Data summarizing monitoring and evaluation for three European environmental policies in 9 cases across Europe.

The data presented in this DiB article provide an overview of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) carried out for 3 European environmental policies (the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, and Agri-Environment Schemes implemented under the Common Agricultural Policy), as implemented in 9 cases (Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden). These data are derived from reports and documents about monitoring programs that were publicly-available online in 2017. The literature on M&E to support adaptive management structured the issues that have been extracted and summarized. The data is related to the research article entitled "Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?" [Stem et al., 2005]. The information provides a first overview of monitoring and evaluation that has been implemented in response to key European environmental policies. It provides a structured overview that permits a comparison of cases and policies and can assist other scholars and practitioners working on monitoring and evaluation.

Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?

Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems.

Assessment of water retention function as tool to improve integrated watershed management (case study of Poprad river basin, Slovakia).

The presented study concentrates on assessing the ecosystem function of water retention. The water retention function is defined as the ability of the landscape to retain water, slow runoff and encourage water infiltration. The water retention function was expressed by calculating the hydric significance (HS) indicator. This method is based on scoring the individual input parameters according to their overall impact on watershed hydrology. The study was conducted on a sample area of Poprad River basin. The final results presented a spatial distribution of hydric function within the watershed classified according to its significance into four classes (from limited to excellent significance). A breakdown of the results on the level of elementary watersheds was used in order to examine those with low hydric function. The results showed a significant influence of land-use on retention function; however, this impact could be limited by extreme precipitation or high soil water saturation. The methodology of hydric significance represents an innovative approach towards assessment of ecosystem function of water retention on regional level.