******************************************************************************
This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department for
Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD). Reproduction and
dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is
encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United
Nations in making it available.
******************************************************************************
INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGIES
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Foreword
In the four years since the Rio Summit, there have been many
initiatives to promote sustainable development. Indicators are useful
tools to gain insight regarding the progress made in achieving sustainable
development. Agenda 21 calls for countries, international organizations
and non-governmental organizations to develop and use indicators of
sustainable development.
Building on many national and international initiatives aimed at
developing and using indicators, the Commission on Sustainable Development
in 1995 adopted a work programme on indicators for sustainable development.
The work programme includes an initial set of 130 indicators.
To facilitate the use of these indicators and to test their
practicability at the same time, methodology sheets have been developed for
each of them. This publication presents these methodology sheets.
It is essential to get feedback on the indicators and the methodology
sheets. We, in the CSD secretariat, look forward to your reactions and
comments. The goal is to have a good set of indicators for sustainable
development by the year 2000. We count on the users of this publication to
contribute to this goal.
On behalf of the United Nations, I would like to thank all of those
who have participated in the process of making this publication possible.
Joke Waller-Hunter
Director
Division for Sustainable Development
Department for Policy Coordination
and Sustainable Development
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
Page
Foreword
Table of contents v
Introduction vii
Working list of indicators of sustainable development ix
Methodology sheets:
Indicators for social aspects of sustainable development 1
Chapter 3: Combating poverty 3
Chapter 5: Demographic dynamics and sustainability 31
Chapter 36: Promoting education, public awareness and
training 44
Chapter 6: Protecting and promoting human health 83
Chapter 7: Promoting sustainable human settlement
development 123
Indicators for economic aspects of sustainable development 150
Chapter 2: International cooperation to accelerate
sustainable development in countries
and related domestic policies 152
Chapter 4: Changing consumption patterns 166
Chapter 33: Financial resources and mechanisms 184
Chapter 34: Transfer of environmentally sound
technology, cooperation and
capacity-building 201
Indicators for environmental aspects of sustainable development 210
Water
Chapter 18: Protection of the quality and supply
of freshwater resources 213
Chapter 17: Protection of the oceans, all kinds of
seas and coastal areas 233
Land
Chapter 10: Integrated approach to the planning
and management of land resources 245
Chapter 12: Managing fragile ecosystems: combating
desertification and drought 255
Chapter 13: Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable
mountain development 269
Chapter 14: Promoting sustainable agriculture and
rural development 280
Other natural resources
Chapter 11: Combating deforestation 298
Chapter 15: Conservation of biological diversity 311
Chapter 16: Environmentally sound management of
biotechnology 318
Atmosphere
Chapter 9: Protection of the atmosphere 323
Waste
Chapter 21: Environmentally sound management of
solid wastes and sewage-related issues 349
Chapter 19: Environmentally sound management of
toxic chemicals 364
Chapter 20: Environmentally sound management of
hazardous wastes 366
Chapter 22: Safe and environmentally sound
management of radioactive wastes 382
Indicators for institutional aspects of sustainable development 385
Chapter 8: Integrating environment and development
in decision-making 386
Chapter 35: Science for sustainable development 395
Chapter 39: International legal instruments and
mechanisms 404
Chapter 40: Information for decision-making 411
Chapter 23-32: Strengthening the role of major groups 419
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
On occasion of its third session, in April 1995, the Commission
on Sustainable Development (CSD) approved a work programme on indicators
of sustainable development. The work programme included a list of
approximately 130 indicators organized in the Driving Force - State -
Response Framework. In this framework, Driving Force indicators
represent human activities, processes and patterns that impact on
sustainable development, State indicators indicate the "state" of
sustainable development, and response indicators indicate policy options
and other responses to changes in the state of sustainable development.
The indicators are intended for use at the national level by
countries in their decision-making processes. Not all of the indicators
will be applicable in every situation. It is understood that countries
will choose to use from among the indicators those relevant to national
priorities, goals and targets.
Following the decision of the CSD and the adoption of an
implementation plan by experts from various organizations involved in the
follow-up, the process of developing methodology sheets for each of the
indicators was started. The purpose of the methodology sheets is to
provide users at the national level with sufficient information about the
concept, significance, measurement and data sources for each indicator so
as to facilitate data collection and analysis. The process was
coordinated by the United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and
Sustainable Development (DPCSD) but builds upon indicator work being
carried out in several organizations. The process was marked by a high
degree of collaboration among a large number of organizations of the
United Nations system, other intergovernmental organizations, and
non-governmental organizations.
Organizations which have contributed both to the development of
the indicators and to the preparation of the methodology sheets include
the following:
the United Nations Department for Economic and Social
Information and Policy Analysis (DESIPA);
the United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable
Development (DPCSD);
the United Nations Department for Development Support and Management
Services (DDSMS);
the United Nations Department for Humanitarian Affairs (DHA);
the secretariat of the Framework Convention on Climate Change;
the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF);
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD);
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and its Office to
Combat Desertification and Drought (UNSO);
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the secretariat of
the Basel Convention;
the United Nations University;
the Regional Commissions of the United Nations; the United Nations Centre
for Human Settlements (Habitat);
the International Labour Organization (ILO);
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO);
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO);
the World Health Organization (WHO);
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU);
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO);
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO);
the World Bank;
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);
the European Communities Statistical Office;
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD);
the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT);
the International Conservation Union (IUCN);
the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD);
the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA);
the National Institute for Public Health and Environmental Protection
of the Netherlands (RIVM);
the New Economics Foundation;
the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE);
the Worldwatch Institute;
the World Resources Institute (WRI);
the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and
the Wuppertal Institute.
In February 1996, a meeting of government experts was organized
by the Environment Agency of Japan, in cooperation with DPCSD, in Glen
Cove, New York, to discuss and evaluate the methodology sheets from the
point of view of potential users. The methodology sheets were also
circulated among a roster of international experts for their comments.
The responsible organizations revised the methodology sheets
accordingly and a first draft of the publication was presented as a
Background Paper no. 15, at the fourth session of the Commission on
Sustainable Development, in April/May 1996. Since then additional and
revised methodology sheets have been submitted by the lead agencies and
were incorporated into the revised edition of the document. In a few
instances, methodology sheets are still being developed and in these
cases, a "bookmark" has been included, stating the name of the indicator,
a brief definition, the unit of measurement, and its placement in the
framework. The work on completing and revising the methodology sheets
will continue, as the CSD work programme on indicators now enters its
second phase.
