Bengt Berg (1885–1967) är översatt till åtminstone sexton språk och med samlade upplagor som betydligt överskrider 1 miljon exemplar. Trots detta imponerande tal saknas ännu en bibliografi över hans verk. Det här är ett första bidrag till att ändra på denna situation. Bengt Berg var en flitig skriftställare; romaner, novellsamlingar, en pojkbok, naturböcker illustrerade med egna fotografier, artiklar i böcker och tidningar inom en rad ämnesområden.

Nedbrytning av organiskt material är en nyckelfaktor som påverkar omvandlingar av de många grundämnen som utgör eller är associerade till just organiskt material. En stor del av nedbrytningen av akvatiskt organiskt material (OM) sker i gränsskiktet mellan sediment och vatten. Eftersom så många biogeokemiska cykler styrs av nedbrytningen av OM är det viktigt att ha kunskap om processer och påverkansfaktorer både på mikro- och makronivå. Mineraliseringshastigheten av OM är en vanligt förekommande mätparameter, men vanligtvis inkluderar mätningarna inte de naturliga processer som kan påverka nedbrytnings-hastigheterna, t.ex. fysiska krafter.

Syftet med den här studien är att studera mineraliseringshastigheten av det OM som finns naturligt i ytsediment i söt- och brackvatten när det utsätts för fysiska krafter som orsakar förändringar i redox-förhållanden, resuspension eller advektivt porvattenflöde. Fem

laborativa experiment har utförts för att belysa syftet:

Åldrat ytsediment från en sötvattens å utsattes för olika redox förhållanden där oxisk respiration, sulfatreduktion respektive metanogenes gynnades. Resultaten visade ingen skillnad i mineraliseringshastighet beroende på behandling. Detta motsäger studier utförda i marina miljöer, där anoxiska förhållanden ger en lägre mineraliseringshastighet än oxiska.

Vidare gjordes två studier på brackvattensediment där effekten av resuspension var i centrum. Den ena studien fokuserade på frekvens och varaktighet av resuspensionstiderna, den andra på olika typer av sediment. Studierna visade att väldigt korta resuspensionstider med upp till 48 timmars stillhet mellan varje resuspension ökade mineraliseringstakten med fem gånger jämfört med diffusivt utbyte, och mer än dubblerades i jämförelse med kontinuerlig resuspension eller resuspension i långa perioder. Resuspensionen under kort tid var troligen gynnande då resuspension fysiskt stör bildningen av stabila bakteriesamhällen. Mineraliseringshastigheterna i sediment som domineras av väldigt fin, fin eller medium sand visade lika hastigheter, medan grov sand visade en signifikant lägre mineraliseringshastighet. Likheterna mellan de tre första sedimenttyperna kan dock ha påverkats av tillgång på lättnedbrytbart OM då sediment och vatten hämtades in under en algblomning.

Till sist studerades effekten på mineraliseringshastigheten av advektivt porvattenflöde. Detta gjordes på åldrat sediment dels från en sötvattensbäck dels från en brackvattenstrand. Inget av de två sedimenttyperna visade någon skillnad i mineraliseringshastighet i jämförelse med diffusivt styrda system. Det är i motsats till tidigare marina studier, men är i linje med den första studien, där mineraliseringshastigheten var oberoende av redox-förhållande.

Den generella slutsatsen från den här studien är nödvändigheten att studera samma aspekter i olika typer av akvatiska system, eftersom responsen verkar vara annorlunda beroende på system, t.ex. söt- brack- och saltvatten. Faktorer som kan förklara de här skillnaderna finns ännu inte, vilket gör att småskaliga studier och modeller blir viktiga verktyg för att utreda detta.

The series of interviews presented in this book were originally conceived as a part of a wider project, investigating the ways in which Nordic people relate to nature. That project, entitled “Nature, National Identity and Environmental Policy in the Nordic Countries”, was initiated in 1995 by Elfar Loftsson and Ulrik Lohm from the University of Linköping; Páll Skúlason and Þorvarður Árnason from the University of Iceland; and Lars Henrik Schmidt from the University of Århus. The project was intended from the outset to be interdisciplinary, with sociological, anthropological and philosophical methods to be applied in the investigation. Originally, the project involved three Nordic countries: Sweden, Denmark and Iceland. Parts of the project were undertaken in all three countries so that it would be possible to compare the results, whilst other parts were carried out separately in each country. The largest common sub-project was a questionnaire survey that was carried out in 1997 and investigated views of nature, and environmental concerns, amongst the general public in Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.In connection with the questionnaire survey, it was decided to invite an experienced journalist to join in the project and to ask him to interview people with various backgrounds, in order to elicit from them, in a personal manner, their ways of valuing and relating to nature. In addition to being of interest in themselves, the interviews were intended to complement the other parts of the project. Páll Skúlason had worked earlier with Jacques Gandebeuf when he came to Iceland in the wake of the volcanic eruption in the Westman Islands in 1972 to interview people about their experiences of living in a close Páll Skúlason and dangerous relationship with nature. Thus, Páll knew about Jacques´ skills as an interviewer, his great experience as an environmentalist, and his remarkable talent as a writer; and it was agreed to ask him to do the job. He accepted the assignment, and in this book the reader is presented with the results.

