Does the exotic equal pollution? Landscape methods for solving the dilemma of using native versus non‐native plant species in drylands

There is a need to resolve methods to determine the merits of native versus nonnative plant use in drylands and indeed in more temperate areas around the world. This is because whilst plant introductions may have positive objectives, they can have significant negative landscape and environmental impacts. A key discussion on this issue focuses on whether the use of non-native plant species can be considered to be pollution and pollutive based on the concept that pollution can be regarded as ‘matter out of place’. The consequences of putting the wrong plant species in the wrong place can be extremely detrimental to the landscape character, quality and value of the land, let alone the effects on ecosystem structure and functioning as well as on biodiversity. These effects can also affect human communities who may rely on the landscape, for example, for tourism. It is thus necessary that the discussion on how decisions are made in determining plant choice evolves so that the right decisions are made when planting is necessary, for the land, for nature and for the people. This discussion has been initiated through COST Action ES1104, which focused on the restoration of degraded dry and arid lands. This article discusses a number of landscape methods based on sustainability principles to determine when and where native and non-native plants could and should be used.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Needle exchange and the HIV epidemic in Vancouver: Lessons learned from 15 years of research

During the mid-1990s, Vancouver experienced a well characterized HIV outbreak among injection drug users (IDU) and many questioned how this could occur in the presence of a high volume needle exchange program (NEP). Specific concerns were fuelled by early research demonstrating that frequent needle exchange program attendees were more likely to be HIV positive than those who attended the NEP less frequently. Since then, some have misinterpreted this finding as evidence that NEPs are ineffective or potentially harmful. In light of continuing questions about the Vancouver HIV epidemic, we review 15 years of peer-reviewed research on Vancouver’s NEP to describe what has been learned through this work. Our review demonstrates that: 1) NEP attendance is not causally associated with HIV infection, 2) frequent attendees of Vancouver’s NEP have higher risk profiles which explain their increased risk of HIV seroconversion, and 3) a number of policy concerns, as well as the high prevalence of cocaine injecting contributed to the failure of the NEP to prevent the outbreak. Additionally, we highlight several improvements to Vancouver’s NEP that contributed to declines in syringe sharing and HIV incidence. Vancouver’s experience provides a number of important lessons regarding NEP. Keys to success include refocusing the NEP away from an emphasis on public order objectives by separating distribution and collection functions, removing syringe distribution limits and decentralizing and diversifying NEP services. Additionally, our review highlights the importance of context when implementing NEPs, as well as ongoing evaluation to identify factors that constrain or improve access to sterile syringes