Source: Martin Bond, Science Photo Library
INTRODUCTION |
Europe's environment is changing under the influence of human activities. This is no recent phenomenon for many hundreds, and even thousands, of years humankind has deliberately changed the surrounding environment to serve both immediate and long-term needs. The extent to which this has occurred in Europe now means that our entire surroundings, even including most of what is perceived as natural, has been moulded in some way by human activities. Any 'natural balance' that might have existed at one time between the earth and Homo sapiens has long been broken, with signs of the current imbalance being evident in the state of the air, water and soil. There have been many unwanted side-effects as a result of these changes; some were predictable, others came as a surprise. This report aims to describe and explain these changes and effects, to provide a comprehensive picture of the state of Europe's environment in the early 1990s, to assist sound decision making and to help raise public awareness about environmental problems. This chapter outlines the approach taken in the report to do this and explains how the large amount of diverse information that needs to be presented has been selected and ordered.
SCOPE AND COVERAGE OF THIS REPORT |
Since the environment is involved with and touched by most of what we do, the scope of a report on the state of the environment is potentially very wide. Almost all human activities depend on, or affect, the environment in one way or another and thus it is difficult to decide where the boundaries to environmental reporting lie. It is the very nature of the environment, its complexity, its multiple interconnections and in-built delay mechanisms, which render environmental problems difficult to understand and thus easy to ignore.
This inherent breadth in the concept 'environment' makes environmental problems important to everybody and explains the increasing attention being given them. This has also led to uncertainties and disagreements about the fields of greatest importance and conflicts over the boundaries of interest. Views vary between individuals and organisations, depending upon their particular concerns and interests, and the time-scale of their outlook. Furthermore, these views have changed with time as our understanding has increased and capacities to alter the environment have expanded.
The call and expectations for this report, described in the Foreword, and the evolving European and international situation, provide the general context for this current assessment. Further specific criteria (described below) were used to give the report focus and meaning. Two important requirements emerge from the general context:
Appraising the pan-European environment together as a unit for the first time, it was deemed more appropriate to adopt a comprehensive approach than one which was particularly selective. The comprehensive approach provides a fuller and more independent basis for building the expected Environment Programme for Europe, while also facilitating the laying down of a baseline against which future reporting at this level can be compared. Counting against this all-inclusive approach is the fact that few collections of environmental data have been made on a pan-European basis and that a comprehensive appraisal at this level would therefore be faced with many difficulties. Thus it was recognised that part of the task of preparing the report was to identify and highlight the problems with the data, pointing out the inadequacy of the coordination of the activities surrounding it. In this way the report was conceived as a comprehensive snapshot of the state of Europe's environment, and, as far as possible, a description of the state of environmental information.
Environmental reporting activities have been carried out in European countries since the early 1970s. Some European countries produce state-of-the-environment reports on an annual basis, others less regularly. The European Commission has already published four state-of-the-environment reports (1977, 1979, 1986 and 1992). Other international organisations such as OECD and UNEP prepare state-of-the-environment reports which also feature Europe to some extent. Equally, reports are available from non-governmental organisations such as the World Resources Institute and the Worldwatch Institute which feature the European area. The UNCED conference held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 requested that each participating country submit a National Report. These reports provide a broad review of environmental policy and initiatives in different countries. However, often there is also a useful description of the state and trends in the environment in that particular country.
CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS |
The nature of environmental reporting can best be appreciated, and the expectations arising from it made more realistic, if it is seen as part of a wider process ranging from research, measurement, analysis and interpretation, through information dissemination to awareness raising and action taking. Each report fits into a wide field of activities and, at best, can be only as good as these activities are in providing a good understanding of the problems involved and appropriate quality data to back it up.
Preparing a report on the state of the environment is hampered by difficulties with the information itself, its objectivity, reliability and comparability, as well as its availability. The very nature of the environment is the underlying cause of many of these problems, which might make it difficult, for example, to set in place adequate and appropriate monitoring. The inadequacy of what is known combined with an often incomplete appreciation of its importance may inappropriately bias what is reported on and lead to erroneous conclusions being drawn.
Research has a crucial role to play ensuring that environmental information properly reflects scientific findings. Particularly significant here are the understanding and results provided by research concerned with the mechanisms of environmental processes, their interaction with human-induced pressures and natural variabilities. Particular difficulties are often encountered connecting the results of research to monitoring improvements in knowledge and understanding arising from research usually take time to pass to routine applications, and new findings also take time to be disseminated and accepted. To be useful for environmental reporting, companion data are often required on a scale previously unavailable. In the face of such difficulties, there is an understandable tendency to fall back on the presentation of 'official' data and statistics.
