1. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 1 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2006 Ecoinformatics Indicators workgroup 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 2006 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 doesn’t 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.

3. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 3 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2006 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

4. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 4 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2006 Summary reporting on topics (June 2007) What is Q for an indicator/assessment/model - methods of analysing indicators their robustness, sensitivity – and principles for judging usefulness (high uncertainty doesn’t mean low Q) Uncertainty: how to manage and integrate (under IA), how to communicate (future topic) SD indicators & composites: Overview & streamline experiences, link to stat offices, track and identify criteria or principles for judging acceptability/quality, and methods/process, understand better why they are liked & how they are used to improve design Pre-publication notes on SOER/indicator reports to help brief each other Urban sprawl and land accounting: process under Implementing Arrangement, towards indicators – how? Id other areas that would benefit from in depth exchanges: air quality, bathing water, land, wetlands? New business model (basics vs services) implications on indicators Towards a joint paper on common challenges we face? Training - related to many points above. Pool experiences or joint training

5. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 5 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2006 Current challenges 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

6. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 6 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2006 Indicators’ cycle of instability Signals – windows into a complex world A cycle of instability Growth – Inflation – Devaluation Instability – Lost trust – Promiscuity  Need improved understanding of science-policy dialogue (the use of knowledge in decision making)

7. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 7 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2006 Indicators create discipline In the tension between Policy-relevant & Science- based: Indicators force practical trade-offs to get information into decision making Indicators help move from self-service to self- discipline (in the use of environmental data)... and can thus help stabalise knowledge-based decision making

8. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 8 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2006 Indicators zip-up & lever Indicators can “zip-up” the whole interactive science-information-policy support process, and through this: contribute to policy learning, and help build-up effective policy-relevant information systems Indicators can increase the leverage and effectiveness of the whole environmental policy enterprise to protect and improve the environment

9. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 9 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2006 Indicators are important! Multiple roles. Indicators encourage discipline and learning by focusing attention on policy priorities and science issues; Building indicators can forge alliances since, if done well, indicators represent compromises between the different players involved; By focusing attention on important signals, indicators help improve understanding of data needs from among the vast array of requests for information; In turn, indicators support the identification of priority data collection, increasing the value and support given to information collection and production activities, promoting long-term consistency; If successfully built, indicators can act as a fulcrum between science and policy makers, helping to lever increasingly relevant information out of both to improve understanding of the problem and the response; Overall, indicators help to communicate and translate signals back and forth between expert and non-expert, scientist and policy maker, analyst and member of the public.

10. TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 10 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2006 Some ideas Set up a SOER network/conference/journal... Exchange notes on SOERs when they come out Document case studies in the use of indicators Quality ”vs” fuzzy sets – understand better