1(15)
Draft 1
2011-04-03
Report from Working Group 2, Task Group 5
Awareness raising, Capacity building and Communication in Emergency and Alert Situations
Facilitated by Melanie Josefsson
Draft 1
Report from Working Group 2, Task Group 4
Awareness raising and Communication for Early Warning and Rapid Response
1.Awareness Raising
see WG1, TG5 Report “Awareness Raising and Information Sharing” facilitated by Lammars, W., Moore, N., Branquart, E., Brunell, S., Uludag, A.
2.Citizen Science Reporting systems for Invasive Alien Species
2.1.Proposal for a EU network of citizen reporting systems
2.2.Some Existing EU Citizen Science Reporting Systems
The Danish Reporting System for Invasive Alien Species
The Great Britain Non-native Species Secretariats Reporting Scheme for IAS
The Swedish Species Gateway
2.3.Special reporting campaigns for awareness raising and information gathering
Ladybid reporting in UK and Ireland
3.Capacity Building
3.1.Why Capacity building, target groups and for what purpose?
Challenges in capacity building
4.Communication in emergency and alert situations
- Awareness Raising
see WG1, TG5 Report “Awareness Raising and Information Sharing” facilitated by Lammars, W., Moore, N., Branquart, E., Brunell, S., Uludag, A.
- Citizen Science Reporting systems for Invasive Alien Species
Citizen Reporting Systems enable the general public, interest groups, scientists and environmental managers to report observations to a gateway. Citizen Reporting Systems are a complement to established formal environmental monitoring and surveillance. Care should be taken when using the results in Citizen Reporting Systems to mirror what information these systems can accurately provide and the limitations of such systems as well as their value.
Reports from Citizen Reporting Systems are published on geo-refed GIS gateways and are freely available to all. Examples of some European systems presently in use:
- Swedish Species Gateway (for all species native and alien)
- Invasive Species Ireland’s Alien Watch
- Great Britain Non-native Species Secretariat https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/index.cfm?sectionid=75
- Danish Invasive Alien Species Reporting Gateway
- EEA’s Nature Watch, Eye on Earth
- Polish system?
- The Dutch species gateway, (for all species native and alien)
- Other systems that should be named?
The purpose of the Citizen Science Reporting Systems is to not only gather information on the distribution of IAS but also to raise awareness of the problems with IAS. This is especially important in a cosmopolitan Europe, where travel and migration of people is so prevalent. It is important to foster understanding that the environment of the entire EU is the responsibility of all who live and work in the EU and that a healthy biodiversity and ecosystem services are the foundation of life and society. The EU Citizen Reporting Scheme would also be a valuable tool in raising awareness among those that have summer homes or vacation in other lands of the problems of invasive species in the second county and be a channel for encouraging “biodiversity friendly behaviour” such as not using IAS species in the garden, deworming a pet after travel outside the native country etc.
The success of these reporting schemes is dependent on close contact and establishing relationships with the target audience (general public) to encourage them to report and ensuring that reporting efforts are merited attention and rewarded by publishing them on Internet gateways. It is important that the observers see that their efforts contribute to a common goal.
Building a living cooperation and communication between the government or non-governmental organization responsible for the reporting system and amateur and professional interest organizations is often a very important bridge to involving the general public. Many amateurs that belong to interest organizations like the Swedish Ornithological, Entomology and Botanical Societies are skillful at identifying species and highly motivated to report. These societies can also help in verifying and validating observations, as is done in the Swedish Species Gateway.
Good contacts with the press and media are essential in promoting Citizen Science reporting systems. Producing clear, concise and accurate information and training materials is also a key step in encouraging accurate reporting.
Validating the reports is important, especially if the reports are to be used in surveillance of IAS, or in planning eradication, containment or control measures, or in notifications to the EU.
Research on the dynamics of Citizen Research Systems, how interpretation of the results of such systems can be done and how the results can be used in the best way is important to initiate. Research on communication dynamics and psychology of the users is also important to initiate in order to improve the design of Citizen Science systems and improve the quality of the reports.
Establishing clear communication channels between the people reporting and experts and those responsible for the system is vital to ensure continued participation and accurate reporting. Visits by experts and people working with the IAS reporting system to local associations, schools, universities and groups of interested general public are essential, in order to encourage participation and to provide training for making observations and reporting and should be a priority at all stages of the system development and maintenance. Never underestimate the value of meeting people in person and asking for their help
While there are great values to be gained by developing an IAS Reporting System for the EU, there are some challenges. Language could be a problem, if the system is designed to accept only one or a few languages. The general public is generally reluctant to use a system for reporting if the language is not their mother tongue. Another challenge is to encourage and ensure participation if the system is run from a central place, which can be experienced as too far from the “grass-roots” and local knowledge. Even in the computer age, personal contact is very important.