The second phase concentrates on enhancement of information
exchange among all interested partners, training and capacity building
at the regional and national levels and monitoring the use of the
indicators in countries that have shown interest in this process. The
publication will now be forwarded to all Governments to assist them in
working with indicators in their decision-making processes. As feedback
and results from testing, analytical work are discussed, further
improvements in the indicators and methodology sheets will be
implemented. This includes in the longer run, additional work on
interlinkages, highly aggregated indicators and the conceptual framework
and compilation of environmental indicators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodology Sheets
Indicators for Environmental Aspects of
Sustainable Development
Table of Contents
Page
Water
Chapter 18: Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater
resources 213
- Annual withdrawals of ground and surface water 213
- Domestic consumption of water per capita 216
- Groundwater reserves 219
- Concentration of faecal coliform in freshwater 220
- Biochemical oxygen demand in water bodies 224
- Waste-water treatment coverage 227
- Density of hydrological networks 230
Chapter 17: Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas and
coastal areas 233
- Population growth in coastal areas 233
- Discharges of oil into coastal waters 234
- Releases of nitrogen and phosphorus to coastal waters 235
- Maximum sustained yield for fisheries 238
- Algae index 244
Land
Chapter 10: Integrated approach to the planning and management
of land resources 245
- Land use change 245
- Changes in land condition 248
- Decentralized local-level natural resource management 251
Chapter 12: Managing fragile ecosystems: combating
desertification and drought 255
- Population living below poverty line in dryland areas 255
- National monthly rainfall index 258
- Satellite derived vegetation index 260
- Land affected by desertification 263
Chapter 13: Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain
development 269
- Population change in mountain areas 269
- Sustainable use of natural resources in mountain areas 272
- Welfare of mountain populations 277
Chapter 14: Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural
development 280
- Use of agricultural pesticides 280
- Use of fertilizers 283
- Irrigation percent of arable land 285
- Energy use in agriculture 288
- Arable land per capita 291
- Area affected by salinization and waterlogging 293
- Agricultural education 296
Other natural resources
Chapter 11: Combating deforestation 298
- Wood harvesting intensity 298
- Forest area change 301
- Managed forest area ratio 305
- Protected forest area as a percent of total
forest area 308
Chapter 15: Conservation of biological diversity 311
- Threatened species as a percent of total native
species 311
- Protected area as a percent of total area 315
Chapter 16: Environmentally sound management of biotechnology 318
- R & D expenditure for biotechnology 318
- Existence of national biosafety regulations or
guidelines 320
Atmosphere
Chapter 9: Protection of the atmosphere 323
- Emissions of greenhouse gasses 323
- Emissions of sulphur oxides 326
- Emissions on nitrogen oxides 330
- Consumption of ozone depleting substances 334
- Ambient concentrations of pollutants in urban areas 338
- Expenditure on air pollution abatement 346
Waste
Chapter 21: Environmentally sound management of solid wastes
and sewage-related issues 349
- Generation of industrial and municipal solid waste 349
- Household waste disposed per capita 352
- Expenditure on waste management 355
- Waste recycling and reuse 358
- Municipal waste disposal 361
Chapter 19: Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals 364
- Chemically induced acute poisonings 364
- Number of chemicals banned or severely restricted 365
Chapter 20: Environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes 366
- Generation of hazardous wastes 366
- Imports and exports of hazardous wastes 370
- Area of land contaminated by hazardous wastes 375
- Expenditure on hazardous waste treatment 378
Chapter 22: Safe and environmentally sound management of
radioactive wastes 382
- Generation of radioactive wastes 382
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNUAL WITHDRAWALS OF GROUND AND SURFACE WATER
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a)Name: Annual withdrawals of ground and surface water as of a percent of
available water.
(b)Brief Definition: The total annual gross volume of ground and surface
water extracted for water uses, including conveyance losses, consumptive uses
and return flows, as a percentage of the total average annually available
volume of freshwater.
(c)Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the
Development, Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to show the degree to which
available water resources are being exploited to meet the country's water
demands. It is an important measure of a country's vulnerability to water
shortages.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The indicator
can show to what extent freshwater resources are already used, and the need
for adjusted supply and demand management policy. It can reflect the extent of
water resource scarcity with increasing competition and conflict between
different water uses and users. Limited availability of water could have
negative effects on sustainability constraining economic and regional
development, and leading to loss of biodiversity with degradation of
freshwater ecological systems. Sustainability assessment of changes in the
indicator is linked to water availability. The indicator's variation between
countries as well as in time is a function of climate, population, and
economic development, as well as the economic and institutional capacity to
manage water resources and demand.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator's interpretation would
benefit from linkage with established water vulnerability indicators, such as
available freshwater resources per capita, measures of the country's economy,
such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and poverty incidence as an indicator of
equity of access. The indicator also needs to be matched with population,
social and economic indicators, irrigation as % of arable land, and drought
frequency. Interpretation will benefit from linking this indicator with
groundwater reserves and unused buffer water resources.
(d) Targets: No international target exists other than those set by
international treaties between countries.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: For international water
law, see reference in section 7 below. International water sharing agreements
also exist between many countries.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: A major problem is to define
available water and to differentiate between groundwater and surface water.
The only approach which respects the physical integrity of the water resources
is to consider where it is produced internally, that is from precipitation
inside the boundaries of the country/area. Internal renewable water resources
does not account for water generated in neighbouring countries nor does it
make the distinction between groundwater and surface water. This approach
brings a number of limitations which are described below.
(b) Measurement Methods: The indicator measures total water
abstractions divided by available water.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator is a reflection of
socioeconomic factors, such as population growth and economic development.
The expansion of irrigated lands can have a large impact on water demand.
Thus, the indicator represents a Driving Force within the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: This indicator has several important
limitations, most of them related to the computation of available water.
Accurate and complete data are scarce. Countries may be able to use important
non-renewable fossil groundwater at a sustainable rate. Available waters are
internal from endogenous precipitation or shared and external from outside the
country.
Except in a few cases, no consideration is given to recycling or the possible
double counting of shared water resources. Available waters can be enhanced
through water resources development (flow-regulating reservoirs, inter-basin
transfers, groundwater development etc.) and policy measures (allocation and
pricing), and need to be judged by economic and environmental considerations
and institutional capacity. Return flows and percolation losses which could
enhance available waters are not considered. Local sub-national variation of
water availability and water use abstractions could be considerable, and this
indicator does not reflect the local or individual watershed situation.
Seasonal variation in water availability is not reflected. There is no
consideration of distribution among uses and policy options for mitigating
scarcity, for example, re-allocation from agricultural to other uses.
Available water does not consider water quality and its suitability for use.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The indicator could consider withdrawals
and available waters at different levels of use efficiency and economic and
environmental water costs and values. The data for such calculations, however,
are not readily available. For some countries, calculation of the indicator at
sub-national levels would be more appropriate. The indicator could be
disaggregated to show available water, withdrawals, and irrigation use.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Annual water withdrawals
divided with average annual available water. Current water uses need to be
known.
(b) Data Availability: Data is available for most countries, at the
national level. Data quality is a problem in AQUASTAT (see 5c below) as the
data are estimated by countries at various periods, are often repeatedly
developed from the same original sources, are often interpolated and national
data on withdrawals and available water are sometimes biased and intentionally
over- or underestimated.
(c) Data Sources: Recent data are available at the country level and
recorded at the international level by the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) in AQUASTAT (1994/1995).
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
The contact point is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development
Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
7. Further Information
Mar del Plata 1977, Dublin ICDE 1992. International Water Law. Helsinki Rules
on Use of Waters of International Rivers 1966 and Seoul Rules, International
Groundwaters 1986.
Shiklomanov. Global Water Resources. 1990.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION OF WATER PER CAPITA
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Domestic consumption of water per capita.
(b) Brief Definition: Domestic consumption of water per capita is the
amount of water consumed per person for the purposes of ingestion, hygiene,
cooking, washing of utensils and other household purposes including garden
uses. Where it is customary for domestic animals to be kept at or in the
living environ their needs are also included in the assessment.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Litres per capita per day.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development,
Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The indicator assesses the quantity of water needed and/or
available to individuals in particular communities for their basic needs. It
helps to identify communities where these basic requirements are not being met
enabling actions to be planned and priorities for water supply development to
be set.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Adequate
quantities of water for meeting basic human needs are a prerequisite for
existence, health, and development. If development is to be sustained,
adequate quantity of water must be available. In fact, as development
increases, in most instances, the demand for water will also increase on a per
capita basis for personal, commercial, and agricultural purposes. Thus, the
indicator can be used as a useful indirect indicator of the level of social
and economic development.
If sustained development is achieved without, or with a limited increase in
per capita water consumption it can be a direct indicator of effective water
resource management. There is also a direct relationship between per capita
water consumption and water availability/scarcity and pricing. Domestic water
consumption is also closely linked to climatic conditions and water
availability. Clearly in arid and semi-arid areas where water supplies are
limited, consumption is constrained.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked with
several other socioeconomic and environmental indicators, such as population
growth rate, population density, rate of growth of urban population, land use
change, annual withdrawals of ground and surface water, and irrigation percent
of arable land.
