access that provides the LCS with a means to automate some of the routine administrative tasks that they are required to fulfil. The software has been modified and upgraded following an initial evaluation by LCS employees also conducted as part of the fieldwork in Accra

TOWARD AGRICULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: APPLYING LESSONS FROM CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Many business firms both in the U.S. and abroad are practicing corporate environmental management. They are committed to improving the efficiency of material use, energy use and water use; to recycle; to make safer products and processes and to reduce their overall impact on the environment. In pursuing corporate environmental management, some businesses have found that the presumed tradeoff between profits and environmental quality does not always apply. Instead, by innovating and redesigning their products, processes, corporate culture, and organizational strategy, these firms have been able to improve environmental performance and add to profits. These improved profits are sometimes referred to as "innovation offsets" because they result from technological changes to reduce pollution which also reduce production costs (and/or improve productivity) and thereby "offset" the costs of compliance. The necessary technological innovation is pursued when firms take a dynamic investment perspective rather than presume a static tradeoff between profits and environmental quality.Environmental Economics and Policy,

Geo-management in organic agriculture

Information about authors of the monograph Editors: Skrypchuk P., Doctor of Economics, professor, National University of Water and Environmental Engineering, Rivne, Ukraine, head of NGO «Green Initiatives Rivne», Ukraine, chapter 1.3., 2.1., 2.2., 5.1.; Jozef Zaťko, Dr.h.c. mult. JUDr., Honor. Prof. mult., Prezident ICOCRIM SlovakBureau,Riaditeľ Východoeurópskej agentúry pre rozvoj n.o., Prezident Európsky inštitút ďalšieho vzdelávania, Slovakia, chapter 1.2.; 1. Baldzhy M., Doctor of Economics, professor, Odesa National Economic University, Odesa, Ukraine, chapter 2.2; 2. Breus D., Ph.D. in Agriculture, assistant, Kherson State Agrarian University, Kherson, Ukraine, chapter 2.3.; 3. Dudiak N., Ph.D. in Economics, associate professor, Kherson State Agrarian University, Kherson, Ukraine, chapter 2.3.; 4. Grabovska T., PhD in Agriculture, associate professor, Bila Tserkva National Agrarian University, Bila Tserkva, Ukraine, chapter 3.1.; 5. Khomiuk N., PhD in Economics, Doctoral Student of the Department of International Economic Relations and Project Management,Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University, Lutsk, Ukraine, chapter 5.2.; 6. Lavrov V., Doctor of Agriculture, professor, Bila Tserkva National Agrarian University, Bila Tserkva, Ukraine, chapter 3.1.; 7. Novytska I., post-graduate student, Poltava National Technical University named after Yurii Kondratiuk, Poltava, Ukraine, chapter 3.3.; 8. Panasiuk Damian, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Warsaw,Poland, chapter 5.1.; 9. Pichura V., Doctor of Agriculture, associate professor, Kherson State Agrarian University, Kherson, Ukraine, chapter 2.3.; 10. Potravka L., Doctor of Economics, associate professor, Kherson State Agrarian University, Kherson, Ukraine, chapter 2.3.; 11. Rybak V., PhD in Agriculture, associate professor, Khmelnystkyi national university, Khmelnystkyi, Ukraine, chapter 2.1.; 12. Shcherbakova A., PhD in Economics, associate professor, National University of Water and Environmental Engineering, Rivne, Ukraine, co-founder of NGO "Green Initiatives Rivne», Ukraine, chapter 1.1.; 13. Shevchuk N., PhD in Agriculture, associate professor, Khmelnystkyi national university, Khmelnystkyi, Ukraine, chapter 6.3.; 14. Shpak G., Ph.D. in Economics, senior lecturer, Technical College of National University of Water and Environmental Engineering, Rivne, Ukraine, chapter 6.1, 6.2.; 15. Skok S., Ph.D. in Agriculture, associate professor, Kherson State Agrarian University, Kherson, Ukraine, chapter 5.3.; 16. Skrypchuk V., student, Matea Bela University, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, chapter 1.2.; 17. Stroganov O., graduate student, Kherson State Agrarian University, Kherson, Ukraine, chapter 2.3.; 18. Suduk O., PhD in Agriculture, associate professor, National University of Water and Environmental Engineering, Rivne, Ukraine, co-founder of NGO "Green Initiatives Rivne», Ukraine, chapter 4; 19. Ternowyi U. PhD in Agriculture, Skvyra Research Station of Organic Production of Institute of Agroecology and Nature Resources Use of National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine, Skvyra, Ukraine, chapter 3.1.; 20. TiutiunnykH., Ph.D. in Economics, Junior Research Fellow, Institute of Market Problems and Economic&EcologicalResearch of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Odesa, Ukraine, chapter 3.2.; 21. Trembitska O., PhD in Agriculture, associate professor, Zhytomyr National Agroecological University, Zhytomyr, Ukraine, chapter 6.3. 22. Trokhliuk T., Ph.D. in Economics, senior lecturer, Berezno Forestry College of National University of Water and Environmental Engineering, Rivne, Ukraine, chapter 6.1.; 23. Zhukovskyi V., PhD in Technical sciences, senior lecturer, National University of Water and Environmental Engineering, Rivne, Ukraine, chapter 2.4

