Main findings of the international workshop Monitoring Tailor-Made III - Information for sustainable water management

Full text

MAIN FINDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
MONITORING TAILOR-MADE III - INFORMATION FOR SUSTAINABLE
WATER MANAGEMENT
J.G. Timmerman and W.P. Cofino
Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA), PO Box 17, NL-8200 AA
Lelystad, The Netherlands
INTRODUCTION
Monitoring Tailor-Made III is the third international workshop on strategies and practices to
design, implement and report monitoring programmes which render information on aquatic
resources. This third workshop put emphasis on information for sustainable, integrated water
management. Integrated water management takes economic, ecological and societal issues into
account and requires thus information on the status of aquatic resources in relation to the
economic and societal issues. Frequently, many data are available for all of the issues.
Nevertheless, policy-makers perceive the information available as inadequate. A framework is
required for the aggregation of data from the different disciplines and for information which can
underpin integrated water management. Such a framework information-architecture is needed
which enables meaningful aggregation of data of the different viewpoints to be made and which
allows trade-offs between economic, societal, and ecological dimensions to be evaluated. The
conceptual technical elaboration and implementation of such a framework is a challenge facing
all environmental managers today.
Exchange of knowledge and experiences is essential to further develop the quality and
accessibility of information. The workshop Monitoring Tailor-Made provides a platform for an
active and effective interchange of ideas and practices. The first and second Monitoring Tailor-
Made workshop focused on information and the role of monitoring in it. Monitoring Tailor-
Made III continued this general theme with a specific theme of: how to assemble integrated
information to support sustainable water management. Four levels of integrated information are
distinguished: integration of science, policy-makers and the public; integration of different
scientific disciplines in the domains of natural and socio-economic sciences; integration on a
spatial scale; and integration of measurement and data-treatment methodologies within the
domain of the natural sciences. The main findings from the presentations and discussions
during the workshop Monitoring Tailor-Made III are presented in this paper.
INTEGRATED WATER ASSESSMENT
Monitoring is used to assess the quantity and quality of water and is often linked to legal
instruments to regulate the use of the water body. The growing importance of diffuse pollution
makes common monitoring practices less suitable as a policy instrument, as Russell shows us in
his paper; but also makes a good classification of waters far more complex than a single-sample
exercise, as Ward shows in his paper. All in all, an integrated approach to assessing water
bodies is needed.
A wide range of definitions for integrated assessment have been used during the workshop.
From the various presentations one can conclude that integrated assessment implies integration
of at least the following:
•Information from different countries and authorities;
•Different disciplines such as biology, chemistry, economics, etc.;
•Different types of information. An example of this is the D-P-S-I-R (Driving force - Pressure -
State - Impact - societal Response) approach.
•Models, remote sensing & monitoring;
•Data (through aggregation): basic data are transformed into indicators.
This range of definitions indicates that the integrated assessment concept itself and/or the use of
this concept needs to be sharpened. However, various characteristics of integrated assessment
have come to the fore. Integrated assessments should include:
PROCEEDINGS MTM-III - MAIN FINDINGS
395

