ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil Advance Access originally published online on September 25, 2008
ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 2008 65(8):1398-1401; doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsn157
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appears in the following ICES Journal of Marine Science issue: Marine Environmental Indicators: Utility in Meeting Regulatory Needs [View the issue table of contents]
Indicators and scientific knowledge in regional Baltic Sea environmental policy
HELCOM Secretariat, Katajanokanlaituri 6 B, FI-00160 Helsinki, Finland
tel/fax: +35 8207412620; e-mail: hermanni.backer{at}helcom.fi
Backer, H. 2008. Indicators and scientific knowledge in regional Baltic Sea environmental policy. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1398–1401.Since the 1990s, indicators have emerged as key tools used by the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) for drafting regional Baltic Sea management actions and monitoring their implementation. The central role played by indicators in recent years can readily be seen in the 2007 Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), where they have been used for defining quantitative targets and management actions and for providing background information. Similarly, the currently available, annually updated, web-based indicators include performance indicators with quantitative reference and target values, and descriptive indicators without such values. In addition to good indicators, implementation of the ecosystem approach, as is the aim of the BSAP as well as the newly adopted European Marine Strategy Framework Directive, requires extensive implementation of the precautionary principle and related concepts.
Keywords: Baltic Sea Action Plan, ecological objectives, ecosystem approach, environmental indicators, EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, HELCOM, policy–science interactions
Received 21 December 2007; accepted 21 May 2008; advance access publication 25 September 2008.
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 Top Introduction HELCOM indicatorsIndicators, normative elements,...Indicators and the BSAPScience, policy, and the...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
Even if one can sometimes agree with the saying that legal and political documents are "like sausages; it is better not to see them being made", environmental issues introduce an element of objectivity to international policy and law (Sands, 2003; Kiss and Shelton, 2004). As natural sciences have provided the most successful methods for explaining ecosystem processes and the effects of human pressures on them, scientists have rightfully gained an important advisory role in formulating international environmental policy aimed at ecological sustainability.
In recent years, science-based environmental indicators, whichdescribe in simplified terms complex natural and human systems and their interactions, have become a central element of management input (Rice, 2004; Rice et al., 2005; Turnhout et al., 2007). Many recent pieces of environmental legislation, such as the recently adopted European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EC, 2007), depend extensively on indicators. Also, within the work of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), the executive body of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area [Helsinki Convention, adopted in 1974 and revised in 1992 (HELCOM, 1992)], indicators have recently gained a central position.
I describe how HELCOM uses environmental indicators as tools for drafting effect-based, regional management actions and for monitoring their implementation. The recently adopted Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP; HELCOM, 2007a) serves as a specific example of a regional environmental policy process that relies heavily on scientific knowledge in the form of indicators.
|
HELCOM indicators |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionHELCOM indicatorsIndicators, normative elements,...Indicators and the BSAPScience, policy, and the...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
From its very beginning, the work of HELCOM, like that of many other regional environmental conventions, has been strongly influenced by input from the scientific community. Since the late 1990s, the indicator approach has emerged gradually as the state-of-the-art for presenting scientific information on the Baltic marine environment (HELCOM, 2000). Subsequently, the importance of indicators has been further highlighted by the ecosystem approach (Rice et al., 2005), which has been adopted jointly by HELCOM and OSPAR through the 2003 Bremen Ministerial Declaration (HELCOM/OSPAR, 2003). This approach is now being implemented with the BSAP, which also serves as a de facto regional pilot of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Backer et al., in press). An ecosystem approach requires the development of indicators to quantify the Baltic ecosystem state and acceptable human pressures, such as pollution loads, to develop and monitor effect-based (Turnhout, 2007) management actions to reach a "good environmental status" (HELCOM, 2007a, b).
