These groups may not be willing to provide public access to data that they would want to still work on and eventually publish. A related issue is that the disclosure of some pollution data might be considered to be “sensitive” and could compromise economic activities of counties. For example, levels of coliform bacteria if determined near bathing beaches and made known to the public, might result in the decline in the number of local and foreign tourists that would otherwise go to these places. This same parameter, if determined and found high in mariculture areas, and the levels made known to the public, might also jeopardize the sale, consumption and export of marine products (e.g., shellfish). The same issue would arise if the presence and levels of harmful algae (red tide organisms) in shellfish areas were made known on a real-time basis.
4. The Way Forward
Given all of these problems, is there hope in improving the acquisition of marine pollution data in the region and in developing mechanisms of exchanging data and information on these parameters? Yes, but perhaps a cautious yes.
The responses to these issues can perhaps be classified into those that are not too difficult to pursue and those that may require a considerable amount of effort and investment.
Under the category of the do-able short-term responses would be the encouragement of performance-based methods among laboratories involved in pollution monitoring in the region, agreement on the use of a suite of standards and concentration units, regular inter-comparison exercises, and more training courses to improve capacity in the region.
In the implementation of environmental monitoring programs, the paradigm shift has been from a “standards based methods” or the “prescriptive” approach to “performance based methods” approach (Hugdahl, 1977). Thus, laboratories acquiring marine pollution data may use any analytical method provided that the laboratory verifies that the data quality objectives are met. Among others, this approach facilitates the use of current technologies and provides autonomy to laboratories. What is important is that there be a mechanism to provide laboratories with detailed information on relevant analytical methods including official method compendiums, recommended protocols, and journal articles that describe methods. Also crucial in adopting this approach is that there is increased awareness, understanding and practice of Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) among the various laboratories.
A continuing program of organized regional activities and support with a focus on QA, as was implemented by the ASEAN-Canada CPMS-II Programme and also by the IOC, would greatly benefit the region. An example of such a program, which apparently has been successful, is the Quality Assurance of Information in Marine Environmental Monitoring in Europe (QUASIMEME). With the support of the EU, this effort manages a regular performance evaluation program and incorporates elements of cooperative learning and interaction (Davies and Wells, 1997).
In the medium-term, could a regional support center for marine pollution monitoring be considered? Such a center would provide training, resources and support to countries participating in marine pollution activities, particularly those linked with oceanographic programs and could coordinate efforts in the acquisition and exchange of pollution data. Conceivably, such a center in collaboration with experts within and outside the region could even accredit laboratories that obtain marine pollution data.