•Multidisciplinary teams with scientists applying holistic approaches. Scientists from the
social, economic and natural sciences should work together on the issues, each being
aware of having blinkers that may hinders the full view of the issue.
•Communication. Special emphasis on communication within and between parties and for
dialogue with policy-makers. This communication is essential in information production
process and specification of information needs can prove to be crucial basis for this
communication. The paper by Timmerman and others provides a framework for the
specification of information needs.
•Creation of understanding of, and support for, approaches chosen. The people involved in
the process must have an open mind and show interest in each others’ concerns and
working methods. Only understanding can lead to support.
•Orientation on the process rather than on the project. There is a common tendency to focus
on ‘technical’ details of a project, meanwhile avoiding more sensitive, political issues,
which usually in the end are crucial to the success of a project. By focusing on the process,
a more realistic view of the requirements for the success of the project can be obtained,
thus avoiding unnecessary pit-falls.
•Special attention for the level of aggregation. For example:
→aggregation across spatial and temporal scales. As e.g. the social and economic
disciplines normally work on lager scales then the natural disciplines, integration of
information of different disciplines can be a tough task.
→type of models used. Only a truly independent institute can develop widely accepted
high level models.
•Setting of clear priorities. Having a clear objective can be very helpful in choosing the right
measures. For example, a flat-rate emission reduction approach can be much less cost-
effective compared to an effects-based emission reduction approach
•Uncertainty issues. Uncertainty can be used to delay action, therefore it can be
advantageous to direct the research agenda to the most uncertain parts of a complex
problem.
•Multiple information sources. Information from different disciplines is needed for integrated
assessments. There is however no necessity for each project to provide all the data needed
for an integrated assessment. Suitable information can nowadays be obtained from various
organisations through various tools like internet, models, and decision support systems.
•Realistic ambitions. A simple start can provide proof that the approach chosen really works.
The following sections examine these issues in more detail.
THE MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
Focusing on the multidisciplinary approach within integrated water assessment, it appears that
there is a need for translation across disciplines. The term ‘compliance monitoring’, for
example, is a way of keeping up with the progress made in implementing policy actions in the
socio-economic sciences. On the other hand, in the natural sciences ‘compliance monitoring’ is
used for testing against standards. Specialists in different fields also have naive expectations of
work from other disciplines. In water science, for example, environmental values and
environmental damage functions are often incomplete or missing. Such different perceptions
hamper communication between disciplines. Another issue that hinders communication
between disciplines is the mismatch in spatial and temporal scales. Monitoring in the natural
sciences is performed on a rather detailed scale in time and space (monthly in a river stretch),
whereas the socio-economic sciences focus on larger scales (yearly in a province).
To overcome communication mismatches, closer, and regular, contact is needed. Working
towards sustainable solutions calls for intensive co-operation and communication between
policy-makers and scientists in a multi-disciplinary, and, where relevant, transboundary setting.
Through the exchange of ideas, such co-operation enhances the mutual understanding, and,
consequently the support of solutions. Sharing of a common problem in a ‘joint learning curve’
eventually leads to a better utilisation of knowledge and available information. One crucial
condition to make such co-operation work is a strong notion of joining in the effort by involved
stakeholders. Pollution problems often have multiple causes and cannot be connected to only
one of the parties involved. Furthermore, , solving one pollution problem may cause another.
The paper of Harremoës and Turner provides examples of this. When the aspect of blaming
each other enters the discussion, the effort will go into denial and counter-blaming while any
possibilities for solving the problem will be delayed or even blocked. A basis for
PROCEEDINGS MTM-III - MAIN FINDINGS
396

communication may be found in the use of indicators, where, from a natural science point of
view, the D-P-S-I-R framework may assist in bridging the gap between disciplines. However, the
multidisciplinary approach will require us to change our present-day organisations.
INDICATORS
Indicators may help in simplifying communication. Aggregation to the desired scale can in
particular be an important issue that is supported by the use of indicators. Next to this, the use
of indicators is frequently linked to the presentation of data and information. Figures provide
good possibilities to present the aggregated data in a condensed format. The Cyprus example
(Michaelidou and Maro) shows condensed information in nine quality/effects indices, which
when grouped in one AMOEBE type figure, provide a powerful communication tool. The Dutch
Vechte example (Verhallen and others) shows that it is possible to communicate uncertainties
through indicators. The UK-example (Seager) shows that the indicator of ‘percentage of rivers
with good quality’ provides useful information for policy-makers. However, the indicator is an
aggregation of a multitude of data, which leads to the conclusion that the use indicators does
not necessarily imply a reduction of the monitoring effort.
During the workshop it appeared that the D-P-S-I-R framework has wide support. There are,
however, few, if any, examples of full implementation of this framework. Reasons for this may
be that the information ‘system’ is not yet embedded in an integrated assessment framework or
in a multidisciplinary approach. But the D-P-S-I-R framework is not the last step in the
multidisciplinary approach. Communication should be tailor-made. To illustrate, for politicians
there is a need for indicators that describe the progress in the policy process. Also, decision-
makers require information on a high level of aggregation. This once again stresses that the
dialogue between policy-makers and scientists is imperative. Consequently, also in the field of
indicators there are no universal solutions, and there is still much work to be done.
MONITORING PRACTICES
Contributions to Monitoring Tailor-Made III provide many examples of initiatives for introducing
tailor-made practices. The issues dealt with in previous MTM workshops reappear; quality
assurance for instance, is not limited to laboratory analysis, but is now extending to sampling
procedures and biological measurements. Statistics, agreed methods (protocols), and knowledge
of chemical, hydrological and biological processes are applied in the development of
monitoring networks. Information and communication technology (ICT) plays a major role in
data-management and the monitoring cycle is implemented. All this signifies that improvement
in monitoring is a continuous process.
The need to establish a dialogue with policy-makers is generally acknowledged and linked to
the importance of specification of information needs. In the process of specifying information
needs, practices from the social sciences prove to be useful, such as the ‘devil’s advocate’
technique. Many initiatives to improve or organise co-operation have been shown during MTM-
III. Examples are the US National Water Quality Monitoring Council, ECE guidelines on
transboundary waters, the Lake Peipsi example (which explicitly includes the important aspect
of capacity building), and various examples on regional scales.
One important aspect of monitoring discussed was the need to reserve time / capacity in the
monitoring network design for special surveys. There should be slack in the monitoring network
to enable the performance of survey activities on subjects that are not yet known at the time
planning is done. In this way, "surprise" issues can be quickly addressed with appropriate
monitoring programs.
In the case of pollution incidents, emergency monitoring and rapid assessment of the hazard
and likely exposures are needed to determine the immediate actions. This should then be
followed by long-term monitoring and assessment of the progress of rehabilitation of the
contaminated area. In preventing accidental pollution, an inventory and risk assessment of
potentially hazardous sites should be made.
It may be concluded that progress in improving monitoring systems is being made, but there is
no reason to be satisfied. The numerous capabilities offered by modern technology are rarely
PROCEEDINGS MTM-III - MAIN FINDINGS
397

