WP1 Criteria and Definitions Outline and kick-off meeting Mike - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

WP1 – Criteria and Definitions

Mike Elliott, Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (IECS), University of Hull, UK

Outline and kick-off meeting

Kick-off Meeting, Mallorca, 6-9th November 2012

Agreements, Needs & Position Papers?

• definitions of types of monitoring
• criteria and definitions for indicators
• separate P, S and I indicators (indicators for science amd

for management)

• definitions of pressures, activities and impacts
• separation/clarification of state changes and impacts
• definitions of and how to determine cost effectiveness
• definition of a tool
• definition of a management measure
• criteria for performance of tools (indicators, measures,

.....)

• framework for ‘toolbox’

Monitoring, Assessment & Indicators:

• For detection of change, those monitoring measures

have to be against a desired outcome, for example a baseline, reference condition or trigger or threshold values.

• These are then indicators which indicate a deviation

from change,

• e.g. WFD, MSFD, HSD, EIAD all are based on a

knowledge of what an area should be like (its ‘normal’ condition) and whether it has deviated from this due to human activities.

• Therefore, need to assess what is normal, what is

deviation and is it significant.

• Need for precision in approach, i.e. SMART

indicators and objectives.

Selection Criteria for Indicators of Ecosystem Response:

• high signal to noise ratio
• rapid response
• reliability/specificity of response
• ease/economy of monitoring
• relevance to end-point
• monitoring feedback to regulation

+

• general applicability
• backed-up by good science

Types of Indicators:

• structure vs. functioning
• spatial vs. temporal
• taxonomic vs. non-taxonomic
• bottom-up causes vs. top down responses
• for science and for management

Objectives & Indicators - need for indicators for condition, pressures and responses; need to be set and to know when they have been met, needed for meaningful monitoring: hence SMART

• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable / Appropriate /

Attainable

• Realistic / Results focussed /

Relevant

• Time-bounded / Timely

Properties required/typology of indicators/monitoring:

• Anticipatory
• Biologically important
• Broadly applicable and integrative over space and time
• Concrete / results focussed
• Continuity over time and space
• Cost-effective
• Grounded in theory / relevant and appropriate
• Interpretable
• Low redundancy
• Measurable
• Non-destructive
• Realistic / attainable (achievable)
• Responsive feedback to management
• Sensitive to a known stressor or stressors
• Socially relevant
• Specific
• Time-bounded
• Timely

i.e. increase from 5 to 18 characteristics!

The required properties of indicators and monitoring parameters for successful marine management (Elliott, 2011)

• Anticipatory - Sufficient to allow the defence of the precautionary

principle, as an early warning of change, capable of indicating deviation from that expected before irreversible damage occurs.

• Biologically important - Focuses on species, biotopes, communities, etc.

important in maintaining a fully functioning ecological community.

• Broadly applicable and integrative over space and time - Usable at many

sites and over different time periods to give an holistic assessment which provides and summarises information from many environmental and biotic aspects; to allow comparisons with previous data to estimate variability and to define trends and breaches with guidelines or standards.

• Concrete / results focussed - We require indicators for directly observable

and measurable properties rather than those which can only be estimated indirectly; concrete indicators are more readily interpretable by diverse stakeholders who contribute to management decision-making.

7

• Continuity over time and space - Capable of being measured over

appropriate ecological and human time and space scales to show recovery and restoration.

• Cost-effective - Indicators and measurements should be cost-effective

(financially non-prohibitive) given limited monitoring resources, i.e. with an ease/economy of monitoring. Monitoring should provide the greatest and quickest benefits to scientific understanding and interpretation, to society and sustainable development. This should produce an optimum and defensible sampling strategy and the most information possible.

• Grounded in theory / relevant and appropriate - Indicators should reflect

features of ecosystems and human impacts that are relevant to achieving

• perational objectives; they should be scientifically sound and defensible

and based on well-defined and validated theory. They should be relevant and appropriate to management initiatives and understood by managers.

• Interpretable - Indicators should reflect the concerns of, and be

understood by stakeholders. Their understanding should be easy and equate to their technical meanings, especially for non-scientists and other users; some should have a general applicability and be capable of distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable conditions in a scientifically and legally defensive way.

8

• Low redundancy - The indicators and monitoring should provides unique

information compared to other measures.

• Measurable - Indicators should be easily measurable in practice using

existing instruments, monitoring programmes and analytical tools available in the relevant areas, to the required accuracy and precision, and

• n the time-scales needed to support management. They should have

minimum or known bias (error), and the desired signal should be distinguishable from noise or at least the noise (inherent variability in the data) should be quantified and explained, i.e. have a high signal to noise

• ratio. They need to be capable of being updated regularly, being
• perationally defined and measured, with accepted methods and

Analytical/Quality Control/Quality Assurance and with defined detection limits.

