An Overview of Environmental Indicators State of the Art and Perspectives Bilthoven Unep
Development of environmental indicators in UNEP
M. Schomaker, Partitioning of Environment Data and Cess,
United Nations Surroundings Program (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya
This presentation volition go slightly beyond the issue of indicators and consider the unabridged array of information and information collection, direction, and analysis, since they are all relevant to indicators for assessing and reporting on sustainable development. First the United nations Environment Programme (UNEP) setting will be outlined, so a number of indicator-related issues will exist touched upon every bit part of cess and reporting, finishing with a listing of specific UNEP work on land quality indicators.
GENERAL UNEP SETTING
Information technology should be realized that UNEP, unlike FAO, is not an implementing bureau. Its main role is in catalyzing actions, liaison and disharmonize resolution. UNEP tries to promote activities by providing small fiscal contributions resulting in articulation outputs, by jointly developing frameworks others tin link upwardly to and by providing practiced advice. All its activities take place equally joint efforts with other institutions (both within and outside the UN; at international, regional and national level). UNEP's mission is broad, working generally at global and regional levels and roofing "the environment" as a whole:
"To provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the surroundings past inspiring, informing and enabling nations and people to amend their quality of life without compromising that of future generations."
Inside this general context UNEP's cess mandate is:
"To continue nether review the land of the globe environment (SOE); enhance understanding of the critical linkages between environment and human activities; identify priorities for international action; flag emerging issues; and strengthen national, regional, and global information handling capacities."
UNEP's assessment framework for fulfilling this mandate can be illustrated in Figure 1, in which all groups of activities needed for integrated assessment and reporting are reflected. Often there are not enough reliable, well structured, easily accessible data available; often progress made in a project or programme is based on expert opinion and educated guesswork. Also, there are no straightforward, internationally-agreed methodologies for integration of natural resources data with socio-economic data; for scale integration (both spatial and temporal); and for alter indicators. Assessment efforts all the same tend to take place on an isolated case study or subject level. At that place are, amongst others, different schools of thought, different methodologies, different entry points, data availability and compatibility problems, calibration problems and different ways of presenting data.
Effigy 1. Providing the knowledge base for decision making
In the current situation the assessment triangle looks more like a pinnacle and perhaps even an up-side-down one: information used to have decisions oftentimes originates from weak data and analysis. Eventually we would want the pinnacle to look like a more stable triangle (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2. From top to triangle
INDICATORS Within OVERALL Cess AND REPORTING FRAMEWORK
To move from superlative to triangle we demand to: (i) continue efforts to further develop operational, practical data collection and data management tools; analysis, integration and modelling methodologies; indicators and presentation formats; and (ii) continue efforts to enhance capacities in the entire assessment process. An enormous claiming lies ahead.
Issues, oft interrelated, involved in data and information management for and assessment of for instance land quality can be summarized every bit follows:
1. user relevance;
two. integration;
3. scale issues;
iv. methodological and scientific discipline issues;
v. information issues;
6. assessment capacity.
User relevance
Many cess activities still accept identify within the realm of scientific discipline. More direct links are necessary between the actual users and producers of data. Assessment activities should preferably be formulated together with users, in fact upon the asking of users (for their purposes). Depending on who wants to know, different levels of detail and different forms of data are needed. Once the "why" is clear the kind of information needed can be decided upon. Users are often considered in the context of the decision-making bicycle which includes iv stages (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3. The decision-making cycle (adapted from Winsemius 1986, in RIVM/UNEP, 1995)
Controlling processes take place at all levels of government and involve many different cultural, social, institutional, economic and environmental inputs and considerations. Depending on what level and which stage in the bicycle, the kind of data needed differs.
For problem identification and awareness raising, full general descriptive indicators are needed. But even so, different audiences need customized cloth; for instance to reach national policy-makers ane would opt for a unlike presentation than for the general public.
For strategy, policy, project formulation 1 would need more detailed indicators, also focusing on the causes of a sure trouble and on projections of impacts, through modelling, scenarios, cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis, then that effective, and realistic, responses can be formulated.