(d) Targets: Agenda 21 established a target of access to at least 40
litres per capita per day of safe water in urban areas by the year 2000
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The United Nations Water
Conference recommended that Governments reaffirm their commitment made at
Habitat to "adopt programmes with realistic standards for quality and quantity
to provide water for urban and rural areas~. The goal of universal coverage
was reiterated at the World Summit for Children in 1990. See also Agenda 21,
section 3d above.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Domestic water consumption
although normally present in terms of litres per capita per day is a computed
figure since the parameter is household water consumption. Household water
consumption can be measured by meters connected to a water distribution
network or through a survey of the number of journeys per day made to a
standpost or water point.
(b) Measurement Methods: Per capita water consumption can be measured (or
estimated) through metered supply, local surveys, sample surveys or total
amount supplied to a community divided by number of inhabitants.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator measures water
consumption per capita. As such, it is a Driving Force in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Per capita water consumption provides
only one part of the picture with regard to water supply. To assess the
overall status of water supply provided to an individual, it is necessary to
combine consumption data with complementary information on the quality of the
water provided, the type of system used to deliver the supply, the distance to
be travelled to collect water, number of people per households per water
point, etc.
(e) Alternative Definitions: For domestic use, this indicator can be
replaced with household consumption per day. However, this is a more limited
measure of water consumption.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Record of water authorities~
meter readings and the results of household, sample and other surveys and
research projects, as well as information from project designs.
(b) Data Availability: Data is not normally available on a routine basis
but the World Health Organization (WHO) has been obtaining estimates of
national average figures from governments as part of its water supply and
sanitation monitoring activities.
(c) Data Sources: The data is available from national water authorities
and water supply utilities, field project evaluation reports, and records of
water supply development organizations.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Health Organization (WHO).
The contact point is the Director, Division of Operational Support in
Environmental Health, WHO; fax no. (41 22) 791 4159.
(b) Other Organizations: Other relevant organizations include: the
United Nations Children~s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Centre for
Human Settlements (HABITAT).
7. Further Information
The International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade, End of Decade
Review (as at December 1990). WHO, Geneva, WHO/CWS/92.12.
Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Monitoring Report 1993. Sector Status as
of 31 December 1991. WHO/UNICEF.
LEAD AGENCY: WHO
GROUNDWATER RESERVES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Groundwater reserves.
(b) Brief Definition:
(c) Unit of Measurement:
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development,
Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
(Indicator under development)
LEAD AGENCY: DDSMS
CONCENTRATION OF FAECAL COLIFORMS IN FRESHWATER
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Concentration of faecal coliforms in freshwater bodies.
(b) Brief Definition: The proportion of freshwater resources containing
concentrations of faecal coliforms which exceed the levels recommended in the
World Health Organization (WHO) Drinking Water Guidelines.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development,
Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The indicator assesses the quality of water available to
communities for basic needs. It identifies communities where faecal
contamination of water at source or in the supply is posing a threat to
health.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The concentration
of faecal coliforms in freshwater bodies is an indirect indicator of
contamination with human and animal excreta. Water contaminated with faecal
coliforms poses a serious health risk and is therefore unsuitable for potable
supply without being disinfected (chlorination). Faecal indicator organisms
remain the most sensitive and specific way of assessing the hygienic quality
of water. Escherichia coli (E. coli), the thermotolerant and other coliform
bacteria, the faecal streptococci and spores of sulphite-reducing clostridia,
are common indicators of this type used, with E. coli being the most specific
of all indicators. This measure indicates situations where treatment is
required or has to be improved to guarantee safety of supply. As population
density increases and/or more people are provided from a supply system, the
more critical safe, potable water becomes.
Diarrhoeal diseases, largely the consequence of faecal contamination of
drinking water supply, are variously estimated to be responsible for around
80% of morbidity/mortality in developing countries. A prerequisite for
development is a healthy community. Ill health not only reduces the work
capability of community members but frequent diarrhoeal episodes disrupt
children~s education which, in the longer term, can have serious consequences
for sustainable development.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is closely linked with
several others in the environmental and socioeconomic (health) categories,
including annual water withdrawals, domestic consumption of water per capita,
biochemical oxygen demand in water bodies, waste water treatment coverage, and
percent of population with adequate excreta disposal facilities.
(d) Targets: The standards are available in the WHO Drinking Water
Guidelines. These have been adopted by most countries.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The United Nations Water
Conference recommended governments reaffirm the commitment made at Habitat to
adopt programmes with realistic standards for water quantity to provide
sanitation for urban and rural areas. The goal of universal coverage was
reiterated at the World Summit for Children in 1990.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Ideal faecal indicator
characteristics are difficult to find in any one organism. However, many
useful characteristics are found in E.coli and, to a lesser extent, in the
thermotolerant coliform bacteria. For this reason E. coli tends to be the
preferred/recommended faecal contamination indicator. Faecal streptococci
satisfy some of the criteria and tend to be used as supplementary indicators
of faecal pollution indicating human and animal faeces.
(b) Measurement Methods: Microbiological examination provides the most
sensitive, although not the most rapid, indication of pollution by faecal
matter. Because the growth medium and the conditions of incubation, as well
as the nature and age of the water sample, can influence microbiological
analysis, accuracy of results may be variable. This means that the
standardization of methods and laboratory procedures are extremely important.
Established standard methods are available through the International
Organization of Standardization (ISO), American Public Health Association
(APHA), the UK Department of Health and Social Security, and the Guidelines
for Drinking-Water Quality (WHO).
Determination of sample size is the first important step in the examination.
The source of the sample will determine in the first instance the
concentration of organisms. Under normal conditions, the volume of sample for
a lake or reservoir sample would be 100 ml., while in the case of raw
municipal sewage only 0.001 ml. would be required. Larger samples would
result in too large a number of organism to make counting possible. Time-of-
travel may often be of relevance and changes in the bacterial characteristics
of samples can be reduced to a minimum by ensuring the samples are not exposed
to light and are kept preferably between 4 and 10 degrees C. Such precautions
are particularly important in tropical climates where ambient temperatures are
high and sunlight (ultra-violet radiation) is brightest.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator shows the level of
health risk for the community utilizing the source of water for potable and
hygienic purposes. It represents a State indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Concentration of E. coli in a water
sample provides only one part of the picture with regard to water quality. To
assess the overall status of water at source and supplied for potable and
other uses, it is necessary to combine the information of this indicator with
complementary data on physical and chemical quality. E. coli is an indicator
but not a pathogen by itself.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The indicator could be shown as the
proportion of the population using water source for domestic water supply that
do not meet the standards. The microbiological quality of water in relation to
faecal contamination can be defined in terms of Escherichia coli,
thermotolerant coliform bacteria, total coliform organisms, faecal
streptococci, sulphite-reducing clostridia/ coliphages and bifidobacteria.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Records of water authorities~
laboratories, hydrogeological institutes, universities, municipal public
health laboratories, research institutes, and special studies which show the
level of E. coli.
(b) Data Availability: Data are normally available from municipal water
supply authorities on a routine basis. Ministries of health in many countries
often check on the bacterial quality of new sources when they are being
considered for supply purposes.
(c) Data Sources: The data are available from national water authorities
and water supply utilities, ministries of health, and research institutes.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Health Organization (WHO).
The contact point is the Director, Division of Operational Support in
Environmental Health, WHO; fax no. (41 22) 730 6449.
