Data Management in International Monitoring Programs Joint Workshop of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat (CWSS)
EU Life-project DEMOWAD	Copenhagen 18th/19th February 1998

Presentation of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme.

Simon Wilson

		The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) is one of 5 programmes established to implement the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS). Other programmes deal with Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), Protection of the Marine Environment (PAME), Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) and Sustainable Development and Utilisation (SDU).
		The AEPS was adopted by the eight Arctic countries (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the USA) in 1991. In 1997, the Arctic Council was established, and the AEPS programmes and activities are now part of the Arctic Council initiative. Between 1991 and 1997, AMAP developed and implemented its monitoring programme and prepared its first assessment.
		This assessment took the form of a comprehensive ‘State of the Arctic Environment Report’ delivered to Ministers of the Arctic countries for their consideration at a meeting in June 1997. The full scientific documentation is contained in a separate (AAR) report. In conjunction with the publication of its assessment, AMAP also arranged a major symposium (ca. 450 participants) in June 1997 to facilitate a discussion of the conclusions of the AMAP assessment and to encourage the necessary dialogue between scientists, representatives of northern inhabitants and environmental managers and decision makers, etc.
		AMAP’s principle objectives are: ‘to monitor the levels and assess the effects of selected anthropogenic pollutants in all compartments of the Arctic, including humans’, and ‘to provide advice on measures to improve the Arctic environment’. AMAP priority issues included persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals, radioactivity; acidification and petroleum hydrocarbons (on a sub-regional basis); and climate change and UV; and their effects on Arctic ecosystems and humans, including human health. To avoid duplication of existing and ongoing work, the AMAP monitoring programme was based largely on existing national and international activities, adapted or expanded where necessary to meet AMAP requirements. Countries developed their National Implementation Plans (NIPs) to fulfil AMAP goals, and the resulting ‘programme’ was subjected to an audit process, the outcome of which resulted in further adjustments. The AMAP monitoring programme includes both ‘traditional’ monitoring and research activities and covers the atmospheric, marine, terrestrial and freshwater environments, as well as a human health component.
		In conducting its assessment, AMAP faced the challenges of compiling and incorporating data from a wide range of sources, both observational data (i.e., monitoring and research data from sources in all 8 AMAP countries, co-operating international programmes, and others), information published in the scientific literature and in institute/project reports, etc., and also traditional knowledge. Data quality assurance was a major consideration as were ‘data ownership’ issues. Development of an appropriate ‘data ownership’ agreement was critical, in particular in facilitating access to the most recent research data. Metadata was compiled in the form of a project directory describing some 500 projects and programmes to enable the assessment process to locate relevant sources of information.
		A core ‘solution’ to the data handling problem adopted by AMAP was the establishment and use of ‘thematic data centres’ (TDCs) to handle ‘observational’ data arising from AMAP affiliated monitoring programmes or research projects, and to serve the AMAP assessment process. These centres (a) ensure a future accessibility to data, much of which is never otherwise properly archived, and (b) ensure that all necessary data components including supporting information for QA purposes, etc. are available to allow (c) a consistent treatment of data. Published (e.g.) literature data were also a major component of the information on which the AMAP assessment is based, but these often lack the complete descriptions of the data including the desired range of statistical parameters that is often necessary for a valid assessment process.
		In both its monitoring and assessment activities, AMAP attempts to develop appropriate co-operation with other organisations engaged in compatible work. In some cases, AMAP relied on other organisations to contribute parts of its assessment. Harmonisation of activities between AMAP and other similar programmes engaged in, e.g., environmental monitoring, is vital to ensure cost effective information supply and avoid duplication.
		Harmonisation was also a consideration in AMAP data handling work, where, e.g., the decision by AMAP to use TDCs which are also used by other international organisations greatly facilitated possibilities for data sharing between programmes, and also minimises the data reporting work by institutes engaged in several different international programmes. AMAP is currently developing its future activities, to build on the results of its first assessment.