Content uploaded by Geta Risnoveanu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Geta Risnoveanu on Jan 17, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Introducing the ‘MEEM’ study - Monitoring
and Evaluation for Ecosystem Management
Supported by The ALTER-Net High Impact
Actions (AHIA) initiative and coordinated by the
James Hutton Institute
Rationale for MEEM
Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) should be central
to adaptive management of ecosystems -
enables learning from past actions to improve
future choices
Unfortunately M&E is often inadequate
Europe has high profile environmental policies
with much influence on ecosystem management
Therefore it is important to examine if and how
Europe’s policies shape M&E, and consider what could
improve.
ALTER-Net and MEEM
ALTER-Net http://www.alter-net.info
Network of leading institutes who integrate their research
capability to: “assess changes in biodiversity, analyse the
effect of those changes on ecosystem services and inform
the public and policy makers about this at a European
scale”
ALTER-Net funds MEEM as a ‘High Impact Action’
http://www.alter-net.info/ahia
M&E affects ability to understand and manage biodiversity
and ecosystems
Bringing together knowledge from different partners can
help to identify key themes and challenges
The MEEM partners
9 partners across Europe
Ecological and Forestry Research Applications Centre
at the University of Barcelona (CREAF)
University of Bucharest
Estonian University of Life Sciences (EMU)
Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)
Flemish Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)
Hungary Academy of Sciences Centre for Ecological Research (MTA)
Institute of Landscape Ecology James Hutton Institute
Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAS)
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)
Interdisciplinary
Each team studied
M&E in their
country or region
Map of partners
Study approach
3 European policy areas– site level monitoring
The Water Framework Directive
The Natura 2000 network designated under the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive
Agri-Environment Schemes under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
Find public documents on official
monitoring programmes
Compared to
criteria for
‘ideal’ M&E
What is
monitored?
To understand (eco)system processes, both biotic and abiotic elements should be monitored,
with a focus on the interactions that form the system or community
To understand social and economic aspects of systems, these issues should be monitored,
likely entailing coverage of demographics, economics and social attitudes and preferences.
To understand system change, influential aspects of the social, technical, environmental,
economic and policy context should be monitored.
How is
monitoring
is carried out?
Monitoring should use targeted collection of primary data and also relevant secondary data
where available.
Data provision can involve a range of individuals and organisations to improve data coverage
as well as engagement
Monitoring data should be accessible to its users and the public.
Monitoring should use targeted collection of primary data and also relevant secondary data
where available.
Does
monitoring
inform and
influence
decision-
making?
The process by which monitoring data are expected to be used in decision making should be
transparent
Monitoring data should be used to inform and update management
Monitoring data should be used to inform and update policy
Findings (1)
Policy-driven M&E is producing useful
information, especially on
environmental state and trends
However, there are some common
problems – some trends shared across
places and policies
Findings (2)
Some common problems
1. Not enough attention on understanding the effect
of management actions e.g.
2. Overly focused on understanding a few issues
(e.g. many measurements of water quality) rather
than a whole system perspective
3. Rarely much attention to social issues, even though
these can be vital e.g. human activities in a
protected area
Continued…
Findings (3)
….continued
4. Little attention to contextual factors that might
affect target systems e.g. climate change, pressures
on farmland birds affecting presence on farms,
effects of pollution loading on waterways
5. Often limited public access to monitoring data
6. Little transparency about if and how monitoring
data are used in evaluation; nor is there clear
evidence as to how it ultimately influences decision-
making at any level from management to policy
Opportunities for improvement!
Implications and recommendations
Understand socio-
ecological systems
Allow
flexibility
Improve transparency
Enable
participation
Priorities for updating
policy-driven
monitoring
Implications and recommendations
Understand socio-
ecological systems
Allow
flexibility
Improve
transparency
Enable
participation
Changing M&E does not always require
additional resources, but does entail a fresh
perspective
A key principle is to promote a
balanced and accessible M&E
Should reflect current ideas about
nature and its relationship with
society – i.e. need to understand all parts of a
‘socio-ecological system’
Allow flexibility to fill gaps, monitor new actions
and balance effort on different topics
Enable more participation – in data collection
but also when using data in decision-making
Implications and recommendations
Ideas for next steps
Specific implications will vary by place and policy areas – need
to discuss locally
Different regions and countries offer
examples of good practice:
cross-national sharing will be valuable
Addressing these challenges will
result in improved and responsive decision-making,
that visibly uses monitoring data to update
ecosystem management.
This will ultimately help us improve environment
management, so is an important goal!
Understand socio-
ecological systems
Allow
flexibility
Improve
transparency
Enable
participation
More information
4-page briefing focused on recommendations
Manuscript in submission
Technical report
See www.hutton.ac.uk/meem
Contact Kerry Waylen (Kerry.Waylen@Hutton.ac.uk)
Acknowledgements
This presentation has been authored by Kerry Waylen; Kirsty Blackstock; Freddy van Hulst;
Carmen Damian; Ferenc Horváth; Richard Johnson; Robert Kanka; Mart Külvik; Christopher
Macleod; Kristian Meissner; Mihaela Oprina-Pavelescu; Joan Pino; Eeva Primmer; Geta Rîșnoveanu;
Barbora Šatalová; Jari Silander; Jana Špulerová; Monika Suškevičs & Jan Van Uytvanck.
We thank the ALTER-Net High Impact Action 2017-18 (AHIA) for its financial support for the study
that has led to this paper. The research time for KAW, KLB, KM and FH was funded by the Scottish
Government Strategic Research Programme 2016-21. Research time for JP was funded by CREAF
(Centre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions Forestals) and the Autonomous University of Barcelona.
Each author team would also like to thank colleagues who provided input or expert feedback: in
Catalonia, Carles Castells (Barcelona Province Council) and Pau Sainz de la Maza (Autonomous
Government of Catalonia); in Estonia, Irja Truumaa (Estonian Ministry of Environment); in Flanders,
Desiré Paelinckx, An Leyssen, Jo Packet (Research Institute for Nature and Forest - INBO); in
Scotland, Alison Hester, Antonia Eastwood, Marc Stutter, Rob Brooker, Robin Pakeman; and Sophie
Tindale (James Hutton Institute); in Slovakia, Miriam Vlachovičová (the Slovak Academy of
Sciences); in Sweden, Pavel Bina (Swedish Species Information Centre, SLU) and Katarina Kyllmar
(Department of Soil and Environment, SLU). We also appreciate the useful insights of Ketil Skogen
and Helene Figari (Norwegian Institute for Nature Research) who shaped the
framing of the research and the development of our ideas.