Annually updated indicators have been published on the Internet since 2002 at http://www.helcom.fi. These topical reports provide the information required for comprehensive, thematic assessments (e.g. eutrophication), but also function as mini-assessments in themselves. In 2007, 35 officially adopted indicators (Table 1) were available on the website, although additional indicators have been produced for other uses.
|
The available indicators can be divided roughly into two groups, based on their use as policy tools. The first group could be termed "performance indicators" and is related directly to effect-based policies (Turnhout, 2007). These indicators have been given quantitative reference values and, in some cases, target values (including an acceptable deviation; HELCOM, 2007b). Given a sufficient number of performance indicators from a site or geographical area on a topic, they can be assessed together using a spreadsheet tool to provide an, often thematically defined, "overall status" (HELCOM, 2007b). The second group consists of "descriptive indicators" that update the information on important processes and the state of the Baltic Sea ecosystem, but there is no plan to set quantitative targets for them.
In setting target levels for performance indicators, three overall strategies have been followed. Commonly, information on pristine, or even sustainable, conditions is fragmentary and unreliable. Therefore, a significant trend has often been taken as a target rather than an absolute level (e.g. for concentrations of hazardous substances and abundance of endangered species). If more information is available, the target has been set at a justifiable percentage deviation from a reference level that is considered pristine (e.g. for many eutrophication parameters). Finally, for well-studied groups such as fish stocks and seals, the target can be set using such methods as population models.
All available indicators are being produced by research institutions in the region. Their development involves a bottom–up approach: individual scientists are encouraged to submit new proposals according to agreed guidelines, and if necessary, develop their ideas further with the HELCOM Secretariat. To ensure continuity in the updates, the goal is to make the research institutions, not the individual scientists, responsible for providing the data.
|
Indicators, normative elements, and value-neutral science |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionHELCOM indicatorsIndicators, normative elements,...Indicators and the BSAPScience, policy, and the...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
Performance indicators, such as the ecosystem approach itself, imply normative definitions of desirable status. Depending on how science is viewed philosophically, such an approach has even been criticized as inherently unscientific (e.g. Lackey, 2007). This general criticism, together with the great uncertainties in many of the environmental data, makes many scientists reluctant to produce target levels for indicators. However, many of the normative elements and concepts underlying indicators (desirable features, overall principles) have been defined in policy processes that are evolving separately. This, along with the correct use of references to legal texts, reduces the value judgements that scientists must make. Moreover, if scientific advice is backed up by a clear statement of the uncertainties involved, these uncertainties do not necessarily undermine the credibility of the advisor (Hauge et al., 2005).
Within HELCOM, the important and necessary link between the subjective socio-economic choices and the objective output of indicators has been created by explicitly defining good status through a set of qualitative ecological objectives (HELCOM, 2007a; Backer and Leppänen, 2008). These ecological objectives define the topics for which indicators and policy actions have to be developed. In addition, important policy decisions have been taken on general principles, such as an overall commitment to further action, adherence to the precautionary principle, and acceptance of a deviation from the pristine state as a target, if the socio-economic impact of reaching the pristine status would be unacceptable.
|
Indicators and the BSAP |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionHELCOM indicatorsIndicators, normative elements,...Indicators and the BSAPScience, policy, and the...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
The important role of the described array of indicators is nicely illustrated by the BSAP. In the plan, indicators have been used qualitatively for identifying important issues (descriptive indicators), as well as quantitatively for defining required management actions (performance indicators). A number of indicators and targets for ecosystem state and pressures (as defined by the scientific community; HELCOM, 2007b) are listed for each of the four main issues: eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodiversity, and maritime traffic.
Policy problems are manifold but may be classified into four groups: well structured, moderately structured, badly structured, and unstructured (Turnhout et al., 2007). Attempts to implement a comprehensive ecosystem approach, such as are being aimed at in the BSAP, will inherently solve policy and science problems that are typical of several, if not all, of these groups.