Jacques Gandebeuf was born and brought up in Clermont-Ferrand, in the centre of France. He studied law and economic history before turning to journalism. From 1966 to 1992 he worked as a major reporter and editorialist in the great regional journal Républicain Lorrain, published in Metz in the north of France. During this period, he covered all the great events in the world, traveling to more than 80 countries. He also become an active member of the association of journalists and writers for ecology and wrote extensively on environmental issues. After retiring in 1992 he has written some ten books, among them My Father’s Accent, which is a work of fiction on the linguistic problems of Lorraine, and three books on the experiences of people in that region during the two world wars. A specialist of European affairs, his personal interests bear particularly upon music and also upon sculpting, an art at which he himself excels.

In connection with the Nordic project, Jacques conducted his first series of interviews in Iceland in 1996 and a second series in Sweden in 1997. For various reasons, he was unable to conduct any interviews in Denmark before the project came to an end. In the year 2000, however, the opportunity arose to survey Norwegian views of nature, thanks to the assistance of Gunnar Skirbekk at the University of Bergen, and the interviews contained in the present volume thus include the perspectives of three Nordic nations.

These interviews were conducted in the period when environmental issues of all sorts were for the first time in history commanding public attention. Since then these issues have become progressively more and more the concern of public debates. In these debates what is most important are the various sentiments, feelings and worries that people have, and may share, all over the world. It is vital that politicians, scientists, entrepreneurs, and others engaged in decision-making that affects nature, take into account the ways in which people value and relating to nature. This book should be extremely useful for achieving an understanding of the attitudes and feelings that people have. Jacques was of course entirely free to conduct and present the interviews in whatever way he thought best. To my mind he has succeeded in revealing, in an exciting and interesting manner, how ordinary people in a certain part of the world felt and thought about nature at the end of the 20th century. It remains to be asked how people will feel and think about nature at the end of the current century, if we humans are still around and if there is still be a nature to which we can relate.

Human actions have made ecosystems more vulnerable to changes that previously could be absorbed. As a consequence they may suddenly shift from desired to less desired states in their capacity to generate ecosystem services and cause severe impacts on wellbeing, livelihoods and societal development. How can groups of people, communities and society as a whole avoid creating social-ecological vulnerability and move towards improved conditions? In the Resilience Alliance we argue that adaptability and transformability are central concepts for a science of sustainability. Here, we review two cases from Sweden on the emergence of adaptive co-management systems with an emphasis on landscape governance. The objective of our analysis is to unravel the social mechanisms behind adaptability and transformation towards ecosystem management. The self-organizing process was triggered by the perceived threats to the areas’ cultural and ecological values among people of various local steward associations and local government. The threats challenged the generation of ecosystem services in the area. We show how leadership and key actor groups play an instrumental role in directing change and transforming governance. The transformation involved three phases: 1) preparing the system for change, 2) using a window of opportunity, and 3) building social-ecological resilience of the new desired state. Trust building dialogue, mobilizing social networks with actors across scales, compiling and generating knowledge and management practices of ecosystem dynamics, sense making, collaborative learning and creating public awareness were part of the process. This significance of flexible organizations serving as bridges between local actors and governmental bodies is critical in the adaptive governance of the landscape. It is also critical in navigating the larger sociopolitical and economic environment for resilience of the new social-ecological system. Social transformability is essential to move from a less desired trajectory into one where the capacity to manage ecosystems sustainably for human wellbeing is strengthened. Adaptability among the actors involved will be needed to reinforce and sustain the desired social-ecological state and make it resilient to future change and unpredictable events.

