- Email: [email protected]
The need for monitoring the monitors and their monitoring
Pergamon
PII:S0025-326X(96)00009-4
The Need for Monitoring the Monitors and Their Monitoring Several recent developments dictate the need to discuss the role of monitoring and the way data and information are obtained by marine scientists for use by the public, managers and politicians; for example, the disposal of the Brent Spar oil storage buoy, the development of monitoring and management programmes, the preparation of quality status reports for sea areas, and, in the UK, the rationalization of pollution assessment and control bodies. There are two major areas of concern: firstly, the collection of data and their use, and often misuse or omission, in reaching management decisions; and secondly, the preparation of reports and reaching of management decisions without having sufficient data. It is increasingly obvious that in many cases obtaining data appears to be regarded as the end rather than the means to an end. These concerns are against a background of reductions in monitoring programmes, through budget cuts, and the need for more focused monitoring programmes and for target monitoring (of trends against standards). Despite these, we should not forget that in addition to monitoring, we still often need an overall view of the system (surveillance). Here we make the distinction of monitoring being an assessment against some preconceived (a priori) standard whereas surveillance does not need such a background.
Who Wants the Data and Are There Too Many? It is widely agreed that in order to manage a system or problem we first have to catalogue its features. There is an increase in proposals for initiatives for creating estuary or coastal management plans and many countries are currently creating marine data inventories as a precursor to management. The UK, The Netherlands, USA, Australia, Norway and the South American countries, for example, are planning or carrying out comprehensive data acquisition exercises and/or creating regional and national marine databases. The databases produced should rightly be a precursor to drawing up management proposals but in many cases rather than being a means to an end they appear to be becoming an end in themselves. Several countries are at present considering the role, value and methods of monitoring. For example, the UK and The Netherlands have set up national groups to define methods, determine quality control mechanisms and derive quality standards. These are in monitoring sewage and dredged-material disposal and water bod~¢ quality assessments and to fulfil the countries' role in North Sea and Wadden Sea programmes. These initiatives are an attempt to improve the quantity, 248
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 248-249, 1996 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0025-326X/96 $15.00 + 0.00
quality and focus of the monitoring and to be fair both to those wishing to police and protect the environment and to the users of the marine environment. In particular, the aim is to monitor the use of the system as well as its quality, to keep monitoring cost-effective, to collect only those data needed and to ensure the data are sufficient for management purposes.
What Monitoring is Required It is increasingly obvious that budget cuts and other financial stringencies require focused and well-defined monitoring in terms of frequency, locations and determinants but as always there is a conflict between the manager's and scientists' demands of monitoring. Managers will wish to reduce monitoring costs to a minimum whereas scientists will have a tendency to increase them. The latter will be guilty of over-stating their case in order to obtain the most favourable funding (and they may also be guilty of 'hobbymonitoring'). However, scientists will also be realistic in emphasizing that we do not understand the system sufficiently to cut monitoring programmes. There is the danger that if determinants are excluded but found later to be important then background information is not obtained, i.e. we question whether we have a solid basis to rationalize monitoring. There is also the additional problem that there may be a required length of time before a monitoring programme becomes useful unless there is a major perturbation. All of this dictates that managers and the monitors have to accept (or at least listen to) each other's point of view. We have to be rigorous in monitoring and question whether we have to monitor everything. There is the great need to set goals for monitoring and we have to ensure that we do not only measure things that we can measure rather than those things which need to be measured. For example, see the many Environmental Impact Assessments which collect all manner of data, and are thus more similar to Environmental Statements ('helicopter surveys'), rather than focusing on specific questions. Furthermore, we have to ensure that monitoring intensity is related to changes expected-inter-annual fluctuations require short-interval monitoring but how much monitoring merely further quantifies natural variability? We must question whether we have the confidence to reduce the volume of monitoring but to make it better focused without a loss of important information. As an example, given our knowledge and the relationship with biological effects, several are questioning whether we can reduce contaminant monitoring.