Figure 1 illustrates how indicators have been used in the case of eutrophication, a well-structured problem. The broad objective of "clear water", adopted by a participatory science/policy process, has been translated into a quantitative indicator derived from summertime Secchi disc depth. This indicator is given a reference value representing near-pristine status and a target value that accepts some deviation from the reference. Thus, the plan includes a table with the agreed reference for Secchi disc depth, the currently observed values, and the target levels for the various Baltic Sea sub-basins (HELCOM, 2007a, b). The reference depths are based on early 20th century observations, whereas the target depths allow for a 25% deviation from the reference. The link between the agreed targets and actual human pressures is provided by an ecosystem model (Savchuk and Wulff, 2007; Wulff et al., 2007), which has been used to define the quantitative ceilings for total nutrient input, as well as the national reduction requirements matching these targets. National authorities take action (improved sewage treatment, manure handling, etc.), taking into account cost-efficiency. Inputs as well as Secchi disc depth are monitored, and the total allowable inputs will be revised, if judged necessary, to reach the ecological objective of clear water.
|
The indicator-based approach to the setting of targets and monitoring is broadly applied to other issues as well. A selection of indicators of hazardous substances has been given target values; however, issues related to biodiversity and nature protection, as well as to maritime traffic, are also linked to the same framework, and initial indicators and targets for these have been defined.
|
Science, policy, and the society |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionHELCOM indicatorsIndicators, normative elements,...Indicators and the BSAPScience, policy, and the...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
Translating science into indicators and figures that can be used in the political arena and ultimately in legal documents, as in the BSAP process, is far from straightforward and provides many statistical, epistemological, and institutional challenges that are beyond the scope of this review. Nevertheless, I wish to highlight three issues in the development of scientific indicators that greatly affect their usefulness in policy processes.
First, to be directly usable in a policy or law process, a performance indicator must be relatively clearly linked to one or more concrete human pressures. In many otherwise meritorious publications on indicators, this simple fact is often overlooked. Indicators reflecting complex indirect effects are important for following general trends but should be used mainly as descriptive indicators that carry supporting information. They are largely inappropriate for use as performance indicators for specific policy measures.
Second, indecisive science has recently been a common and efficient excuse for delaying negotiations on key environmental legislation (Houck, 2003). The experiences with implementing the precautionary principle (McIntyre and Mosedale, 1997; Sands, 2003), in combination with the concepts of Best Available Technology and Best Environmental Practices, should be applied in defining indicators, targets, and management actions as the foundation for further protection of the marine environment (Houck, 2003).
Third, the inherent differences between scientific and political processes must be acknowledged. Policy and law, the ultimate "users" of indicator information, are founded on the value judgements (opinions) of decision-makers, in contrast to natural science, which is characterized by a large element of objectivity (but see Feyerabend, 1975). Policy-makers do not consider their job in environmental protection in isolation, but have to balance environmental targets against other societal targets. It is likely that desirable environmental objectives will be in conflict with existing socio-economic objectives for human societies. In order to balance between economic and environmental interests, policymakers do need room to negotiate (Turnhout, 2007). A certain amount of vagueness in the early phase description of environmental goals and objectives—which is often criticized by scientists—may in fact benefit the overall process, particularly if backed up by a roadmap leading to more exact definitions. The ecological objectives adopted (HELCOM, 2007a; Backer and Leppänen, 2008) have had such a strategic function during the early phases of the BSAP drafting process. Negotiations might well have slowed or even stalled if the political process had begun by trying to reach agreement on sensitive issues, such as exact and detailed objectives!
|
Concluding remarks |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionHELCOM indicatorsIndicators, normative elements,...Indicators and the BSAPScience, policy, and the...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
Unfortunate as it is for the advocates of environmental protection, many of the socio-economic indicators and objectives used by society today are more directly coupled to our everyday lives than even the best scientific ecosystem indicators. This puts more political pressure on the implementation of socio-economic goals than on environmental goals. The ecosystem approach, as well as the ecological indicators and related concepts, represents efforts to address this imbalance by quantitatively defining, according to the best scientific information available, a good ecosystem status and to agree on management actions based on established ecosystem effects. Clearly, these tools can be used more comprehensively for identifying further needs for policy measures than through implementing source-orientated management approaches, for instance through the application of best environmental practices. At least in the Baltic, the development of indicators, and indicator-based policies like BSAP, has had the added value of bringing to light the convergences and the discrepancies between the value-based decisions and the underlying science, i.e. the political processes have been made more transparent.