2.1. Proposal for a EU network of citizen reporting systems
Alternative 1. An IAS Reporting System for the EU – a distributed network of national citizen science reporting systems with a central node in the IAS Data [J.W.1]Center (similar to the NOBANIS structure[J.W.2]). This alternative requires a dedicated EU regulation/directive to ensure consistency and full participation of all Member States throughout the EU.
The EU IAS Reporting System will bring together national and regional reporting systems from Citizen Science Reporting and national and regional monitoring and surveillance in a common Internet based gateway. Information from the gateway would be freely available to all. Information in the Reporting System would include observations from the Citizen Science part of the system, but also information that could be extracted from Plant Health, EPPO and Animal Health reporting. The EU system should be developed with the idea of interacting and being compatible with global information systems that will be developed in the future.
The IAS Data Center will:
- Operate the central node for the gateway,
- Coordinate development and incorporation of national reporting systems,
- Coordinate harmonization of the databases, controlled vocabulary, taxonomy,
- be responsible for the technical development of the Gateway
- Be responsible for drift and maintenance of the Gateway, secure funding for the common features (and assist in funding and development of national reporting systems as needed?).
- Creating a common format for national reporting systems that is compatible with the common gateway
- Coordinate efforts with regional and global organizations
- Operate a EU register or database of experts on IAS (that can be used in verification).
- Coordinate verification and validation work to ensure consistency in approach, standards
- Capacity building of the people responsible for operating the national nodes
In the EU IAS Reporting System, the Member States will be responsible for:
- Developing national reporting systems that will feed into the common EU system
- Drift and maintenance of national systems
- Verification and validation of reports that are made in the national systems
- Coordination and cooperation with national government and non-governmental organizations that can contribute to the reporting system
- Participate in the steering committee for the EU IAS Reporting System
- Capacity building among the general public, stakeholders, interest groups and authorities on the national and local levels to encourage use of the reporting system
- Translation of reported observations to English and the common format of the EU system.
- Promoting the engagement and full participation of citizens, the research community, environmental, agricultural and forestry officials at local, regional and national levels.
- Funding of the national node of the EU IAS reporting system (although funding should be made available to assist in developing the national nodes if need be. What could these mechanisms be?)
It is important that efforts are not duplicated in the development of a common IAS reporting system for the EU. It should be examined if it is technically possible to bring together existing reporting systems into a common portal so as to avoid extra work for those Member States that already have systems in place.
For the IAS reporting to be of best value for preventing the introduction and spread of IAS to the EU, neighboring countries that are not member of the EU should be encouraged/enticed to voluntarily join the system.
Advantages of a distributed IAS Reporting System with a central node in the IAS Data Center with dedicated EU IAS regulations
- Ensure full participation of countries
- Easier to recruit engaged citizens to report
- Solve the language barrier that could discourage citizens to report
- Easier access to knowledge of local, regional and national conditions
- Better access to local press and media that can help to promote reporting
- Verification of reporting that depends on local knowledge would be easier.
- When ownership of national databases is with the Member State in question, follows also a responsibility to keep their national system updated and running. (A matter of national pride, which should not be neglected).
Disadvantages of a distributed IAS Reporting System with a central node in the IAS Data Center with dedicated EU IAS regulations
- Funding could be a challenge
- Consistency and harmonization in terminology, taxonomy, other criteria is more difficult with a distributed system
- Validation that requires expertise outside a county could be more difficult
Alternative 2. Centralized IAS Reporting System for the EU.
The IAS Data Center in cooperation with the EEA would be responsible for developing and maintaining an IAS Reporting System for the EU that would incorporate Citizen Science reporting and environmental monitoring results.
This alternative will also require a dedicated EU regulation/directive in order to ensure consistent and full coverage and participation of all EU Member States.
The IAS Data Center would be responsible for:
- All of the points in Alternative 1 above
- Verification and validation of observations[J.W.3]
- System development, drift and maintenance
- Coordinating inflow of data and reporting from Member States
Member States would be responsible for:
- Providing data from formal surveillance and monitoring to the system
- Promoting the use of the Citizen Reporting System at the national level
- Capacity building among the general public, stakeholders, interest groups and authorities on the national and local levels to encourage use of the reporting system
Advantages of a centralized IAS Reporting System for the EU
- Better control of report formats and outputs. Easier to have a harmonized vocabulary, taxonomy etc.