Sustainable development recognizes that environmental, social and economic development have to go hand in hand. Yet, this political ideal remains to be realized, both on a global scale and in many national and local settings. Science can be a tool for facilitating political goals, and the call has been made for researchers to develop a science for sustainable development that focuses on interactions between nature and society and makes new connections across scientific disciplines and with other stakeholders. But the call has raised questions: What is science for sustainable development? What should it be?These questions were central themes at a round-table discussion August 26, 2004, in connection with the EuroScience Open Forum 2004 in Stockholm. The session was organized by the International Council for Science and Department of Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University, in an effort to bring the discussion forward in an open dialogue between the research community, policy makers, and other stakeholders. This article attempts to synthesize the major themes that came up in the presentations and the discussion.

Please note that this documentation is also presented with a sound files. You need software installed in your computer that is able to play the mp3 sound files. Some of the sound files are large and may take a while to downloading.

Sustainable development recognizes that environmental, social and economic development have to go hand in hand. Yet, this political ideal remains to be realized, both on a global scale and in many national and local settings. Science can be a tool for facilitating political goals, and the call has been made for researchers to develop a science for sustainable development that focuses on interactions between nature and society and makes new connections across scientific disciplines and with other stakeholders. But the call has raised questions: What is science for sustainable development? What should it be?

These questions were central themes at a round-table discussion August 26, 2004, in connection with the EuroScience Open Forum 2004 in Stockholm. The session was organized by the International Council for Science and Department of Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University, in an effort to bring the discussion forward in an open dialogue between the research community, policy makers, and other stakeholders. This article attempts to synthesize the major themes that came up in the presentations and the discussion.

Please note that this documentation is also presented with sound and PowerPoint files. You need software installed in your computer that is able to play the mp3 sound files. Some of the sound files are large and may take a while to downloading.

The presentation concludes by suggesting that we have few palatable options but to try to move forward on two fronts: by seeking greater knowledge and understanding of natural environments and the social world; and by engaging in dialogue about values – about what we believe to be good and right, addressing the question of how we wish to inhabit the planet. Vigorous debate, argument, challenge and counter-critique, even if at times they seem futile and inconclusive, should be seen in a positive light, as part of the vital process of interpreting the concept of sustainable development in terms of workable conceptions.

The presentation is only available as a sound file.

The whole United Nations process of linking environment and development calls for one common agenda, an action plan that can join the global North and South in concerted action. Achieving sustainable development involves the integration of diverse issues, such as formation and implementation of international environmental treaties; trade relations; social issues; debt relief; alleviation of poverty; and change of unsustainable patterns of production and consumption etc. This complex and paramount task can tempt the research community to be too narrowly focused on action-oriented research.

Even though science for sustainable development is thought to avoid fragmentation, in order to implement all the different issues currently included under the heading of sustainable development, they run the risk of being de-linked from the conceptual integration of the three pillars - environment, social and economic - and addressed semi-independently. Many researchers as well as funding agencies predominantly attach themselves to various forms of "sustainability." A large flora of prefix/suffix sustainability characterizes sustainable development research. New offspring concepts to sustainable development have evolved, such as sustainable ecology, social sustainability, economic sustainability, sustainable growth, urban sustainability, sustainable forestry, sustainable urbanisation etc. This might be an indication of a fragmentation of sustainable development implementation, and could lead to similar consequences as the discredited sectorisation, even though it is contradictory to the integrated rationale behind sustainable development.

Since the three pillars interact on a global scale, it might be contra-productive, conceptually and in praxis, to associate specific projects to prefix or suffix sustainability. If environmental protection and social and economic development are globally interlinked, theories of sustainable development ought to have a totalizing ambition, even if it at the same time has to acknowledge the need for differentiated views on global sustainable development goals and actions. The need for totalizing theoretical analytical framework has to be combined with a reflexive and differentiated view on global sustainable developments.

Today, reflexivity is a key concept in knowledge production. Yet, it is often not reflected in the framing of research for sustainable development, perhaps due to that the devotion to implementation and action oriented research has overshadowed the need for reflexivity. The inherent conflicts in sustainable development politics gain little attention. In policy documents of research funding agencies in the global North it appears as a consensus concept, whereas in international policy making it is filled with conflicting interests and interpretations. In spite of the ambiguities of the concept, many seem to identify the concept in line with the so-called ecological modernisation with a strong emphasis achieving sustainable development by regulating the use of scare resources and environmental degradation through market mechanisms, recycling, and technological innovations.