The transformation of data into information is at the heart of environmental reporting. Data are observations obtained by various measuring methods, and become information when they are put into context. Information implies interpretation, which is ultimately the basis for action.
A substantial amount of environmental data and information are available. In recent years, environmental data have increased in availability as environmental monitoring and research has become more extensive. Despite this, there is still a paucity of sound environmental information. The fact is, much relevant data are still missing and those which do exist are not always known or accessible. Insufficient use is made of existing data, but those available are often inadequate spatially and temporally patchy, incomplete and inconsistent. There are many factors contributing to this situation. Environmental monitoring is generally driven by sectorial or thematic considerations. Monitoring is usually confined within strict geographical boundaries, information needs at European or global levels are usually not included, and long term considerations are often lacking. This results in a profusion of often inflexible data collection initiatives in all environmental sectors from which a single comprehensive reliable picture of the environment cannot be formed.
The underlying cause of many of these problems is the absence of an appropriate institutional framework to address environmental concerns directly and fully, leading to a fragmentation of data collection and assessment activities. Across Europe, this is exacerbated by uneven technologies and resources for implementing monitoring activities in the different countries.
Assessment and reporting are carried out in the company of other limitations. The treatment of uncertainty is of key importance in a responsible presentation of 'facts' about the state of the environment. Uncertainty is found at all stages. Early on, when a problem is first being recognised, there is the uncertainty or ignorance as to whether or not a problem exists at all. Further along, there is uncertainty arising from the imperfect understanding of the mechanisms driving the problem. Later, uncertainty and ignorance can also be associated with how much is known about the geographical extent or degree of a problem, being the result, for example, of the scientific or technical limitations of monitoring, or simply the lack of data being collected. Outside these considerations, uncertainty also arises from the unpredictability of many natural processes, which no amount of extra research or monitoring can remove.
Reporting on the environment must proceed in the face of these many difficulties and limitations. It necessarily begins with reference to current scientific findings and with the information which is already available ideally only that with a clearly defined pedigree and level of data quality. This was the starting point for the preparation of the current report. Information was gathered from government, research and independent sectors, at national and international levels. In special cases, when significant data were missing, an attempt was made to generate the information during the project. The origin of the data was clearly marked and, when uncertainty was a primary issue, reference was made to the current scientific findings. An appraisal of data quality formed part of the assessment and the findings included. Finally, areas were identified where additional or improved data are on a critical path for better understanding of an environmental problem.
Improved reporting on Europe's environment can be properly realised over time only with a fully coordinated data collection system at European level. This is an ongoing process and requires good cooperation between all partners. This is still a long way off, but the results of this exercise, and especially the work of the newly established European Environment Agency (EEA), are expected to contribute to this significantly.
INFORMATION SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT |
What is involved in measuring the 'state' of the environment, and how is 'quality' defined? These points are considered below, elucidating what to cover, how to select the relevant material and how to invest the information with meaning.
What to report |
When environmental problems first come to light, this is usually the result of information which has been gathered on environmental conditions and often by chance observations. This is closely followed by an analysis of the immediate causes of the recorded environmental changes, both natural (eg, pests, floods or drought) and artificial (eg, pollutant releases), tracing back to the original sources of the environmental pressures human activities. At this point it begins to be possible to build cause and effect stories by which the fuller consequences of the environmental problems and options for tackling them become clearer.
Four types of information are thus needed in a state-of-the-environment report to give it relevance and purpose:
These elements dictate the main structure of the current report (see below).
The information needed to describe the first three elements (the state, pressures and human activities) is mainly of an objective nature: for example, the actual condition of a particular river is a fact although the figures may be disputed. A description of environmental problems goes beyond this. The information provided by objective observation of state and pressure, when combined with knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology and of the Earth's biogeochemical and climatic systems, can lead to propositions about causes and effects which may or may not prove to be correct. Long periods of research and debate usually separate the time of the first proposition and its general acceptance as fact, or its rejection. During this time opinions will vary as to whether a particular interpretation is correct or not. Further, even when such a proposition is entirely proven within the scientific community, opinions will differ as to its practical importance or significance. This is the realm of individual and group perception, ethical and social codes, politics and vested interests influences which affect everybody. Including descriptions of environmental problems therefore means that the fields of theorising, uncertainty and perception cannot be avoided. The most objective presentation includes a description of the most accepted current international thinking and disputes on each problem, explanations of causes and consequences, and outlines of the different options and response strategies being adopted.