used and the major problems we are struggling with are not addressed from an information
technology point-of-view.
MONITORING AND COMMUNICATION
As people become more and more politically aware, they demand more information. This leads
to a situation where information is provided outside the long-established sphere of legislation,
governments and industries. Accidental situations are significant events in this respect. During
pollution incidences, for instance, communication of information to the public plays a major
role, especially in avoiding misunderstandings of the actual state of affairs. To be prepared for
incidences, a plan should be ready for co-operation between the involved institutions,
communication between the institutions and to the ‘outside world’, and monitoring. In
developing such communication plans much can be learned from social scientists. For
example, ‘the public’, as a uniform entity, does not exist. There are different groups of
stakeholders, each having their own interests and concerns. In communicating, each group
should be addressed in a different way. The media (newspapers, television) play a significant
role in dissemination of the information to ‘the public’. This role can be supportive yet also
misleading. In any case, the role of the media is unpredictable.
Three interconnected levels of communication can be distinguished:
1. Provision of information as a means to increase awareness: this type of communication is
currently used most frequently; the situation is described together with possible
consequences.
2. Appeal to ethical standards to change behaviour: this type of communication appeals to the
citizen’s conscience. One example is a government message that drinking water is a scarce
resource and the public should be careful not to waste water .
3. Involvement of ‘public stakeholders’ through a genuine dialogue, which will require
institutional reforms. In many countries, public participation is used to inform the public,
but also to improve plans (i.e. "true" inclusion).
The first two levels of communication are largely one-way options whereas the third level
assumes a two-way dialogue. The challenge for the water science people will be to think
beyond a technical approach and prepare for better communication.
INFORMATION AND INTERNET
More and more, the internet is seen as the medium of choice to disseminate information.
Reporting is done on the web in real time, open GIS is very popular to unlock information and,
also, the internet is an important source of information, for instance for downloading remote
sensing images. As more data are available through the internet it becomes more apparent that
data cannot easily be compared. Consequently, the internet is considered to be an instrument to
enforce comparability. The full potential of the internet however is not yet exploited. The
internet is still seen as an easy to distribute, up-to-date ‘modern brochure’ with real time,
changing data. The possibilities of the internet, for instance, as a medium to interact with
stakeholders is not yet fully developed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Providing information for integrated water management requires major changes in the
customary method of monitoring. It demands intensive co-operation between policy-makers
and scientists. It also requires a multidisciplinary approach that utilises the expertise of various
scientific disciplines. Such changes cannot be achieved without changing the present-day
organisation and an development of a willingness to think beyond the narrow technical
approach.
The D-P-S-I-R framework provides a setting in which a multidisciplinary approach can be
stimulated. Driving forces and societal Responses require interpretation from the socio-
economic disciplines, whereas Pressures, State and Impact can be approached from the natural
disciplines. Indicators within this framework can be powerful communication tools for co-
operation between policy-makers and scientists.
PROCEEDINGS MTM-III - MAIN FINDINGS
398

Communicating water science information to ‘the public’ demands insights from the social
sciences. True communication with and involvement of the public can only be achieved by a
genuine dialogue.
Rapid developments in technology provide numerous opportunities to improve monitoring and
dissemination of information. Effort is needed to explore such opportunities and exploit the
existing technological possibilities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
These main findings could not have been formulated without the support of the rapporteurs:
Geo Arnold, Karin de Beer, Piet Bergers, Andrea Houben, Ivonne van Pelt, Ingeborg van
Splunder and Wout van Vuuren (all RIZA), and Wim Herbert Mulder and John Schobben (both
RIKZ).
PROCEEDINGS MTM-III - MAIN FINDINGS
399