Small mammal community maintains stability through compensatory dynamics after restoration of a ponderosa pine forest

Ecosystem stability has been of increasing interest in the past several decades as it helps predict the consequences of anthropogenic disturbances on ecosystems. Species may exhibit stability through compensation, with greatly fluctuating populations year to year but a consistent density response over time. Stability is increased when species with similar functional roles compensate for one another by responding differently to environmental change. In restoration projects, the objective is to restore stability by altering ecosystem composition, structure, and function to resemble natural (‘‘reference’’) conditions. We assessed the success of ecological restoration treatments by examining the structural and functional responses of the small mammal community before and after treatment, and compared to reference conditions. We used Royle density models to examine the responses of eight species of small mammals to restoration (thinning) treatments in ponderosa pine forests to determine if the community maintained total density, biomass, and function (represented by ectomycorrhizal fungi dispersion) after disturbance. Community composition differed in each of 6 years following treatment, but total density and biomass remained constant, suggesting the community is a stable prey base for predators. In addition, goldenmantled ground squirrels (Spermophilus lateralis) and gray-collared chipmunks (Tamias cinereicollis) appeared to play a similar role in dispersing ectomycorrhizal fungi across different forest structures. Both total species density and biomass were greater after thinning than in unthinned stands, and were similar to reference stands. These results suggest that although species composition changes from year to year after disturbance, restoration treatments can maintain ecosystem stability in terms of small mammal community-level properties

NAFTA Renegotiation and Modernization

The 115th Congress faces policy issues related to the Trump Administration’s renegotiation and modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA negotiations were first launched in 1992 under President H. W. Bush, who signed the agreement in December 1992, and continued under President Bill Clinton, who negotiated additional side agreements on labor and the environment. President Clinton signed the agreement into law on December 8 1993, (P.L. 103-182) and NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994. It is particularly significant because it was the most comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) negotiated at the time, contained several groundbreaking provisions, and was the first of a new generation of U.S. FTAs later negotiated. Congress played a major role during its consideration and, after contentious and comprehensive debate, ultimately approved legislation to implement the agreement. NAFTA established trade liberalization commitments that set new rules and disciplines for future FTAs on issues important to the United States, including intellectual property rights protection, services trade, dispute settlement procedures, investment, labor, and the environment. NAFTA’s market-opening provisions gradually eliminated nearly all tariff and most nontariff barriers on goods produced and traded within North America. At the time of NAFTA, average applied U.S. duties on imports from Mexico were 2.07%, while U.S. businesses faced average tariffs of 10%, in addition to nontariff and investment barriers, in Mexico. The U.S.-Canada FTA had been in effect since 1989. Trade among NAFTA partners has tripled since the agreement entered into force, forming a more integrated North American market. The Trump Administration has made NAFTA renegotiation and modernization a prominent initial priority of its trade policy. President Trump has viewed the agreement as the “worst trade deal,” and has stated that he may seek to withdraw from the agreement. He has focused on the trade deficit with Mexico as a major reason for his critique. On May 18, 2017, the Trump Administration sent a 90-day notification to Congress of its intent to begin talks to renegotiate NAFTA, as required by the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) (P.L. 114-26). Negotiations started August 16, 2017. Stating they are committed to an expeditious process, negotiators plan to have a series of seven rounds at three-week intervals for a conclusion by the end of 2017 or early 2018. The fourth round of negotiations began at the time this report was printed. The final text of the agreement will not be released until after negotiations are concluded. NAFTA parties have agreed that the information exchanged in the context of the negotiations, such as the negotiating text, proposals of each government, and other materials related to the substance of the negotiations, must remain confidential. Congress will likely continue to be a major participant in shaping and potentially considering an updated NAFTA. Key issues for Congress in regard to the renegotiation or modernization include the constitutional authority of Congress over international trade, its role in revising or withdrawing from the agreement, the U.S. negotiating objectives, the impact on U.S. industries and the U.S. economy, the negotiating objectives of Canada and Mexico, and the impact on broader relations with Canada and Mexico. The outcome of these negotiations will have implications for the future direction of U.S. trade policy under President Trump. NAFTA renegotiation may provide opportunities to address issues not covered in the original text. Technology and industrial production processes have changed significantly since it was negotiated. The widespread use of the Internet has affected economic activities and the use of e-commerce, for example. A modernization could incorporate elements of more recent U.S. FTAs, such as digital and services trade and enhanced IPR protection. Many U.S. manufacturers, services providers, and agricultural producers oppose efforts to eliminate NAFTA and ask that the Trump Administration strive to “do no harm” in the negotiations because they have much to lose if the United States pulls out of the agreement. Other groups contend that NAFTA should be rewritten to include stronger and more enforceable labor protections, provisions on currency manipulation, and stricter rules of origin