Criteria for selection |
Within these broad outlines of what should be reported on, there are many variables and details which could be covered. A selection had to be made, identifying what is important and significant for this report. An assessment based on the outline above requires an enormous amount of quantitative data which is not available in a sufficiently comprehensive and reliable form compatible across Europe to produce a full assessment. Nevertheless, large quantities of environmental data are available which should certainly be employed to their maximum degree. The very existence of such data means that caution needs to be exercised when selecting what to include in the report: bias will be introduced if mere availability of information dictates importance.
There is in fact a close liaison between what information is available and the degree of recognition of an environmental problem. Since environmental monitoring has necessarily to be efficient and selective, data collection is heavily influenced by recognised problems. This in turn affects what is available to report on. If it were certain that the environment was being systematically assessed and the problems of importance were being acted upon with all the necessary supplementary data being collected, then concentrating reporting on those data sets which are available, consistent and complete for the territory of interest would not introduce bias into the results. However, as discussed above, this is far from the case. Furthermore, throughout the different countries and regions of Europe, different sets of environmental problems are recognised as important and, except for a few major issues, few consistent approaches are being adopted to tackle them.
The developments in environmental indicators potentially provide a way out of this problem. Once established they would provide a base set of reliable and comparable information on the state of the environment (see Box 1A). Environmental indicators are designed to provide a succinct and concise summary of the state of the environment and can act as a guide to environmental reporting.
In the absence of an established set of environmental indicators which could be used to report on the state of Europe's environment, a series of criteria was used to help assess which information, out of all that exists, should be included. Nine criteria were defined, derived from the original mandate and objectives of the report:
Principally, these criteria were used for identifying prominent European environmental problems chosen for more detailed treatment in Part V of the report (Chapters 27 to 38). However, these criteria were also used as guidelines when selecting which material to focus on in each chapter.
How to give the information significance |
When it is stated that the environment is degraded and requires restoration, this involves a quality judgement and implies that something is known about what the environment should be like. In heavily degraded areas, such considerations may seem too obvious or academic. Nevertheless, it is often overlooked that in order to know whether the environment is degraded, to determine the level and importance of that degradation or the amount of restoration required, a clear, concise and understandable measure of environmental quality or health is needed.
The natural environment is a varied background against which to assess and compare the quality of the environment influenced by humans. An appropriate level of understanding of the natural variability of the environment is one way, however, to assess the level of degradation and, from this, the amount of restoration required. In all but a few cases, this approach is neither feasible nor satisfactory due both to lack of information, and to the fact that so often the environment is profoundly and irreversibly altered from its natural state.
Alternative yardsticks are therefore required to invest measures of the state of the environment with significance. Such 'assessment criteria' might include: limit values, environmental quality standards (EQSs), air quality guidelines (AQGs), maximum permissible concentrations (MPCs), or the use of the critical loads and the critical levels concept. For those problems which are not strictly 'polluting' (eg, loss of biodiversity, landscape degradation, urban problems) more subjective criteria are needed (eg, conservation targets or zoning regulations) but are more difficult to establish and often lacking. Such yardsticks arise out of the application of different environmental principles (such as those described in Box 2B) and depend on the level of understanding of the environmental problem of concern. Thus, some approaches can be strongly policy orientated and target based, arising out of technological and economic considerations, or they might arise directly out of, and adhere strictly to, a particular understanding of the mechanisms of an environmental impact and its environmental significance.
In the current report, the approach adopted varies with the problem of concern. Generally, significance is given to the data presented by referring to the best scientific authorities and experts in the problems presented, and adopting their assessment criteria. Thus, for example, maximum permissible concentrations may be referred to or, in other cases, natural values or conditions may be used. Where this has not been possible due, for example, to problems with data, the available information has sometimes been presented simply as reported, in the form made available, with its significance and interpretation left open for future analysis. The comparison with target or limit values is included where appropriate and contributes towards assessing the success of implementing policies and strategies.
PRESENTATION STRATEGY |
For the significance of the material being presented to be properly realised, and for the causes and consequences of environmental problems to be discussed (from which priorities for action can be decided), a simple presentation strategy is required which nonetheless accommodates the complexities. Previous state-of-the-environment reports have tackled this in various ways. A common approach, first proposed and adopted by the OECD, is one that covers: information on the pressures acting on the environment; descriptions of the actual condition or state of the environment (including trends); and descriptions of the responses taken in order to check and control environmental degradation. A different configuration of these information blocks has been adopted here. Special emphasis is given to integrating diverse findings and confronting environmental problems of particular concern to Europe.