(b) Other Organizations: Other organizations contributing to the
development of this indicator include: the Water and Environmental Sanitation
Section, United Nations Children~s Fund (UNICEF); United Nations Centre for
Human Settlements (HABITAT); and the Land and Water Division, Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO),
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
WHO. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. Second Edition, Volumes 1 and 3
Recommendations, WHO, Geneva, 1993.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. 17th Edition. 1989.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Detection and
Enumeration of the Spores of Sulphite-reducing Anaerobes (clostridia). Part 1:
Method by Enrichment in a Liquid Medium. ISO 646171.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Enumeration of
Viable Micro-organisms--Colony Count by Inoculation in or on a Nutrient Agar
Culture Medium. ISO 6222.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: General Guide
to the Enumeration of Micro-organisms by Culture. ISO 8199.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Detection and
Enumeration of Coliform Organisms, Thermotolerant Coliform Organisms and
Presumptive Escherichia coli, ISO 9308-2; Part 1 Membrane Filtration Method,
Part 2 Multiple Tube. ISO 9308-1.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Detection and
Enumeration of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa; Part 1 Method by Enrichment in Liquid
Medium, Part 2 Membrane Filtration Method. ISO 8360-2.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Detection and
Enumeration of Faecal Streptococci; Part 1 Method by Enrichment in a Liquid
Medium, Part 2 Method by Membrane Filtration. ISO 7899/2.
LEAD AGENCY: WHO
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND IN WATER BODIES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in water bodies.
(b) Brief Definition: BOD measures the amount of oxygen required or
consumed for the microbiological decomposition (oxidation) of organic material
in water.
(c) Unit of Measurement: mg/l of oxygen consumed in 5 days at a constant
temperature of 20 degrees C.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development,
Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to assess the quality of
water available to consumers in localities or communities for basic and
commercial needs.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Sustainable
development is heavily dependant on suitable water availability for a variety
of uses ranging from domestic to industrial supplies. Strict water quality
standards have been established to protect users from health and other adverse
consequences of poor water quality. The presence of BOD as an indicator of
faecal contamination can restrict water use and development or necessitate
expensive treatment. Ill health due to water quality problems can reduce work
capability and affect children's growth and education. It is, therefore,
important to monitor organic pollution to identify areas posing a threat to
health, to identify sources of contamination, to ensure adequate treatment,
and provide information for decision making to enhance water sustainability.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: Several indicators are directly linked
to the concentration of organic material in freshwater. These measures
include annual withdrawals of ground and surface water, domestic consumption
of water per capita, concentration of faecal coliforms in freshwater, percent
of population with adequate excreta disposal facilities, access to safe water,
infant mortality rate, nutritional status of children, environmental
protection expenditures as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, and
expenditure on waste collection and treatment.
(d) Targets: Not available.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The Resolution II and Plan
of the United Nations Water Conference recommended governments reaffirm the
commitment made at Habitat to "adopt programmes with realistic standards for
quality and quantity to provide water for rural and urban areas". The goal of
universal safe water coverage was reiterated at the World Summit for Children
in 1990.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: BOD is an empirical test to
provide a measure of the level of organic material in a body of water. The
test involves the incubation of a diluted sample for a period of five days at
a constant temperature of 20 degrees C. The sample is diluted to bring it
within the operational parameters of the test procedure. The test represents
a standard laboratory procedure usually referred to as the BOD5 test.
The procedure is used to estimate the relative oxygen requirements of waste
waters, effluents, and other polluted waters. Micro-organisms use the oxygen
in the water for biochemical oxidation of polluting matter, which is their
source of carbon.
(b) Measurement Methods: The method used consists of filling to
overflowing an airtight bottle of specified size with the water sample to be
tested. It is then incubated at a constant temperature for five days.
Dissolved oxygen is measured initially and after incubation. The BOD5 is then
computed from the difference between the initial and final readings of
dissolved oxygen.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator is a measure of
the State of water quality.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The main limitation of the indicator is
that it provides empirical and not absolute results. It gives a good
comparison among samples, but does not give an exact measure of the
concentration of any particular contaminant. It is important to follow
laboratory procedures precisely to obtain consistent results. The five-day
time-frame to obtain results represents the main operational drawback of the
indicator.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is an
alternative measure of the oxygen equivalent of the organic matter content of
a sample that is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical exigent. COD
can be empirically related to BOD5. After this correlation is determined for
a specific source, it is a useful measure obtained from an instantaneous
chemical test.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: BOD5 results from laboratories.
(b) Data Availability: Data is normally available from municipal waste
water treatment and discharge facilities on a routine basis.
(c) Data Sources: The data is available from the laboratories of water or
public health authorities, water research institutes, and universities. At
the national level, the data sources include national water authorities, water
supply utilities, ministries of health or environment, and research
institutions.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency responsible for the development of this
indicator is the World Health Organization (WHO). The contact point at WHO is
the Director, Division of Operational Support in Environmental Health; fax no.
(41 22) 791 4159.
(b) Other Organizations: Other agencies assisting in the development of
this indicator include the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF); United
Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat); and the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
7. Further Information
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. 17th Edition. 1989.
International Standards Organization. Water Quality--Determination of
Biochemical Oxygen Demand after Five Days (BOD5). ISO 5815. 1989.
International Standards Organization. Water Quality--Determination of the
Chemical Oxygen Demand. ISO 6060. 1989.
LEAD AGENCIES: WHO, UNEP
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Wastewater treatment coverage.
(b) Brief Definition: The treatment of wastewater can be defined as the
collection of waste- water from household, commercial, industrial or public
premises and its conveyance to a location where it receives treatment
sufficient to permit its discharge to the environment without adverse impact
on public health and the ecosystem.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %. Proportion of the wastewater generated by the
community receiving acceptable levels of treatment prior to discharge.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the
Development, Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator assesses the potential level of pollution
from domestic and industrial/commercial point sources entering the aquatic
environment, and monitors progress towards reducing this potential within a
framework of integrated water resources management. It helps to identify
communities where wastewater treatment action is required to protect the
ecosystem.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: In many countries
the large proportion of wastewater is discharged to the environment with
little or no treatment. This is economically, socially, and environmentally
unsustainable, especially recognizing the increasing demands on finite water
resources, rapidly expanding populations particularly in urban areas,
industrial expansion, and the need to expand irrigated agriculture. Low water
quality reduces the availability of water resources for specific uses, in
particular domestic needs; and has adverse implications for public health.
Wastewater treatment, therefore, is central to the requirements for
sustainability. The situation is particularly serious in developing countries
where financial resources for pollution control are scarce.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator has important linkages
to other socioeconomic and environmental indicators, such as annual
withdrawals of ground and surface water, the levels of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) in water resources, concentration of faecal coliforms, population
growth, informal settlements, infrastructure expenditure, and generation of
waste.
(d) Targets: Agenda 21 recommends that quantitative and qualitative
discharge standards for municipal and industrial effluents are established and
applied by the year 2000.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The United Nations Water
Conference recommended governments reaffirm the commitment made at Habitat to
adopt programmes with realistic standards for water quantity to provide
sanitation for urban and rural areas. The goal of universal coverage was
reiterated at the World Summit for Children in 1990.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The proportion of wastewater
treated is the percentage of water consumed and returned to the environment
according to criteria and standards that ensure that it does not impact on the
aquatic environment to the detriment of sustainable development. Within this
context, treatment can comprise a wide range of processes including simple
screening, sedimentation, biological-chemical processes, or appropriately
designed marine discharge.
(b) Measurement Methods: The proportion of domestic waste (sewage)
treated in urban areas can be determined on the basis of the quantity of water
consumed by households as compared to the capacity of wastewater treatment
facilities. It can also be estimated on the basis of areas of a community
connected to the sewerage system and the population inhabiting these
localities.
In the case of industrial waste a similar approach can be taken for those
installations which are connected to a central sewerage system, using water
consumption and allowing for the differentiation between process and cooling
waters. In many cases, industrial establishments, either discharging their
effluents direct or through the public sewerage system, have their own
treatment facilities.