- More consistent approach to verifying and validating
Disadvantages of a centralized IAS Reporting System for the EU
- More difficult to have active involvement from Member States
- Language problems could discourage citizens to report
- Farther from the end user (citizens). Could be difficult to muster enthusiasm and interest to use the reporting system
- Lack of knowledge of local conditions could provide difficulties
- Could be a considerably more expensive system to maintain as it would require more dedicated staff in a central position
Alternative 3. Voluntary IAS Reporting System for the EU – a distributed network of national citizen science reporting systems with a central node in the IAS Data Center. Could be achieved within the option B+ Maximising existing approaches and voluntary measures and option B. Some Current National Citizen Science IAS Reporting Systems
This alternative would mean that the work with coordinating an IAS Reporting System for the EU would be done by the EEA or a topic center (as the IAS Data Center would most probably not exist). This alternative would also mean that the system would include only reports from Citizen Science Reporting.
This alternative would mean developing a distributed system for Citizen Reporting of IAS similar to the NOBANIS approach. Responsibility for operating the national nodes of the IAS Reporting System for the EU would rest with the Member States. A central node for coordinating the national databases and input, developing a common system for bringing the databases together and making the information available and providing technical support to the national nodes would be developed. Financing of the central node or secretariat would need to be provided by the EU. Participation in the EU system would be voluntary.
Advantages with the Voluntary IAS Reporting System for the EU
- much the same as for alternative 1, only there would be sporadic participation of the Member States, with large differences in quality of reports and frequency of reporting
- It would be possible to start such a system at present with some input of financing to build up a secretariat function and common features
- Ownership of the databases by the Member States would encourage active participation in the development and maintenance of the gateway.
- A central secretariat function would aid Member States to develop their own national reporting systems and provide technical advice.
Disadvantages with the Voluntary IAS Reporting System for the EU
- Coverage throughout the EU would be sporadic. Large gaps in participation and for providing information would exist
- The gaps that would exist would make the results of the system more limited and difficult to use. The system could be used for awareness raising, but not for information on distribution that cold be used in measures to eradicate or control
- Difficult to ensure compliance with commonly agreed upon formats, definitions
- Updating frequency cannot be controlled.
- Quality of the data would vary considerably, as there would be no mandatory reporting
2.2. Some Existing EU Citizen Science Reporting Systems
The Danish Reporting System for Invasive Alien Species
The Danish Reporting System for Invasive Alien Species has received 2686 reports (as of 31 March 2011) registered since its start February 28, 2009. Observations are verified by the Danish Nature Agency. All observations of the racoon dog are verified and random observations are verified for other species. The general public is encouraged to report observations. Although the Danish reporting system was developed and run with modest funding, it is quite a good system for reporting.
Figure 1. The results page with reported observations of Rosa rugosa in the Danish Reporting System for IAS, 31 March 2011.
Figure 2. Reports of the Racoon dog in Denmark in the Reporting System for Invasive Alien Species 31 March 2011.
The Great Britain Non-native Species Secretariats Reporting Scheme for IAS
The Great Britain Non-native Species Secretariats Reporting Scheme for IAS
includes reporting possibilities for all species, but also highlights certain species in order to generate observations. The Gateway also includes identification and species fact sheets for 66 IAS.
Figure 3. The Great Britain Non-native Reporting System includes fact sheets on 66 invasive alien species that help in reporting and raising awareness of the problem.
The Swedish Species Gateway
Number of Sightings by Report SystemIn Total / This year / Yesterday / Today / Tot %
Birds: / 20 823 677 / 676 559 / 11 616 / 995 / 74,2%
Plants and Fungi: / 5 424 179 / 201 523 / 331 / 358 / 19,3%
Invertebrates: / 1 702 643 / 80 977 / 276 / 298 / 6,1%
Vertebrates: / 44 181 / 2 384 / 24 / 8 / 0,2%
Fishes: / 14 793 / 8 085 / - / - / 0,1%
Marine invertebrates: / 48 441 / 959 / - / - / 0,2%
Summa: / 28 066 209 / 970 487 / 12 247 / 1 659 / 100%
Figure 4. Statistics from the Swedish Species Gateway Reporting System that includes invasive alien species, as well as native species.
Swedish Species Gateway has been in operation since the year 2000 and has logged more than 27 million observations. The present system has categories for reporting for birds, vascular plants and fungi, terrestrial and limnic invertebrates, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish and marine invertebrates. There are no special reporting systems for invasive alien species, but they can be reported using the available taxonomic group systems. Reports can then be extracted by searching under species name. The new Gateway system which will be launched later in 2011, will have a system for tagging the reports of alien species so that a general list can be extracted from the reports.
The Species Gateway cooperates with other organizations to verify reports. The Swedish Ornithological Society verifies observations that are registered in the Species Gateway for birds, the Swedish Botanical Society for vascular plants, the Swedish Mytological Society for fungi, the Swedish Entomological Society for terrestrial and limnic invertebrates and Göteborgs Museum of Natural History for Marine Invertebrates. Information that is reported in the Species Gateway is property of the rapporteur, who can delete the information until it is published by the Gateway, at which time it becomes public record.