A description of the physical, chemical and biological attributes of the environment is fundamentally what a report on the state of the environment is all about. There is no unique way, however, to treat these, since individually or in different combinations they provide alternative views of the environment, their importance and relevance being relative to the use being made of the information. In order to cover the diversity of perspectives for the present assessment, different views of the environment were chosen. Thus, descriptions of environmental attributes have been presented by individual media (the air, water and soil), and in more spatial or functional units (landscapes, ecosystems and wildlife, and urban areas). This is completed by a brief overview of human health in Europe, based on a recent WHO assessment.
A description of the pressures is usually arranged around the sectors of human activities. In this report, the pressures are analysed as the 'agents' which are potentially stressing the environment (emissions to air and water, waste, noise and radiation, chemicals and natural and technological hazards). The 'sources' of these agents, the human activities themselves, are dealt with separately by main economic sectors and activities (energy, industry, transport, agriculture, forestry, fishing, tourism and households). This separation helps to demonstrate that it is not necessarily the satisfaction of human 'needs' per se which is the cause of environmental damage, but rather the manner and extent by which they are pursued and fulfilled.
Environmental problems link this three-way presentation of media, pressures and human activities (Figure 1.1). Many problems are discussed in the individual chapters of these three sections. However, special attention is given to a series of 12 prominent environmental problems identified to be of particular concern for Europe. These presentations integrate information from the previous chapters in full cause and effect stories, emphasising in particular the goals and strategies being applied to tackle them, or options for action. These four groupings of information are not mutually exclusive, and sometimes create redundancies. Overlaps contribute different visions of the environment and the redundancies are necessary for clarity.
Underlying this presentation is the importance given to demonstrating the interlinkages between the information being presented, and the consequent importance of having comparable data between and among all relevant fields and sectors. This cannot be fully realised in one exercise, particularly given the current inadequate situation with respect to environmental information in Europe. Nevertheless, the approach sought here should be more appropriate for understanding the source of environmental problems, particularly at a heterogeneous European level, as well as for more easily identifying alternative courses of action needed for their resolution. Furthermore, it should also help to clarify data requirements, in particular identifying common needs, leading to more effective data collection and consequently improved environmental assessments.
The analytical structure of the report illustrated schematically in Figure 1.1 shows a simplified chain from the sources of environmental pressures (human activities), through the pressures themselves to the effects (environmental conditions and problems). The origins and the multiple contributory pathways which lead to environmental problems cannot be adequately illustrated by the model in the figure since the way in which 'causes' lead to 'effects' are many and complex. Responses can be made or, more specifically, actions can be taken, at different points in the chain, treating the sources or the agents of pressure, or treating the environment directly. The figure specifies the inter-relationships between the environmental assessment per se (the central part of the figure, and the task of the current report), and the area where policy is made and actions can be taken (the role of society at large and politicians in particular). Although descriptions of each step in this model do have their place in this report, determining or prescribing responses is not the purpose or intention. Instead, the report attempts to present the most objective analysis possible of the current environmental situation in Europe, including the role of current initiatives being used to tackle them and options for future actions. This is expected to form a reliable and rigorous basis for decision making.
In order to make an effective presentation, the storyline illustrated in Figure 1.2 has been followed. This recalls the all-too-familiar retro-active order by which environmental problems normally come to light and steps are taken to tackle them. The linkages between the different parts of this story are of key importance for a proper application of the results of this report. By enumerating the linkages between the different parts presented, sectors deserving priority action can be determined by the degree of influence they have across all fields and problems. Similarly, this approach can help define the multiple contributions to the environmental problems of concern and thus help design better strategies to tackle them across sectors.
The broad way that information has been structured in this report, separating human activities, pressures and environmental conditions, is expected to be of benefit to policy makers by showing how actions can be directed at different points in the chain (Figure 1.1). Thus, human activities can be targeted directly, changing or eliminating them; or the pressures themselves can be addressed, reducing emissions or altering the manner in which a particular intervention or intrusion in the environment is carried out. Alternatively, the environmental conditions can be tackled directly, by cleaning up and restoring degraded areas, but without addressing the underlying causes this is not a final solution. Finally, the descriptions of environmental problems act to inform the reader about which combination of circumstances and actions is relevant to address both causes and effects and where the interlinkages lie.