As far as the efficacy of treatment is concerned, this can only be determined
from the performance information for each waste treatment plant judged against
established discharge criteria.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator reflects a
societal Response towards the treatment of waste and the protection of human
health and ecosystems.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The main limitation of this indicator
is the effort required to collect and collate the information. This can be
avoided at least to some extent, through the use of estimates. This
indicator provides information on the degree of treatment. It does not,
however, deal with the level of treatment required to meet the requirements of
specific ecosystems.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The proportion of wastewater treated can be
converted into a quantity of wastewater. These loadings can be defined in
terms of a weekly, monthly, or annual burden by catchment, water source, or
other boundary. For some countries, it may be practical and useful to keep
household, and commercial and industrial wastes separate.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The data required include
records of water authorities' meter readings; data on the capacity service
area; and performance of waste treatment facilities; information on industrial
processes and trade-waste treatment plants; information from wastewater
laboratories; and number of house connections to the sewerage system.
(b) Data Availability: Data is often not available, or is incomplete.
Without surveys of individual industrial establishments or environmental
impact assessments associated with new industrial developments, data will
remain partial or, at best professional estimates.
(c) Data Sources: The data are available from national water authorities
and water supply utilities, river basin/catchment authorities, municipal
authorities, industry and field project evaluation reports.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Health Organization (WHO).
The contact point is the Director, Division of Operational Support in
Environmental Health, WHO; fax no. (41 22) 791 4159.
(b) Other Organizations: Other contributing organizations include the
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) and the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP).
7. Further Information
The World Bank. Development and the Environment: World Development Indicators.
World Development Report 1992.
LEAD AGENCY: WHO
DENSITY OF HYDROLOGICAL NETWORKS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Density of hydrological networks.
(b) Brief Definition: Density of hydrological networks is defined as the
average area served by one hydrological station. It is derived by dividing
the area of the territory by the number of hydrological stations operated
within this territory.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Area in km2 per station.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development,
Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: To assess the adequacy of existing hydrological networks to
provide the necessary information on freshwater in the context of freshwater
assessment. The density should be sufficient to avoid deficiencies in
assessing, developing, and managing water resources.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Adequate
hydrological networks to provide data on freshwater are important to support
sustainable development. Hydrological observations from appropriate spatial
and temporal coverage, provide information to decision makers to facilitate
informed, preventative action. These early warnings are essential where
sustainable development is threatened.
Before considering forecast and response strategies, it is important to know
how much water and of what quality is available. The basic hydrological
network should therefore provide a level of hydrological information that
would preclude gross mistakes in decision making related to freshwater.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to
most of the other freshwater resource indicators, including groundwater
reserves; BOD and COD in freshwater bodies; concentration of coliforms in
freshwater bodies; annual withdrawals of groundwater; and surface water as a
percent of available water.
(d) Targets: The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) offers guidance
on the minimum density of international hydrological networks for various
hydrological variables and conventions or for different physiographic,
climatic and geographic zones.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: See section 3d above.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The density of hydrological
networks is measured as the average area for one hydrological station. The
territory in question may be divided according to its physiographic and/or
climatic features. The density is understood as a set of values representing
densities of stations monitoring different hydrological variables; such as,
precipitation, streamflow, groundwater, sediment load, water quality (for
surface water, groundwater and sediment), and evaporation.
The network is understood here to comprise a series of sub-networks each
composed of gauges and stations within the territory which are collecting data
on a different hydrological variable. The territory itself might be an
administrative unit such as a country, state, or province, or a physical
entity such as a river basin.
(b) Measurement Methods: Calculated on the basis of lists and maps of
observation stations.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The density of hydrological
networks indicates a government policy Response to the need to monitor
hydrological variables for assessing, developing and managing freshwater
resources.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The minimum recommended density is not
uniform either worldwide or for all hydrological variables. Its value may
indeed depend on such factors as the economic development of the country,
population density, climate, or geographic zone.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The scope of this indicator could be
broadened to take into account other monitoring networks, such as air quality,
land use change, etc. It would then become an indicator of environmental
monitoring and observation. In such a case, it would probably best fit as an
institutional response indicator.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Number of stations where the
variables of concern have been observed, and their location.
(b) Data Availability: Data of this type have been analyzed within the
framework of the INFOHYDRO and Basic Network Assessment Projects (BNAP) of
WMO.
(c) Data Sources: The principle data sources are national hydrological or
hydrometeorological agencies, and other data collecting organizations. The
WMO Secretariat has compiled a set of such data.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is the World Meteorological organization (WMO). The contact
point is the Director, Hydrology and Water Resources Department, WMO; fax no.
(41 22) 734 2326.
7. Further Information
WMO. Guide to Hydrological Practices. Fifth Edition, WMO-No. 168, Chapter
20, 1994.
WMO. INFOHYDRO Manual. WMO-No. 683, 1987 (Second edition in press).
LEAD AGENCY: WMO
POPULATION GROWTH IN COASTAL AREAS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Population growth in coastal areas.
(b) Brief Definition:
(c) Unit of Measurement:
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 17: Protection of the Oceans, all Kinds of Seas,
including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the
Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
(Indicator under development)
LEAD AGENCY: UNEP
DISCHARGES OF OIL INTO COASTAL WATERS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Discharges of oil into coastal waters.
(b) Brief Definition: Estimates of oil entering the coastal marine
environment from land-based activities, maritime transportation, offshore
exploration and exploitation, through the atmosphere, as well as natural
seepages.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Metric tons.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 17: Protection of the Oceans, all Kinds of Seas,
including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the
Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
(Indicator under development)
LEAD AGENCIES: FAO, IMO
RELEASES OF NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS TO COASTAL WATERS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Releases of nitrogen and phosphorus to coastal waters.
(b) Brief Definition: Average annual load of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus
(P) from land sources discharged into coastal waters.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Tons per year, reported separately for N and P,
for a given watershed area, and when possible aggregated on a national basis.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 17: Protection of the Oceans, all Kinds of Seas,
including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the
Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator represents the potential for impacts of
nutrient releases into enclosed or semi-enclosed marine environments.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: This indicator
reflects the negative externalities of fertilizer use, as well as domestic and
industrial discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus. It is an indication of
inadequate sanitation and/or wastewater treatment facilities, or pollution
control. Nutrient enrichment of coastal waters may have consequences to
important economic and environmental goods and services, for example, tourism
and recreation, maintenance of the fishery potential, and decline or
preservation of estuarine and marine biodiversity. The importance of normal to
lightly enriched freshwater discharge, if free of associated chemical
contaminants, to fisheries production, is however only now being fully
recognized.
Such impacts are likely to be negative if uncontrolled, and if close to the
point of discharge. For example, water quality deterioration, eutrophication
(with consequent decreased light penetration and reduced dissolved oxygen
levels), and degradation of fishery resources (especially demersal and benthic
species). Low to moderate releases may enhance fishery production, given that
natural levels of discharges from rivers sustain marine production at moderate
to high levels in estuarine and coastal waters.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is linked to many other
socioeconomic, environmental, and institutional indicators including: use of
fertilizers, land use and condition change, quality of freshwater resources,
environmental protection expenditures, population growth in coastal areas, and
participation in maritime agreements.
(d) Targets: Not available.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following conventions
and agreements apply to this indicator: Helsinki Commission on the Baltic,
1982, 1992; Black Sea Convention on the Environment, 1994; Sofia Convention
(Danube), 1994; European Economic Community (EEC) directives on nutrients to
water bodies; EEC Convention on Transboundary Pollution, 1983.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Concepts are available. The
indicator needs to be specific to a watershed and a receiving water body whose
degree of mixing/water retention is important to determine effects. Further
chemical specification of the nutrients is needed. While the contribution of
same-size fluxes of ammonium-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen would be similar in
regard to eutrophication (provided nitrogen is the limiting nutrient), their
impacts to the receiving water body will be quite different.
(b) Measurement Methods: The methodology is not yet ready for immediate
application in many areas. The indicator needs to be measured using the mass
balance principle through a technique called Regional Mass Flux Budgeting.
