1. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 1 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Ecoinformatics Indicators workgroup - Overview & conclusions Research Triangle Park North Carolina 8-10 April, 2008 David Stanners

2. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 2 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Organising our reflections Information exchange/reflections on the meeting Observation (annex) Actions/recommendations Format/use of this meeting/group (annex)

3. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 3 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Information exchange Excellent presentations SOER & Indicators: Environment Canada- SOER experiences & planning EPA /SOER/Indicators gateway UNEP global assessments State & country experiences Environment & Health CDC, EPA, EEA Composite indicators & uncertainty JRC, EEA, EPA General reflections on the meeting/group Recognise importance of mix of issues - indicators, data, uncertainty, values Importance of dynamic between local/national/global levels & experiences Strengthen link to technical workgroup (use of GMES/GEOSS?) Actions/recommendations – trying to identify/distinguish between.... Short-term activities (tests/pilots?) Long-term visions, objectives, processes...

4. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 4 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Actions – indicators/SOERs/assessments 1.Define the nature of the beast Describe the characteristcs of indicator/SOER activities Identify different elements, processes, objectives, analyses... Codify This will help talk about, analyse, compare and improve our response to this enterprise,without confusing too much dissimilar elements 2.Analyse our different approaches Document them (ongoing process – regular conference/journal?) Compare and contrast towards good practice This will help learning, response design & improvement of our indicator asessment, SOER activities 3.Then derive knowledge/insights to design/improve our reporting processes/systems to improve policy design (integrating feedback evaluation/policy as an experiment 4.Training / professionalism Workshops, network, conference, journal.... Web 2.0 5.Public access

5. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 5 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Additional core ideas/actions Write a common paper on issue/problems faced as a needs defn of setting up a SOER network/conference/training... Document case studies in the use of indicators E&H indicators overview analysis towards a common language /framework Support the EU biomonitoring proposal to show added value: Make EU-US comparison/experiment to look at relative effectiveness of the different approaches does data make a difference? show how can reconstitute env exposure from biomarkers Composites – case studies of composites in use is this a response to quality vs fuzzy sets? GEOSS model linking data to decision support – include indicators in model run example (computational support) EU-US contracsting approaches data policy Exchange notes on SOERs when they come out Uncertainty workshop in thematic areas - practical approach

6. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 6 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Annex – summary notes Summary notes form June 2007 meeting Current challenges (EEA) Indicators/SOER observation E&H observations and actions Composites & uncertainty observations and actions

7. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 7 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Reporting on topics & follow up (June 2007) SD indicators – attempt to bring together actors in SD area or get an overview. Streamlining the data experiences and link to stat offices….(toil issue) Uncertainty – how to manage and integrate – process under IA – take our points back to this group Uncertainty – how to communicate – not dealt with….future topic…. Pre-publication notes on SOER/indicator reports to help link / brief each other about the reports (USEPA SOER, Belgrade, GEO-4, Heinz report (early 2008), OECD Outlook, CEC N American SOER (early 2008)…) Composites (they wont go away) initiate process to generate the support for develop of a SD composite? No! Track and identify instead criteria or principles for judging acceptability/quality…methods and a good process for developing. policy use – understand better why they are liked how they are used so we can perhaps design something better? How are policy makers using this info…. Urban sprawl and land accounting – process under Implementing Arrangement. Towards indicators – how? (SCP…) What is Q for an indicator/assment/model - Methods of analysing indicators their robustness, sensitivity – and principles for judging usefulness (high uncertainty doesnt mean low Q) Training - related to many points above. Pool experiences or joint training (uncertainty) Id other areas (cfw land accounting) that would benefit from in depth exchanges: air Q, bathing water, land, wetlands. New business model implications on indicators….. (basics vs services) Towards a joint paper on common challenges we face? Id ideas that link with the technical group.

8. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 8 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Summary points of last meeting Indicator quality Uncertainty SD indicators & composites SOERs & indicators Urban sprawl and land accounting (other themes?) Towards a joint paper on common challenges we face? Training – combine efforts? Improve links to Implementing Arrangement and technical projects workgroup

9. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 9 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Current challenges (EEA view) To fully establish a regular, efficient & effective indicator-based assessment process to: Track progress with existing commitments Be a signal to identify new issues To improve knowledge of European-global-European interactions To improve learning & uptake of knowledge on HOW to tackle problems (good practice) To professionalise the whole indicator, SOER, assessment (craft) practice

10. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 10 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Indicators/SOERs/assessments – some observations (1) We have an intuitive attraction to these discussion But we are talking about these issues without having a common understanding & language...and we also experience these processes under different socio-political contexts & terms of reference (policy and decision making and behaviour influence, adaptation...) This leads to a fog in our discussions, confusions and false comparisons

11. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 11 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Indicators/SOER observations (2) Indicators secondary benefits are high – so if missing (as for responses) then potentially missing benefits Indicators gateway (=SERIS) allows access to state/country-level assessments as input data into other/higher-level assessments.... Policy as experiment – integrate monitoring needs into the policy encouraging small incremental adjustments/improvements Effectiveness – look at use (of the data) not impacts Focus on policy relevance.....

12. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 12 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Indicators/SOER observations (3) Repatriate data & indicators/assessments (web2.0, just-in- time information, shifting the burden, pushing up over the barrier....) Data-indicators-policy cycles (indicators the link) Link better to GEO/GEOSS/GMES (as well as to technical group) GEOSS model linking data to decision support – include indicators &computational support run example! Needs of indicators, upscaling of P=VI into regional/country level framework (not define this top-down) or explore the mismatch (of values at the different layers).

13. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 13 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Indicators/SOER observations (4) Indicators and..... Values Policy Science limits Policy cycle relevance Jans recomendations Smallsets of indicators Apply summary indicators in... Include economics Louise – understanding the frame of reference: Knowledge base Policy base Knowledge for action Weight of evidence? Understand where you are in the typology of knowledge and of problems

14. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 14 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 E&H observations & actions Helping states to make their data available (E&H) Key differences (EU-US): US focusing on open distributed access (public health tracking) EU focusing on taking action on basis of existing info (but no biomonitoring) data policy difference Support the EU biomontoring proposal to show added value: Show how can reconstitute env exposure from biomarkers Make EU-US comparison/experiment to look at relative effectiveness of the different approaches (does data makea difference?!) Overview the many E&H indicators to streamline

15. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 15 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Composites & uncertainty – obs & actions Are composites better than large sets of individual indicators & headlines (policy) learning opportunity Aversion in env to composites wrt other areas Are composites the answer to the fuzzy indicator sets need challenge? Make the case for composites – gather examples Communication – clusters and spatial analysis......?

16. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 16 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008 Reflections on the format of the meeting Setting the frame – agenda, past and future topics Establishing some common undersandings (values, policy cycle, language, type of indicators...) Role of states/countries at the meetings (ground truthing – examples – reality check)