For the actual implementation of state quality related policies, goals and targets need to be established at national and local level (more than quantitative indicators). Here the social and economic context becomes increasingly of import. The people living on the country will accept to determine on what is needed and on how and when they desire to and tin reach certain targets. Cess and information aspects should focus on negotiation to agreement on targets amidst all the stakeholders who in diverse ways take interests in the state.
To evaluate the effectiveness of policies and actions, ane needs to find quantitative indicators that illustrate how the situation has changed in relation to the goals and targets.
In summary: indicators should clearly serve the specific users and stakeholders, both considering the level of assemblage (from local population to high-level international policy-makers) and the stage in the decision-making cycle.
Integration
Over the by decades UNEP has been focusing on state and trends, with emphasis on ecology sub-systems such as climate, desertification and biodiversity. However, though it is indeed necessary to know where a problem occurs, 1 likewise needs to know why the trouble occurs in lodge to exist able to formulate responses. There is an urgent need to focus more on the inter-linkages betwixt the environmental organisation and the homo system (Figure 4) rather than the individual components. Not but should research and cess activities comprehend both sub-systems; inter-linkages between the 2 are even more important.
FIGURE four. A model of human interaction with the environment (RIVM/UNEP, 1995)
Causes of environmental problems and the resulting negative trend are predominantly man induced. Only when the causes and the impacts of the resulting pressures on the organization are known tin acceptable responses be formulated (Figure 5). To qualify and quantify the pressures, land and responses, indicators need to be found that fairly represent the extremely complex state of affairs. The OECD PSR framework (Effigy 5) is being adopted by many for such indicator evolution (even though information technology cannot properly reflect the real world because linkages are non linear).
FIGURE five. Pressure-land-response framework for indicators (RIVM/UNEP, 1995)
There are potentially hundreds of indicators which could be relevant to land quality and desertification (UNEP/RIVM 1994, UNDP/UNSO/NRI 1995, World Bank/FAO/UNDP/-UNEP 1995, UNDPCSD 1995 etc.). Some cover the causes/pressures part of the arrangement, some focus on change in status and trends and the impacts of such change, and some are related to responses. The challenge earlier us is to find those cadre indicators that are sufficiently representative and at the same time piece of cake to understand and measure out on a routine basis. To put it differently, indicators should exist SMART: southpecific, one thousandeasurable, achievable, relevant and time-jump. Indicators are needed at different assemblage levels (see too the section on user relevance).
Scale issues
Ideally some persons would desire to have detailed data on "everything". We would desire to be able to motility smoothly from an abundance of detailed field data to summarized information for national level purposes to even more condensed data for sub-regional, regional and eventually global level purposes (the Indicator Pyramid, Figure vi).
Effigy 6. The Data/Indicator Pyramid (SCOPE, 1995 and WRI, 1995)
For practical reasons (constraints in available time, human and fiscal resource) we would want to observe shortcuts. We would want to determine elementary, direct links betwixt field level information, general statistics and remotely sensed information at decreasing levels of detail (through extrapolation, spatial modelling techniques and the like). Once such relationships are established nosotros would be able to monitor over time and to indicate which temporal scales are relevant for which aspects. For many of these wishes there is non yet a response or solution.
Methodological and science issues
This very much relates to the scale bug mentioned higher up. Most assessment piece of work even so takes place on an isolated, scientific instance study footing. Methods adult are very site-specific. Work is oft carried out within the university realm (PhD studies and the similar): an ideal situation where usually more than equipment is available than in the real world, where "free" research staff time is at hand, where fourth dimension pressure may be less astute. As a result, methods developed under these circumstances may not exist easily repeatable, not broadly applicable, not realistic in terms of fourth dimension, cost, and practical applicability inside for instance a government or NGO structure, and not suitable to provide an overall picture for larger areas.