First, system boundaries need to be established using the watershed, or
drainage basin, as its horizontal extension. Vertical boundaries in the
atmosphere and ground need to be selected. Within those boundaries, the
processes or activities relevant to the nutrient mass cycle (input-output) are
determined. A time period of one year is usually selected for nutrient
balances. Balances can be established only for total elements (total-N or
total-P) or specific compounds. Additional information is needed to determine
impacts.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator relates to marine
pollution. It is a Driving Force indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Effects will depend on assimilative
capacity of water body (according to biophysical conditions). The indicator
does not reflect the cumulative impact upon the water body. No indication is
given as to the proportional contribution of different sources (including
atmospheric deposition), or the prevalent paths of nutrients to coastal
waters, unless broader information included in the preparation of the regional
mass balance is available. In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish
between anthropogenic nutrient loading and environmental conditions.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Releases of N and P by sources (agricultural,
domestic, industrial) would indicate major contributions and guide policy
action. Ratio of N/P releases would indicate which nutrient is the limiting
factor for eutrophication. It would be appropriate for some countries which
only border on one sea, to select either N or P as the indicator, depending on
which is of primary influence.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Regional mass balances for
nitrogen and phosphorus.
(b) Data Availability: Very little data are available. Some input data on
fertilizers and source-point measurements are available for specific areas.
(c) Data Sources: Principle data sources include: River and regional
commissions and in Europe and North America; and studies on specific water
bodies, for example the Mediterranean, Baltic, and Black Sea.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
The contact point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development
Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
7. Further Information
Baccini, P. and B.H. Brunner. Metabolism of the Anthroposphere (ISBN: 3-540-
53778-3). 1991.
Isserman, K. Share of Agriculture in Nitrogen and Phosphorus into the Surface
Waters of Western Europe against the Background of their Eutrophication.
Fertilizer Research, 253-269, 1990.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED YIELD FOR FISHERIES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: This indicator can be: (i) the ratio between maximum sustained
yield (MSY) abundance and actual average abundance; or (ii) the deviation in
stock of marine species from the MSY level.
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator is an expression of the state of
fishery resource exploitation to its sustainable size.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 17: Protection of the Ocean, all Kinds of Seas,
including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the
Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator expresses the state of the fishery resource
and/or its level of exploitation, in relation to either the MSY, or to virgin
stock size. If spawning stock size is available, it has the further refinement
of providing some indication of reproductive capacity of the resource.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: If a resource
biomass is at or below that believed to apply under MSY conditions, or if the
fishing effort or fishing mortality is at or above that believed to apply
under the same conditions, there must be serious concern that the resource may
currently be overexploited. This is not only because MSY conditions imply a
level of fishing effort that is in excess of economically optimal harvesting,
and has other biological impacts on target and associated species, but because
the precision with which the underlying quantities used in these indices are
measured is relatively low. Estimates of population biomass or cohort size,
even in developed country fisheries, rarely are more precise than + or - 20%.
Such a low precision presents a significant risk that fishing may be more
intensive than is apparently measured by the indices, and that sustainable
development options are possibly being compromised. Other more conservative
and sophisticated indicators may be appropriate in particular circumstances
(see United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] reference in
section 7 below).
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to the
other measures proposed for marine resources in Agenda 21. In a more general
sense, it is also linked to socioeconomic indicators, such as population
growth rate.
(d) Targets: The concept of using benchmarks and reference points as
targets has been partly abandoned in recent fisheries conventions (see section
3e below). Given the great uncertainty with the stock size and condition of
sea stocks, especially marine open stocks, two types of management bench marks
are now proposed (See FAO reference in section 7 below). These are Target
Reference Points (TRPs) focusing on the classical objectives of fisheries
management; and Limit Reference Points (LRPs) which represent upper limits to
the rate of fishing or fishing effort level (or lower limits to the population
biomass or spawning biomass) that should not be passed. It is specified in the
Conventions below that when LRPs are approached, action should be taken to
ensure they are not exceeded.
With respect to national policy for exclusively national stocks, TRPs and LRPs
should be estimated using the best scientific information available, and a
precautionary approach applied where such information is inadequate. In the
case of straddling, highly migratory, or transboundary stocks, such reference
points and a joint exploitation strategy should be developed with other states
sharing the same stock.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The Draft Agreement for
the Implementation of the Provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Doc A/CONF 164/33),
particularly Annex II, and of course the 1982 Convention itself, are of
immediate relevance. The other significant draft agreement is the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which applies to all fisheries in marine
and freshwater, and whose Article 6 also recommends the use of LRPs and TRPs.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The measures used to provide
the ratio indicators for MSY are well known, and described in a number of
texts on fisheries assessment and population dynamics. The approach is based
on the application of general production models.
It is felt that only one indicator based on Maximum Sustainable Yield is not
the best way to measure the state of resource exploitation. Under these
circumstances, a more empirical approach to developing indicators may be
appropriate for a particular fishery; or a customized indicator may be
developed from those given in the FAO reference listed in section 7 below
which reflects the particular methodologies used for assessment of the
resource in question. The MSY indicator is obtained by fitting the
relationship between yield and fishing effort for a historical series of catch
and effort data by a production model, but roughly equivalent indicators can
be obtained from size or age based methods of analysis.
Fishing at the MSY level is now seen to be excessive, and determining MSY
where it is not yet known, involves overfishing, which is obviously
undesirable. Unfortunately, none of a number of alternative benchmarks for
lower rates of fishing, such as described in the FAO report listed in section
7 below are widely accepted, so no obvious single alternative benchmark
emerges. For many global fish stocks, MSY levels have not yet been
determined.
Where MSY estimates are available, it should of course be possible to
determine whether the fishing effort level corresponding to MSY (f[MSY]), or
the corresponding fishing mortality rate (F[MSY]), is currently being exceeded
or not. Depending on the fisheries management methodology used in a country,
it may be possible, as an alternative, to say if the current biomass or
spawning biomass of a particular stock has fallen below that corresponding to
MSY (B[MSY]).
An alternative indicator that is commonly used to measure the state of the
marine fisheries resources, and could be used instead of MSY-related
indicators where these do not exist, is to specify what is the current
biomass, or spawning biomass, as a percentage of the virgin biomass B[O],
determined by surveys or other estimates of unexploited stock size, before the
fishery had been established.
In summary, four alternative indicators are proposed:
(i) Ratio of current effort to that at MSY: (f[NOW]/f[MSY]);
(ii) Ratio of current fishing mortality rate to that at MSY:
(F[NOW]/F[MSY]);
(iii) Ratio of current population biomass (or spawning biomass) to
that at MSY: (B[MSY]/B[MSY]);
(iv) Current biomass to that under virgin conditions, that is, before
fishing began: (B[NOW]/B[0]).
The above indicators are given as ratios, they are pure numbers, as are the
instantaneous rates of fishing mortality. It is generally possible to cross-
reference these indicators under specific assumptions, so that the apparent
diversity of indices simply provides a choice that allows for the different
information sources available under different fishery management regimes. In
all cases, the indicator could be expressed in terms of the ratio and the
component numerical values being divided.
(b) Measurement Methods: The measurement methods for each of the
alternative indicators are described below:
i) f[NOW]/f[MSY]: The current effort level given in standard units
adjusted for changes in fleet fishing power over time, is expressed as a ratio
or percentage of the effort level under MSY conditions, where these prevailed
and were estimated in the past.
ii) F[NOW]/F[MSY]: An instantaneous rate of fishing mortality F, is
defined by the ratio of the natural logarithm of numbers for fully exploited
cohorts now in the fishery at the beginning N(t), and end N(t+1) of the year,
allowing for the instantaneous rate of mortality due to natural causes, M:F =
[ln N(t) - ln N(t+1)] - M. This is calculated for the most recent year,
[F(NOW)] and for the period when MSY conditions were believed to have applied,
and the ratio taken.
iii) B[MSY]/B[MSY]: The biomass (or spawning biomass of mature animals) is
determined for the most current year (for example, by trawl surveys) and
compared with that level of biomass (or spawning biomass) when MSY conditions
were believed to have applied.
iv) B[NOW]/B[0]: The biomass (or specific spawning biomass of mature
animals) is determined for the most current year (for example, by trawl
surveys) and compared with the level of biomass (or spawning biomass) before
commercial exploitation began. Under a commonly-used population model, the
logistic, MSY conditions occur when the stock size is reduced to 50% of the
virgin stock size: that is, when this indicator shows values of 0.5 or lower.
