Does our current environmental monitoring support adaptive management?

Abstract

European environmental and rural development policies require programmes of statutory monitoring using prescribed parameters - for example water quality parameters are monitored by all countries that implement the Water Framework Directive. These data are a significant resource that could potentially be used for adaptive (co-)management and governance. These approaches not only require the use of multiple forms of information to learn and update resource management, but can also imply a more holistic and participatory approach.

We have studied the monitoring regimes entailed for Water Framework Directive, Natura 2000 Directives and Agri-Environmental Schemes of the CAP Rural Development Programme across nine European cases in 6 member states and 3 regions. Building on established principles for monitoring socio-ecological systems (see Waylen et al. 2016), expert colleagues from across Europe have analysed published documents to see if the current monitoring schemes supported a move to the new paradigm of holistic, participatory and systemic management approaches.

Overall, data are focused on a narrow set of indicators that in turn enable only a partial perspective on ecosystem management. This matters because policy-driven monitoring may be the main source of information that can be used for formal statutory management. For example, social aspects or drivers of the socio-ecological system are nearly never monitored and incorporated into evaluation, particularly for older policies. The monitoring continues to describe the state of the environment -with great for some aspects - rather than assessing how an intervention has contributed to conservation or allowed sustainable use. This means we will struggle to understand socio-ecological systems, and learning from the effects of management actions. Furthermore, whilst the implementation of WFD, N2K and AES has evolved, there is no documented link to the use of the data in this process of change i.e. it is unknown if and how the monitoring programmes have influenced changed management. There were also positive findings - some member states offer open access to data; are working on integrated monitoring and reporting; and use citizen science to both monitor trends and engage people in learning about their environment.

Reappraising what is monitored could lead to a rebalancing of monitoring that could greatly assist future adaptive management. Many European policy-driven monitoring processes could be tweaked to make them more fit to improve ecosystem management. Our framing positions the work differently to the more conventional 'fitness' checks conducted recently: we can reflect on how our work contributes to these institutional evaluations in the discussion.

References:

Waylen, K.A. & Blackstock, K.L. In press. Monitoring for adaptive management or modernity? Lessons from recent initiatives for holistic environmental management Environmental Policy and Governance, DOI: 10.1002/eet.1758