Data Overload vs Information Paucity? It is important not only to collect the right type of data but that we translate the data into information. Many filing cabinets and hard-disks are filled with marine data but those data are often not used
Volume 32/Number 3/Month 1996 adequately (or at all). They may even be irrelevant data--see the number of times we think an area is wellstudied until we ask precise questions of the available data and find them not suitable. We need to reach a compromise--to make monitoring sufficiently detailed to give baselines and to allow long-term trends to be detected, but also to ensure cost-effectiveness and avoid charges of 'mindless monitoring'. We often claim that although we have many data we need just a few more to understand the system and then we can further develop and use our models for management purposes. This is in contrast to the commonly-used reliance on intuition and calculations involving 'backs of large envelopes'. However, we should also be honest enough to admit that most of our environmental models are unlikely to be sufficiently accurate for management of complex environmental interactions between factors and the prediction of subtle effects. We contend here, for example, that many of the marine management mechanisms developed years ago (e.g. quality objectives, emission standards, environmental quality standards, classification schemes, etc.) and using best available but often very imperfect knowledge, are as good as the variability in the system will permit. We (especially scientists) have to be prepared to make decisions based on our present knowledge rather than merely wishing (complaining, demanding, requiring funding) for more data. We have to be assertive that, because of our highly variable marine environment, it is unlikely that we will ever have sufficient data to make the management decisions to the level of detail and accuracy required for absolute prediction. Of course we can be more rigorous in the collection and use of the data, for example the potential use of power analyses to reach statistically-based decisions with a predictable level of confidence, but we have to be sure that we are not using data as a security blanket and the lack of them as a means of putting off having to make the inevitable decisions. We as scientists will always need more data to understand the system fully but we will never have complete information. We must keep telling the public,
managers and politicians that they get what they pay for, that decisions can only be based on the available information but also that the marine system is so complicated and variable that there will always be limits to our ability to predict changes. We have to emphasize that there are great uncertainties and that our answers may be the best that can be expected given all constraints including those of funding. Our recommendations for management should always be on the side of caution but this should not stop us making the best possible decisions. As importantly, scientists cannot merely provide data (and/or information) and stand aloof from the debate, otherwise the argument will be misrepresented. We have to join the debate and especially ensure that the qualifying remarks in our predictions and assessments are not removed prior to debate by the public, managers and politicians. A good case of all of the above points is debate during 1995 regarding the fate and sea disposal of the Shell Brent Spar oil-storage buoy. In summary, we do need more information to answer well-directed questions but we must monitor with clear goals in mind whether they are qualitative objectives or quantitative standards. We do need more resources for environmental science but we should not be afraid of giving answers which are less than precise but which reflect the state of knowledge (now and in the foreseeable future). As long as the data are used and not merely stored, as long as the information is used properly for management, and as long as we understand the limitations of the science and are willing to emphasize this to the public, managers and politicians, then science will have a role. The alternative is that the science and scientists will be ignored. We should always remember that if scientists do not help to provide the answers then managers and politicians will provide them anyway. M I C H A E L E LLIO TT* & VICTOR N. DE JONGE** *Dept. of Applied Biology and the Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, The University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RE, UK. **National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management, P.O. Box 207, 9750 AE Haren, The Netherlands.
249
PII:S0025-326X(96)00009-4
The Need for Monitoring the Monitors and Their Monitoring Several recent developments dictate the need to discuss the role of monitoring and the way data and information are obtained by marine scientists for use by the public, managers and politicians; for example, the disposal of the Brent Spar oil storage buoy, the development of monitoring and management programmes, the preparation of quality status reports for sea areas, and, in the UK, the rationalization of pollution assessment and control bodies. There are two major areas of concern: firstly, the collection of data and their use, and often misuse or omission, in reaching management decisions; and secondly, the preparation of reports and reaching of management decisions without having sufficient data. It is increasingly obvious that in many cases obtaining data appears to be regarded as the end rather than the means to an end. These concerns are against a background of reductions in monitoring programmes, through budget cuts, and the need for more focused monitoring programmes and for target monitoring (of trends against standards). Despite these, we should not forget that in addition to monitoring, we still often need an overall view of the system (surveillance). Here we make the distinction of monitoring being an assessment against some preconceived (a priori) standard whereas surveillance does not need such a background.
Who Wants the Data and Are There Too Many? It is widely agreed that in order to manage a system or problem we first have to catalogue its features. There is an increase in proposals for initiatives for creating estuary or coastal management plans and many countries are currently creating marine data inventories as a precursor to management. The UK, The Netherlands, USA, Australia, Norway and the South American countries, for example, are planning or carrying out comprehensive data acquisition exercises and/or creating regional and national marine databases. The databases produced should rightly be a precursor to drawing up management proposals but in many cases rather than being a means to an end they appear to be becoming an end in themselves. Several countries are at present considering the role, value and methods of monitoring. For example, the UK and The Netherlands have set up national groups to define methods, determine quality control mechanisms and derive quality standards. These are in monitoring sewage and dredged-material disposal and water bod~¢ quality assessments and to fulfil the countries' role in North Sea and Wadden Sea programmes. These initiatives are an attempt to improve the quantity, 248
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 248-249, 1996 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0025-326X/96 $15.00 + 0.00
quality and focus of the monitoring and to be fair both to those wishing to police and protect the environment and to the users of the marine environment. In particular, the aim is to monitor the use of the system as well as its quality, to keep monitoring cost-effective, to collect only those data needed and to ensure the data are sufficient for management purposes.