MSY and biomass are usually specified in tonnes (1000 kg), and fishing effort
either in standard number of days per year fished or total standard fleet
horsepower (see Gulland reference in section 7 below).
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator provides a measure
of the State of the fisheries resource resulting from the pressure of human
activities.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The major defect of the MSY concept,
and of these indicators, is that MSY is determined by fitting an empirical
"control curve" of catch on exploitation intensity or effort. This does not
always fully reflect processes of birth and death, effects of exploitation on
non-target species, or inter-species interactions, nor does it reflect changes
in methodology of fishing. To improve management, it is important that
countries collect ancillary data (for example, on size and age composition of
catches and populations) that can be used to produce more refined indicators
of value for the management of the resource, as their research funds and
skilled manpower allow.
For many countries, suitable data to calculate these indicators are scarce.
In addition, major deficiencies are characteristic of many available data
sets. For example, there are serious deficiencies in data series for annual
catch due to poor statistical design, lack of consideration of catches by
small scale fleets, or problems where the extent and nature of unit resources
have not been defined, or sharing taken into account. Not all national
statistical offices collect the required data. In such cases, research
institutes estimates are often developed from special research information
collected and analysed by one or several qualified scientists.
(e) Alternative Definitions: See sections 4a and 4b above.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data are required for annual
catch, fishing effort, fishing mortality rates, biomass estimates, and stock
size and age. Other supplementary data needs may be proposed, such as mean
size or age in the catch (which goes down with fishing pressure); the
percentage of mature fish in the catch, the overall instantaneous mortality
rate, and the proportion of long-lived fish in the catch (for a multispecies
fishery). These are of value to resource management, if they can be referred
to the exploitation rate by human harvesting, specified as the target and
limit conditions set as management reference points.
(b) Data Availability: Most countries collect data on annual catch. Not
many countries maintain data on fishing effort by national fleets; still fewer
standardize effort levels by different fleets and arrive at an annual total.
Unless size and age compositions are collected and/or estimated from properly
sampled catches in ports, fishing mortality rates will not be estimated, which
in any case requires a cadre of trained fisheries scientists working in an
equipped fisheries or marine science laboratory. Regular direct biomass
estimates will require regular fisheries surveys using standard vessels and
procedures with trained observers/fisheries biologists on board.
(c) Data Sources: National statistical offices often collect data on
catches, and fleet size, but often require assistance in distinguishing
species in the catch. At present, effort and mortality estimates, and other
biological information used to develop the indicators mentioned above, are
almost always performed by national marine resource institutes or
universities.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point
is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO;
fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The fisheries laboratories of the North Atlantic
countries, particularly the UK, Canada and USA, and International Fisheries
Commissions (notably the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the
International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (now defunct)) have
sponsored the earliest applications of these indicators. The work of the
International Center for living Aquatic resources Management (ICLARM), Manila
has been aimed at applying these concepts in tropical fisheries.
7. Further Information
Food and Agriculture Organization. Reference Points for Fishery Management.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 347. 1995.
Gulland, J.A. Fish Stock Assessment. Volume 1 FAO/Wiley Series on Food and
Agriculture. 1983.
Hilborn, R. and C.J. Walters. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment.
Routledge, Chapman and Hall Inc. 1992.
Also see issues of the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science over
the last decade for articles outlining recent developments in this field.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
ALGAE INDEX
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Algae index.
(b) Brief Definition: The Algae index could contain information of three
elements: the type of algae (phytoplankton) species present, the composition
of the algae species, and the amount of algae present in the water column.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Amount of algae per litre.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 17: Protection of the Oceans, all Kinds of Seas,
including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the
Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
(Indicator under development)
LEAD AGENCIES: FAO, UNESCO
LAND USE CHANGE
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Land use change.
(b) Brief Definition: Change with time of the distribution of land uses
within a country.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Proportion of change of each category of land
use to another land use per unit of time.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 10: Integrated Approach to the Planning and
Management of Land Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to highlight changes in
the productive or protective uses of the land resource to facilitate
sustainable land use planning and policy development.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Information on
land use change is critical for integrated and sustainable land use planning.
Such information is useful in identifying opportunities to protect land uses
or promote future allocation aimed at providing the greatest sustainable
benefits for people.
Changes in arable and permanent crop land and wooded areas give important
information about a country's endowment in agricultural and forest resources,
both from an economic and an environmental perspective. Economically, changes
in land use will, for example, result in changes in the volume of produce
available and influence employment opportunities. From an environmental point
of view, unsustainable land use is an important factor in erosion and
desertification, may pose a threat to ecosystems, and lead to natural habitat
loss and landscape changes. Changes which lead, for example, to inappropriate
farming and grazing practices, or to environmentally insensitive construction
or mining activities are significant from a sustainability viewpoint. This
indicator acts as a synoptic measure for the myriad of more specific
environmental and natural resource changes significant to sustainable
development.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The interpretation of this indicator is
significantly improved if it is considered with land quality. It is also
closely linked to many other social, economic, environmental, and
institutional indicators, such as those related to population (for example,
population growth rate, rate of growth of urban population, population
density, population dynamics in mountain areas), energy and mineral reserves,
land affected by desertification, sustainable use of natural resources in
mountain areas, arable land per capita, wood harvesting intensity, protected
areas as a percent of total land area, and sustainable development strategies.
(d) Targets: Generally, international targets for this indicator do not
exist. However, certain minimal contiguous limits or proportions of total
land area have been established for certain needed or desirable land uses, for
example protected areas (see Protected Area as a Percent of Total Area
indicator).
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The underlying concepts and
definitions for land use classifications are widespread. Work coordinated by
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is currently
underway to harmonize classification systems and databases to improve national
and international land use information. This includes the development of
definitions and protocols, computerized land use database structure, and
broadly accepted structure of land use classifications.
(b) Measurement Methods: Land use change data can be derived from
periodic mapping and monitoring, partly on the basis of land cover
information; from remote sensing, supported by ground truthing; and the use of
land use aspects from agricultural census. It is essential to use a uniform
classification of land use and cover. The FAO/United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) approach is recommended (see reference in section 7 below).
Land use and land cover database software is also available. Use of these
tools will lead to the production of uniform results and statistics.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: As land use change can result in
changes in land potential, or availability and quality of land resources, it
has the character of a Driving Force indicator. However, it can also be
regarded as a State indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator by itself does not
identify the causes or pressures leading to the change in land use. At the
international level, sufficient harmonization of land use classification has
yet to be achieved. Georeferenced land use change data are generally not
available.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The data required includes
updated statistics and remote sensing coverage, dependable agricultural census
data on land uses, and dependable land use maps, all updated at regular
intervals.
(b) Data Availability: Broad land use statistics are available for most
countries. However, variable definitions, and the lack of consistent land use
change data which is spatially referenced are serious impediments to, for
example, temporal analysis and international comparisons.
(c) Data Sources: Data are available from national governments and
regional and international programmes which focus on land use information.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point
is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO;
fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The United Nations Environment Programme is a
partner in the development of this indicator. National experts from
governments and institutes, for example the International Institute for
Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences and the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology,
have also contributed.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
United Nations Environment Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization.