Even if indicators (and the science on which they are based) are important for finding a rational solution to the environmental problems we face, they do not provide the solutions themselves. Many actions to address today’s environmental problems have to be taken, irrespective of ill-defined indicators or the scientific uncertainties involved.
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
The views presented here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official views of HELCOM. Writing was funded in part by European Community action 07.201/2006/444167/SUB/D2. I thank Juha-Markku Leppänen for many long discussions on indicators and David Johnson, Kjartan Hoydahl, Minna Pyhälä, and Hanna Paulomäki for comments on the draft.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionHELCOM indicatorsIndicators, normative elements,...Indicators and the BSAPScience, policy, and the...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
-
Backer H., Leppänen J-M., Brusendorff A. C., Forsius K., Stankiewicz M., Mehtonen J., Pyhälä M., et al. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan—a regional programme of measures for the marine environment based on the Ecosystem Approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin. in press.
Backer H., Leppänen M. HELCOM ecological objectives for an ecosystem approach: the process of defining good ecological status of the Baltic Sea. Aquatic Conservation: Freshwater and Marine Ecosystems (2008) 18:321–334. doi: 10.1002/aqc.851.[CrossRef]
EC. Framework for Community Action in the Field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). (2007) Strasbourg. adopted by the European Parliament, 11 December 2007.
Feyerabend P. K. Against Method. (1975) Reprinted by Verso, London, 1994.
Hauge K. H., Olsen E., Heldal H. E., Skjoldal H. R. A framework for making qualities of indicators transparent. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2005) 62:552–557.
HELCOM. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992. (1992).
HELCOM. (2000) Helsinki Commission. Minutes of the 21st Meeting Helsinki, Finland, 20–21 March 2000. http://www.helcom.fi.
HELCOM. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. (2007) a. Krakow, Poland. adopted by the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, 15 November 2007 http://www.helcom.fi.
HELCOM. Development of Tools for Assessment of Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. (2007) b 104. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings. 62.
HELCOM/OSPAR. Declaration of the first Joint Ministerial Meeting of the Helsinki and OSPAR Commissions. (2003) Bremen. 25–26 June 2003.
Houck O. Tales from a troubled marriage: science and law in environmental policy. Science (2003) 302:1926–1929.
Kiss A., Shelton D. International Environmental Law. (2004) 3rd edn. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers. 850.
Lackey R. T. Science, scientists and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology (2007) 21:12–17.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
McIntyre O., Mosedale T. The precautionary principle as a norm of customary international law. Journal of Environmental Law (1997) 9:221–241.
Rice J. Environmental health indicators. Ocean and Coastal Management (2004) 46:235–259.[CrossRef]
Rice J., Trujillo V., Jennings S., Hylland K., Hagström O., Astudillo A., Norrevang Jensen J. Guidance on the application of the Ecosystem Approach to Management of human activities in the European marine environment. (2005) 273. ICES Cooperative Research Report. 22.
Sands P. Principles of International Environmental Law. (2003) 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1250.
Savchuk O., Wulff F. Modeling the Baltic Sea eutrophication in a decision support system. Ambio (2007) 36:141–148.[Medline]
Turnhout E., Hisschemöller M., Eijsackers H. Ecological indicators: between the two fires of science and policy. Ecological Indicators (2007) 7:215–228.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Wulff F., Savchuk O., Sokolov A., Humborg C., Mörth M. Management options and effects on a marine ecosystem: assessing the future of the Baltic. Ambio (2007) 36:243–249.[Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Barry and H. L. Rees Use of simulated data as a tool for testing the performance of diversity indices in response to an organic enrichment event ICES J. Mar. Sci., November 1, 2008; 65(8): 1456 - 1461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||