What Monitoring is Required It is increasingly obvious that budget cuts and other financial stringencies require focused and well-defined monitoring in terms of frequency, locations and determinants but as always there is a conflict between the manager's and scientists' demands of monitoring. Managers will wish to reduce monitoring costs to a minimum whereas scientists will have a tendency to increase them. The latter will be guilty of over-stating their case in order to obtain the most favourable funding (and they may also be guilty of 'hobbymonitoring'). However, scientists will also be realistic in emphasizing that we do not understand the system sufficiently to cut monitoring programmes. There is the danger that if determinants are excluded but found later to be important then background information is not obtained, i.e. we question whether we have a solid basis to rationalize monitoring. There is also the additional problem that there may be a required length of time before a monitoring programme becomes useful unless there is a major perturbation. All of this dictates that managers and the monitors have to accept (or at least listen to) each other's point of view. We have to be rigorous in monitoring and question whether we have to monitor everything. There is the great need to set goals for monitoring and we have to ensure that we do not only measure things that we can measure rather than those things which need to be measured. For example, see the many Environmental Impact Assessments which collect all manner of data, and are thus more similar to Environmental Statements ('helicopter surveys'), rather than focusing on specific questions. Furthermore, we have to ensure that monitoring intensity is related to changes expected-inter-annual fluctuations require short-interval monitoring but how much monitoring merely further quantifies natural variability? We must question whether we have the confidence to reduce the volume of monitoring but to make it better focused without a loss of important information. As an example, given our knowledge and the relationship with biological effects, several are questioning whether we can reduce contaminant monitoring.
Data Overload vs Information Paucity? It is important not only to collect the right type of data but that we translate the data into information. Many filing cabinets and hard-disks are filled with marine data but those data are often not used
Volume 32/Number 3/Month 1996 adequately (or at all). They may even be irrelevant data--see the number of times we think an area is wellstudied until we ask precise questions of the available data and find them not suitable. We need to reach a compromise--to make monitoring sufficiently detailed to give baselines and to allow long-term trends to be detected, but also to ensure cost-effectiveness and avoid charges of 'mindless monitoring'. We often claim that although we have many data we need just a few more to understand the system and then we can further develop and use our models for management purposes. This is in contrast to the commonly-used reliance on intuition and calculations involving 'backs of large envelopes'. However, we should also be honest enough to admit that most of our environmental models are unlikely to be sufficiently accurate for management of complex environmental interactions between factors and the prediction of subtle effects. We contend here, for example, that many of the marine management mechanisms developed years ago (e.g. quality objectives, emission standards, environmental quality standards, classification schemes, etc.) and using best available but often very imperfect knowledge, are as good as the variability in the system will permit. We (especially scientists) have to be prepared to make decisions based on our present knowledge rather than merely wishing (complaining, demanding, requiring funding) for more data. We have to be assertive that, because of our highly variable marine environment, it is unlikely that we will ever have sufficient data to make the management decisions to the level of detail and accuracy required for absolute prediction. Of course we can be more rigorous in the collection and use of the data, for example the potential use of power analyses to reach statistically-based decisions with a predictable level of confidence, but we have to be sure that we are not using data as a security blanket and the lack of them as a means of putting off having to make the inevitable decisions. We as scientists will always need more data to understand the system fully but we will never have complete information. We must keep telling the public,
managers and politicians that they get what they pay for, that decisions can only be based on the available information but also that the marine system is so complicated and variable that there will always be limits to our ability to predict changes. We have to emphasize that there are great uncertainties and that our answers may be the best that can be expected given all constraints including those of funding. Our recommendations for management should always be on the side of caution but this should not stop us making the best possible decisions. As importantly, scientists cannot merely provide data (and/or information) and stand aloof from the debate, otherwise the argument will be misrepresented. We have to join the debate and especially ensure that the qualifying remarks in our predictions and assessments are not removed prior to debate by the public, managers and politicians. A good case of all of the above points is debate during 1995 regarding the fate and sea disposal of the Shell Brent Spar oil-storage buoy. In summary, we do need more information to answer well-directed questions but we must monitor with clear goals in mind whether they are qualitative objectives or quantitative standards. We do need more resources for environmental science but we should not be afraid of giving answers which are less than precise but which reflect the state of knowledge (now and in the foreseeable future). As long as the data are used and not merely stored, as long as the information is used properly for management, and as long as we understand the limitations of the science and are willing to emphasize this to the public, managers and politicians, then science will have a role. The alternative is that the science and scientists will be ignored. We should always remember that if scientists do not help to provide the answers then managers and politicians will provide them anyway. M I C H A E L E LLIO TT* & VICTOR N. DE JONGE** *Dept. of Applied Biology and the Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, The University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RE, UK. **National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management, P.O. Box 207, 9750 AE Haren, The Netherlands.
249