Data issues
On the one hand there are non enough information available or being collected on a routine footing; on the other paw, sometimes information are being collected because they have been nerveless routinely without clear reasons on why they are needed. The quality of information that are available is frequently questionable: no standardized procedures are followed, guess piece of work is involved and the like. Information are often collected using "self made" definitions and nomenclature systems, as for instance in the case of land use and country encompass: information from ane area are non uniform with information from other areas, which hampers comparison and presentation of an overall moving picture. Data may exist but exist difficult to get hold of: they are stored in likewise many different places, are poorly documented and oft there is a competition attribute involved. Many data are only available as general statistics and bespeak data while one would ideally want georeferenced information.
Data and data management and cess capacity
Autonomously from the need to farther develop methodologies for information collection, data management, data analysis and integration, and information presentation, in that location is a need to strengthen national capacities in all these aspects so that the entire world can somewhen contribute to the assessment process on an equal basis.
SPECIFIC UNEP Interest IN INDICATOR RELATED Work
UNEP work relevant to land quality indicators is listed beneath, following the five compartments of the Cess Triangle (Figure 1). Most work is ongoing and is function of UNEP'southward approved 1996-97 program. Whether all will exist implemented in full volition depend on the available funds.
In addition, it should be mentioned that UNEP mainly uses the Surroundings and Natural Resources Information Networking (ENRIN) programme every bit the vehicle to strengthen capacities in environmental assessment and reporting and associated data direction. This plan develops umbrella frameworks (along the lines of the triangle) for different regions. Information technology encourages major donor institutions in each region to link up and contribute to activities that fit within the umbrella framework. Accent is on increasing collaboration among existing institutions, programmes and networks (to avoid duplication). Outputs developed elsewhere are promoted through this programme. These can be whatsoever relevant successful output from anywhere: datasets, data management software tools (such every bit the Soil and Terrain Digital database methodology - SOTER), analysis tools or models and conclusion-making tools.
Databases and monitoring relevant to cess of, inter alia, land quality
¤ GEMS/Water and GEMS/Air programmes (air and water quality monitoring networks).¤ The planned Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS), comparable and linked to the already existing Global Oceans and Global Climate Observing Systems (GOOS and GCOS). Once operational GTOS will provide an splendid umbrella mechanism for data collection and sharing; co-sponsors are FAO, International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), UNESCO, UNEP and World Meteorological System (WMO).
¤ Farther methodological development of the GLASOD arroyo (in Asia); and grooming of (sub-) regional Soil and Terrain Digital databases or shells (SOTER); with ISRIC and FAO.
¤ World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) and UNEP'south drylands direction success stories programme; GLASOD showing the negative side (human-induced degradation) and WOCAT, supported past University of Bern, FAO, several bilateral donors, the positive side (successful responses).
¤ Digital Peak Model (DEM): an acme database from which many products can exist derived, a joint USGS-EROS Information Centre, UNEP, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) product; bachelor for Africa on the WWW; other continents to follow in 1996.
¤ Land comprehend label using advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR); a joint USGS-EROS Data Centre, UNEP and NASA production, using the International Geosphere-Biosphere Plan (IGBP) processing protocols; Latin America first one-half 1996; related project implemented for a number of countries in Asia and the Pacific.
¤ Population distribution (through spatial modelling); with CGIAR and NCGIA.
¤ Core Data Working Group activities: focus on core data for integrated environment assessments and for UNEP's new Global Environment Outlook reports (see nether Assessment Reports below).
Data and information management (data admission; meta-data; data harmonization; GIS; determination support tools; database structures; etc.)
¤ Mercure satellite system which will link UNEP'southward data and information sources to the Cyberspace and World wide web facilities, etc. This will improve data accessibility and sharing. System currently beingness installed.¤ Development of meta-information and associated information system for UNEP information and information and for referencing to other data in the world, all in back up of assessment and reporting activities. A sub-organization for land quality indicators is under consideration (the concepts backside such complicated information systems however need much thought and experimentation).
¤ UNEP/FAO Initiative on Standardizing Land Cover and Land Utilize Classification Systems, with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE), World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and International Plant for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences (ITC); a flexible attribute-based arroyo (including software).
¤ International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), International Constitute for Country Reclamation and Comeback (ILRI) and UNEP piece of work on a tool for spatial label (a CDROM with a Data Exploration Tool).