If sustainable development problems are regarded as a temporary or adjustable dysfunctions in the present social or economic order, the questions asked and the solutions sought are different compared to if you see them as fundamental predicaments caused by structural errors in society. A small share of science for sustainable development projects appears to be designed to study the cultural, conceptual and ideological foundations of the sustainable development approach to which so much money is invested, at least in Sweden. Since the framing of a problem is intimately linked to the information sought and the approaches to solve it, it is evident that a broader research agenda would allow various ways to pose the questions. As applied research oriented towards implementing the dominating political agenda, science for sustainable development run the risk of lacking research that posits alternative framings, identifies new problems and reflects on wider implications of sustainable development policy.

There is indeed not one agenda, one vision of the society of sustainable development. The visions of the good life, the utopian thinking, in sustainable development policy remains contested. Since sustainable development entails questions of value, political priorities, and balancing the three pillars, we are faced with a multitude of sustainable development visions and political alternatives. For instance, organizations in the South, such as South Centre, is calling for the South to elaborate a platform of its own on sustainable development while others seek to invoke the idea of an New International Economic Order. The presumption that we now know what the problem is, that it is solely action that is needed, can be precarious. Whose sustainable development visions is science going to facilitate? Since sustainable development policies always will be contested, action still have to be sought and applied research needed, but its assumptions and implications constantly reflected upon.

Since sustainable development is a politically defined project, it is crucial that reflexive research that explores alternatives, new questions, different interpretations of the environmental situations and its solutions shall be able to get funding. In the clash between opposing perspectives, in the negations of the discursive research, new hindsight might be made. At the least it will provide us with preparedness for alternative policies, if current implementation efforts continue to come up short.

Available as sound file only.

At a meeting in Friibergh Manor, Sweden, in October 2000 a small, international group ofscientists discussed the challenges of Sustainability Science; outlining a set of core questions,discussing the research agenda and the institutional requirements (Kates et al., 2001). Afterthe meeting, a core group set up the Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability(ISTS) with the aims of:

• expanding and deepening the research and development agenda of science andtechnology for sustainability;

• strengthening the infrastructure and capacity for conducting and applying scienceand technology for sustainability; and
• connecting science and policy more effectively in pursuit of a transition towardsustainability.

Coastal zones are the meeting point for land and ocean. Besides these land-ocean interactions, the coastal zone can also be distinguished by the many and strong interactions between the biotic and abiotic systems and the regional economy. Around the world coastal systems are coping with ncreased human pressures in the form of an increased demand for space and other resources as a result of for example population growth, migration and an expansion of tourism. In addition, coastal areas have to deal with natural pressures resulting from large scale interactions of the atmospheric, water, soil and biological systems including climatic change.

Derivations from the natural material and energy flows in the coastal zone are often a result of changes in land-use and other man-induced impacts within the watershed, the coastal zone or in the ocean. A considerable part of the changes do not originate in the coastal zone itself but are caused by land based activities upstream in the catchment area (see for example the case studies below of the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea). In general, there is a lack of understanding of the interdependence of natural and human systems and processes, especially for river basins and coasts. Furthermore, there is only limited knowledge of how activities in the catchment area influence the coastal zone. Consequently, in order to aid policy formulation and decision-making, the interactions between natural and human systems in respectively the catchment area and the coastal zone as well as the connection between them, need to be identified, studied, and at least partly understood.

In attempting a linked analysis of natural and human processes, special attention should be paid to the different temporal and spatial scales on which they operate. One of the most important issues that needs further studying is the temporal and spatial disparity between processes and activities in the catchment area and effects in the coastal zone. This includes the time lags and spatial disparity between activities and their effects as well as the time ags between effects of activities and the time decision makers need to take action to identify, study and eventually reduce these impacts. Each of these issues will now be elaborated upon.

The wave field in the Baltic Sea has been modelled for a two-year period with the spectral wave model HYPAS. There is a large seasonal variation in the field and a minor annual one, both reflect the wind variation in the area. Since the Baltic Sea is fetch limited, the dominant wind direction is important for the maximum wave heights.

By studying the modelled wave energy density in combination with bottom type maps, the effect of the wave field on the sediment surface is examined. Up to half the bottoms in the Baltic Sea are affected ~25% of the time. A statistical relation between wave energy density and bottom types is found for the Gulf of Riga, but in the rest of the area the sediment maps were to coarse. It is, due to this, not possible to say if the result is valid for the whole area or if it is site specific.

During resuspension events the remineralisation is increased since deposited organic material is reintroduced into the watermass and there exposed to higher levels of oxygen. This process could act as an increased regional source of nitrogen in nutrient budgets and thus influence the conditions for nitrogen fixation and perhaps explain some of the geographical differences in the nitrogen fixation rates.