The Integrated Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Framework Project Working Together in Cumulative Effects Management October 2009
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Integrated Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting
Framework Project
Working Together in Cumulative Effects Management October 2009
Remember this at the end!
• What the project is all about? • Explain Context and Scope • What we have learned? • Where we are going? the
Model • Next steps?
Monitoring, Evaluation & Reporting
What is the Integrated, Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Framework Project all about? • The IMERF will provide a vision and path
forward that: • Defines principles, processes, activities,
controls and practices to support and enable a monitoring and reporting systems
• Ensures the system provides timely, targeted, relevant and reliable information to diverse decision makers and the public
• Scope includes: • Air, Land, Water & Biodiversity • All parties conducting environmental
monitoring in Alberta
Context - GOA
• Alberta’s Land-use Framework (Announced Dec 2008) • Regional Advisory Committees & Regional Plans • Seven regions, based largely on watersheds
• Need to address economic, social and environmental interests
• Regional Plans by 2010 • Lower Athabasca Regional Plan • South Saskatchewan Regional Plan
• Legislation for Land Use Framework • Alberta Land Stewardship Act
Context - Alberta Environment
• Reviewing the ‘Way We Do Business’ • Regulatory & Approval Process • Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting System
(IMERF) a sub-system of a Knowledge/Performance Management System
• Water Allocation System • Designing, Building and Transitioning into Cumulative
Effects Management • Outcomes based • Place based • Collaborative • Adaptive - Performance management based • Comprehensive tools
• Legislation to Support Transformation • Environmental Cumulative Effects Management Act
IMERF – activities to date
• To complete the ‘Information In’ phase, the IMERF Core Team organized around the following key activities: • Internal Workshops & targeted meetings – 9 workshops
including 225 people • Jurisdictional Review – 15 different, 3 detailed • Governance & Service Delivery Model Research • Collection of Existing Knowledge • Matrix Sub-Teams – 12 technical teams
Information In Phase Learning's
• A comprehensive system view of Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (MER) is required.
• Long term sustainable funding and resourcing is required.
• Enhancement of partnerships and collaboration will be essential.
• MER system must be scalable to both provincial and regional knowledge needs to support environmental decision-making at all spatial scales.
Information In Phase Learning's
• MER system must prioritize activities based on risk assessment while at the same time ensuring a certain level of continuous baseline monitoring.
• Need to identify the appropriate level and type of system integration between condition (ambient) and pressure (factors that influence condition) monitoring in the MER system.
• MER planning should be long-term, cross-media, inclusive of partners/ Ministries, and consider impacts on all MER components within the system.
Information In Phase Learning's • Data must be relevant and linked to purpose
(i.e. support decision-making and be linked to outcomes or other clear drivers.)
• Enhanced policies and standards are required for data acquisition, automation, classification, and storage.
• Data and information accessibility and the ability to efficiently query and extract is essential.
• Increased evaluation capacity is required to support decision-making, including better modeling tools to enable forecasting.
Information In Phase Learning's
• There is a need for enhanced reporting that is accessible and user-friendly for the public and decision-makers.
• An assurance program is required for monitoring data and the MER system as a whole to maintain data collection and reporting quality, and to outline clear consequences for non-compliance.
So what?
MER Planning • Integrated • Strategic • Operational
Assurance (certification/accreditation, audit, policies, standards, consequences)
Reporting
Monitoring • Build/establish
• Data collection/acquisition • Data integrity
• Data storage/archive • Data Access
Governance (others involved in monitoring, funding, enablers, roles, accountabilities)
Monitoring, Evaluation & Reporting for the Environmental Pillar
Evaluation
Outcomes/Indicators: • Condition
• Thresholds • Targets • Objectives • Limits
• Pressure • Response
Adaptive Management/ Management Actions Including policy development and Delivery Tools
Proposed model
Planning • Creates detailed course of action for all MER
system components • Achieves optimum balance of needs or demands
with available resources through risk assessment & prioritization
• Primary mechanism for the integration between spatial, temporal and media-specific processes
• Needs to occur at all levels • Integrated Planning
– Regional planning integration and interoperability • Strategic Planning
– What knowledge is required? • Operational Planning
– Detailed “study design” & monitoring network planning • Key shift in thinking—MER planning will need to
be complete before advancing to other components within the system.
• Detailed set of ‘business requirements’ developed through MER planning before proceeding.
Monitoring • Monitoring includes:
• Build / Establish Infrastructure • Data Collection / Acquisition • Data Integrity • Data Storage • Data Accessibility
• Standardizes methods for the development of monitoring station networks and infrastructure & equipment.
• Classifies data in terms of quality and usability. • Enhances storage and archive of data sets. • Allows data to be shared, accessible and usable by
all stakeholders including government agencies (federal, provincial, local), industry, and partners outside government.
• Promotes common web-based interfaces and tools.
Evaluation • Evaluation for Environmental Assurance (i.e.
IMERF/KPMS) • State of the Environment Condition (aka Ambient) and
Pressure (Source, Non-point source) Monitoring Data Evaluation in relation to Outcome Achievement
• Current State and Trends • Future Scenario Modeling
• Management Response (aka Policy, Delivery Tool) Performance Evaluation
• Assess Policy Performance based on effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and appropriateness
• Evaluation for Environmental Governance • Auditing and performance evaluation of CEMS roles,
responsibilities, accountabilities and business processes
• Reporting is documenting results of indicator monitoring and evaluation and presenting them to appropriate audiences at specified times.
• Active reporting enhances environmental knowledge of target audiences.
• Passive reporting provides data, information and knowledge to a broad spectrum audience, and includes State of Environment reporting.
• Influences the actions and behavior of target audiences to help achieve outcomes.
• Informs and influences resource allocation, prioritization and decision making (for policy and delivery tools), as well as adaptation of the MER.
• Fulfills legislative and regulatory obligations.
Reporting
Governance • Built upon a structure of shared networks,
fundamental data sets and a collective knowledge base by defining roles & accountabilities.
• GOA retains accountability for environmental assurance and policy.
• Enablers including legislation, approvals, codes. • Funding Principles
• Inclusive – of funding, people and equipment for both condition and pressure monitoring.
• Sustainable – Long term commitment for monitoring baseline; independent of fiscal budgets (i.e. 3-5 years).
• Integrated/ effective/ efficient – focuses on efficiencies or effectiveness to be had in the current MER system, as well as to capitalize on new funding sources.
MER Assurance
• An Assurance Program will ensure data collected by AENV and for AENV is accurate and dependable for use in decision-making.
• A set of controls to enable partnerships in the collection, integration, evaluation & reporting of data, information and knowledge.
• Audits of the processes, equipment, data and people associated with MER will provide greater confidence in the system and its products.
Next Steps
• Draft Framework by December 2009 • Remove the draft by March 2010 • Developing pieces of the system
– Evaluation & Reporting Strategy • Testing or developing the model in a place
based situation – Industrial Heartland – Low Athabasca Regional Plan
Contact information
Albert Poulette Director Integrated Monitoring Evaluation & Reporting Alberta Environment 8th Floor Oxbridge Place 9820-106 St Edmonton, Alberta
https://internal.sp.environment.gov.ab.ca/OpenINA/EA/IMERF/Pages/default.aspx
Are there any questions?
Related Documents