Support of methodology evolution for cess
¤ Integration of socio-economic and natural resources aspects and scale integration (case study based, eventually to lead to more mostly applicable methodology).¤ Indicator development (the issue that links all assessment components together): considering both the biophysical and the social dimensions; contribute to ongoing and new initiatives such equally Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD), United nations Sudano-Sahelian Function (UNSO), SCOPE, International Development Research Center (IDRC), International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), World Banking company, FAO, UNEP, UNDP State Quality Indicators programme, UNEP success story assay and others. There is an urgent need to bring all these efforts on one line.
¤ Forecasting/scenarios/modelling: in the framework of the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) process (see GEO below). For instance some modelling piece of work on linking food production and country degradation, but mainly the fifty-fifty more complicated integrated modelling issues.
Assessment reports
¤ Sectoral assessments, such equally: Global H2o Cess; the World Atlas of Desertification.¤ Integrated outlooks on the global environment - GEOs: biennial and decadal; replacing UNEP's more than traditional country-of-the-environment reports; involving much regional consultation; supported past working groups on data, scenarios, modelling, policy; production process however under development; first trial result early 1997.
¤ Technical reports, datasets, software tools, decision-making tools (e.1000., indicators) resulting from the work listed above (for instance a whole range of GEMS/Water and GEMS/Air publications both covering specific assessments and methodological material in the form of guidelines and monitoring standards; publications on social dimension problems; the References listing directly indicator related publications).
Information sharing
Outputs will be produced as a family of products. The same base textile will be customized for specific target groups: brochures, popular environs library booklets, hands-on booklets, newsletters (eastward.g., EarthViews, Desertification Bulletin), videos, electronic data sharing, summary reports for policy and decision-makers, more elaborated technical reports and basic information for technicians and the scientific customs.
The present paper does not comprehend indicator work in which UNEP is involved in the context of biodiversity, land-based sources of pollution, oceans and coastal areas, forests, etc.
REFERENCES AND OTHER READING
RIVM/UNEP. 1995. Scanning the global environment: A framework and methodology for UNEP'due south reporting functions. UNEP Surroundings Cess Technical Written report 95-01, Nairobi, Republic of kenya.
SCOPE. 1995. Ecology Indicators: Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on the Environment in the Context of Sustainable Evolution. Newspaper by the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development of the Scientific Community on Bug of the Surround (Telescopic) presented at an International Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development for Decision-Making, ix-xi January, Ghent, Belgium.
UNDPCSD. 1995. Piece of work Plan on Indicators for Sustainable Development. Presented during the third session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, April 1995.
UNDP/UNSO/NRI. 1995. Development of Desertification Indicators for Field Level Implementation. Report prepared by R. Ridgway of the Natural Research Institute in the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland for UNDP/UNSO.
UNEP/RIVM. 1994. An Overview of Environmental Indicators: State of the art and perspectives. UNEP Environment Assessment Technical Written report 94-01, Nairobi, Kenya.
UNEP/UNDPCSD. 1995. The Part of Indicators in Decision-Making. Joint paper past UNEP and the United nations Division for Sustainable Development, Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD) presented at an International Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Evolution for Decision-making, 9-eleven January, Ghent, Belgium.
UNEP/UNDPCSD. 1996. Report of the Meeting on Integrated Environmental Assessment/Global Environmental Outlook Core Information Working Grouping, held at the UNDPCSD Offices in New York, 22-23 January 1996. UNEP Environmental Data and Cess Meeting Report 96-01.
Winsemius. 1986
World Banking company. 1995. Monitoring Ecology Progress (MEP): A Report on Work in Progress. March 1995. Draft for discussion purposes merely. Environs Department. Washington D.C.
World Bank/FAO/UNDP/UNEP. 1995. Country Quality Indicators. Earth Bank Discussion Paper 315.
WRI. 1995. Environmental Indicators: A Systematic Arroyo to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.
Source: https://www.fao.org/3/W4745E/w4745e07.htm
0 Response to "An Overview of Environmental Indicators State of the Art and Perspectives Bilthoven Unep"
Post a Comment