58
for not monitoring. Costs for an appropriately detailed monitoring programme
should be incorporated into project costs from the outset.Where funding is
limited, monitoring may be prioritised by focusing on the main effects expected
for differentNWRM (as identified in theNWRM identity cards). It should always
be recognised that the potential impacts of NWRM, in particularwhen delivering
amenities,arenot just about biophysical impacts:enhanced citizens’well-being and
enjoyment of green spaces are important components that need to be captured.
Thus, it is essential that the monitoring base is enlarged as far as possible to
capture these types of impacts.
ņ
ņ
Addingkeywater related indicatorsand related services complementary to
water status (as defined under theWFD)might be possible in the context
of
existing water monitoring programmes.
However it needs proper
justification, in particularwhen proposed under tight budgetary conditions;
ņ
ņ
Mobilising
different sources of funding
that target different benefits can
clearly facilitate ‘multi-impact’ monitoring (both in terms of its justification
and thefinancial resources available). It is best to integratemonitoring costs
into theoverallNWRM costs that benefit fromfinancial support, toensure
that monitoring is treated as an integral part of the project, not a ‘nice to
have’;
ņ
ņ
Combining
differentmethods
to ensure pragmaticmonitoring of NWRM
impacts and effectiveness. Along with traditional monitoring of key soil
and water biophysical and ecological parameters, monitoring of benefits
can build on: interviews with citizens, as direct users of the amenities that
newurban landscapes deliver;visual observations andphotos for capturing
landscape and amenity changes;or the collationof biodiversity information
observed bymembers of environmental NGOs active on the ground.
Chapter4