• Non-destructive -Methods used should cause minimal and acceptable

damage to the ecosystem and should be legally permissible.

• Realistic / attainable (achievable) - Indicators should be realistic in their

structure and measurement and should provide information on a ‘need- to-know’ basis rather than a ‘nice-to-know’ basis. They should be attainable (achievable) within the management framework.

9

• Responsive feedback to management - Indicators should be responsive to

effective management action and regulation and provide rapid and reliable feedback on the findings. Such feedback loops should be determined and defined prior to using the indicator.

• Sensitive to a known stressor or stressors - The trends in the indicators

should be sensitive to changes in the ecosystem properties or impacts, to a stressor or stressors which the indicator is intended to measure and also sensitive to a manageable human activity; they should be based on an underlying conceptual model, without an all-or-none response to extreme

• r natural variability, hence potential for use in a diagnostic capacity.
• Socially relevant - Understandable to stakeholders and the wider society
• r at least predictive of, or a surrogate for, a change important to society.
• Specific -Indicators should respond to the properties they are intended to

measure rather than to other factors, and/or it should be possible to disentangle the effects of other factors from the observed response (hence having a high reliability/specificity of response and relevance to the endpoint).

10

• Time-bounded - The date of attaining a threshold/standard should be

indicated in advance. They are likely to be based on existing time-series data to help set objectives and also based on readily available data and those showing temporal trends.

• Timely - The indicators should be appropriate to management decisions

relating to human activities and therefore they should be linked to that activity; thus providing real-time information for feedback into management giving remedial action to prevent further deterioration and to indicate the results of or need for any change in strategy.

11

Types of Monitoring:

• Surveillance monitoring
• Condition monitoring
• Operational monitoring
• Compliance monitoring
• Check monitoring
• Self-monitoring
• Toxicity testing
• Investigative monitoring
• Diagnostic monitoring
• Feedback monitoring

Types of Monitoring:

• Surveillance monitoring - look see, started without

determining end points/post hoc detection (a posteriori detection of trends with action then determined)

• Condition monitoring - SAC/HSD etc, nature

conservation bodies (surveillance) to determine the present status of an area; could be linked to biological valuation

• Operational monitoring - industry (e.g. dredging

scheme) (linked to aims for management), e.g. to determine if an area requires further dredging

• Compliance monitoring - industry - (linked to licence

etc) - licence for effluent discharge, disposal at sea, etc.

Types of Monitoring (2)

• Check monitoring - linked to polluter pays principle,

EPA (statutory obligation) consent conditions, .licensing, e.g. FEPA licence/London Convention; ensuring that a developer is performing monitoring to best standards

• Self-monitoring - being carried out by the

developer/industry under the polluter pays principle but often sub-contracted to independent and quality- assured/controlled laboratory

• Toxicity testing - predictive approach and licence

setting - industry through polluter pays, DTA, etc - either operational monitoring to determine compliance with required standards or analysis required to set the licence conditions; DTA for prioritisation and to account for synergism/antagonism

Types of Monitoring (3):

• Investigative monitoring - applied research (cause

and effect), once any deviation from perceived or required quality is detected then aim to look for explanations

• Diagnostic monitoring - determining effects but link to

cause

• Feedback monitoring - real time analysis, linked to

predetermined action; e.g. monitoring during dredging on condition that the activity is controlled/prevented/stopped if a deleterious change is observed (relies on acceptance that any early- warning signal will be related to an ultimate affect

DPSIR modelling framework (Also * DPSWR, DPSEEAC)

Drivers (D):

The human activities responsible

State Change (S):

The change in background status

Impact (I):

The changesto the system

Response (R):

The 'human' response

Pressures (P):

The causes of the problem(s)

Environment Boundary System

Natural Change

• Climate Change
• Natural variability
• ...

* Drivers Pressures State change Welfare Response; Drivers Pressures State change Exposure Effects Action Context

Aim of Management Plan

P S D I R P S D I R P S D I R P S D I R P S D I R

Environment Boundary System

Natural Change Natural Change Natural Change Natural Change Natural Change

I II III IV ...N

ExUP ExUP ExUP EnMP EnMP

I II III IV ...N

I II III IV ...N

I II III IV ...N

I II III IV ...N

I II III IV ...N

I II III IV ...N

Kick-off Meeting, Mallorca, 6-9th November 2012

WP Coordinators: Krysia Mazik (K.Mazik@hull.ac.uk) Mike Elliott (Mike.Elliott@hull.ac.uk)