Report of the UNEP/FAO Expert Meeting on Harmonizing Land Cover and Land Use
Classifications. Geneva November 23-25, 1993. GEMS Report Series No. 25.
Nairobi. March 1994.
Other documents are available and under development.
(b) Status of the Methodology:
A methodology has not been agreed to by any intergovernmental fora.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
CHANGES IN LAND CONDITIONS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Changes in land conditions.
(b) Brief Definition: Changes, disaggregated by type and geographic
location, in the condition, suitability, and nature of the land resource.
These may be of very different types including: physical soil condition;
diversity or density of vegetation cover; thickness of topsoil; alkaline
conditions; terracing; establishment of contour vegetation strips; etc.
(c) Unit of Measurement: The areal extent and magnitude of the selected
land condition changes, with improvement and deterioration reported
separately.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 10: Integrated Approach to the Planning and
Management of Land Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure changes in the
productive capacity, the environmental quality, and the sustainability of the
national land resource.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Changes in land
quality and suitability to support various land uses has obvious and
fundamental impacts on the sustainability of the land resource. Such changes
can be linked to anthropogenic or natural causes, and seriously affect human
wellbeing. Land degradation can limit the capacity of land and water
resources to support agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and human settlements.
In severe forms, it can lead to desertification. On the other hand, land
conservation measures, such as terracing, can lead to improvements in land
quality and productivity. Land condition changes, whether positive or
negative, are significant to human activities, for example affecting crop
yields; and ecosystem health including habitat quality and availability. This
indicator may be particularly relevant to countries if it is related to
priority national land quality issues, and used for early warning purposes to
promote preventative conservation measures.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The interpretation of this indicator
is strengthened if linked to land use change. It is also closely linked to
several other social, economic, environmental, and institutional indicators,
such as population growth rate, population density, Gross Domestic Product per
capita, land affected by desertification, area affected by salinization and
waterlogging, area of land contaminated by hazardous waste, and sustainable
development strategies.
(d) Targets: No international targets exist or apply. National or
sub-national targets for individual types of change, for example the
reclamation of salt-affected land or the restoration of land damaged by
erosion, may exist in certain countries.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: No formal conventions or
agreements exist, but three less formal documents support this indicator: i)
World Soil Charter, adopted by the United Nation Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) Conference 1981; ii) the International Scheme for the
Conservation and Rehabilitation of African Lands (ARC/90/4), adopted by the
Africa Regional Conference 1990; iii) The Den Bosch Declaration and Agenda for
Action on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, FAO and Government of
the Netherlands, 1991.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts and definitions of
land and soil degradation are available, for example, in the Global Assessment
of Soil Degradation (GLASOD) Study. The current work on the World Catalogue of
Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) by Berne University/Swiss
Development Cooperation, the World Association for Soil and Water
Conservation, and FAO will provide concepts and information on the extent of
different types of land conservation practices. However, this indicator
requires additional conceptual development and cannot be considered
satisfactorily operational at this time for most countries.
(b) Measurement Methods: It is suggested that the indicator be measured
by the extent of land improved or deteriorated, specified by type of change.
The measurement should be conducted with a monitoring interval of 5-10 years.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This represents a State indicator
within the DSR Framework which monitors improvement or degradation of land
quality due to land management or natural causes.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Land quality can be represented in many
ways and it is difficult and expensive to collect sufficient quality data for
meaningful analysis. Comparison between countries is not possible due to the
variety of land quality variables, diverse classification systems, and the
paucity of available data especially for large areas.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The indicator could be based on the
selection of a core set of land quality parameters based on availability of
data. Such parameters could include: vegetation cover; land at risk from soil
erosion; soil organic matter levels; and salinization. Such an approach may
emerge in the future with additional national and international experience.
However, at this time, a greater degree of flexibility in selecting parameters
may be more appropriate.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data for this indicator can be
derived from a variety of sources, including soil surveys, land cover surveys,
soil degradation assessments, and estimates of the extent of different land
improvements since previous census.
(b) Data Availability: Data are generally not available in a systematic
form, except in a very few countries. Some data are available at a global
scale (1:5 million and 1:10 million), or at the national level.
(c) Data Sources: Data may be available from national soil survey
institutes, agricultural censuses, or remote-sensing data collections.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant
Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39-6) 5225
3152.
7. Further Information
Guidelines for Agro-ecological Zone Studies (in preparation).
Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD) Study.
Soils Bulletin 67.
World Soil Resources Report 71 and 71/1-9.
World Soil Resources Report 74. Global and National Soils and Terrain Digital
Databases (manual).
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
DECENTRALIZED LOCAL-LEVEL NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Decentralized local-level natural resource management.
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator is a measure of the extent to which
higher level governments have devolved management of natural resources to
local communities; and of changes in the allocation of powers of resource
management.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Numbers of local governments and local
communities to which resource management has been devolved or with which
resource management is shared as percentages of total numbers of local
governments and local communities.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 10: Integrated Approach to the Planning and
Management of Land Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator represents the extent to which resource
management is in the hands of landholders or other de facto local resource
controllers; and partially represents whether local resource controllers and
others with direct impact on resources have incentives to conserve them.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Devolution, or at
least sharing, of rights, responsibilities and rewards is increasingly
recognized as essential for sound resource management. Community empowerment
is one of the more important institutional issues, a key to changing to or
reinforcing sustainable behaviour. Community management of resources
signifies community empowerment, with direct consequences for sustainable
development.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to other
indicators which have implications for resource use from an institutional
perspective. These would include: access to information, contribution of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and sustainable development strategies.
(d) Targets: No targets exist for this indicator.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The Desertification
Convention discusses empowerment of local resource users.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts are well
developed, but seldom applied. They are documented in a variety of
publications on community development and community resource management. From
an operational viewpoint, this indicator still requires development.
The local level with administrative authority recognized by higher level
governments, and the lowest level of social organization above the family
regardless of recognition by governments. The two are not necessarily the
same. Devolution of management needs to be at both levels. It involves
transfer or sharing of responsibility for the resources and of the income from
their use. It may also involve transfer or sharing of skills and information
to ensure management is effective.
It is useful to distinguish resource users (such as hunters, loggers, and
tourists), de facto resource controllers (private landowners, local
government, the state), and resource managers. The key is for local resource
controllers to share management with the state and to have a strong incentive
to conserve the resource.
(b) Measurement Methods: Measurement is complicated by the facts that
more than one local level may be involved, and that devolution of management
includes several aspects, including responsibilities, rights to rewards,
skills, and information. Consequently, the indicator may entail several
measurements. In Zimbabwe, for example two measures have been used together:
percent of rural districts granted authority over wildlife management; and
districts that have devolved at least 50% of gross wildlife revenues to
communities as a percent of districts granted authority over wildlife
management (see Prescott-Allen, 1995 in section 7a below). The first of these
is a measure of central government devolution to local government. The second
is a measure of local government devolution to communities. The two measures
are regarded as equally important, and are therefore added together and
averaged to provide a single indicator.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator represents an
institutional Response to resources management.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator requires development and
testing. Devolution says nothing about the capacity of the various partners
to work together according to a decentralized model. The measurement unit
ignores the important qualitative assessment of how well resource management
is shared among resource users, local communities, and higher levels of
government. The indicator does not show whether the local communities and
governments actually conserve the resources.
(e) Alternative Definitions: An alternative method of expressing the
indicator would be with a yes/no designation. This would not be a meaningful
measure, because of the several levels and components of local management that
are involved.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Rights and responsibilities
devolved. Total number of local governments/communities. Number of local
governments/communities to which rights or responsibilities have been
devolved. Capacities of all concerned to work to a decentralized model.
Actors involved in sharing resource management, and manner and extent of that
sharing.
(b) Data Availability: The data are available for some countries only.
Most data can be gathered only at the local level, preferably with full
community participation in the assessment.
(c) Data Sources: National sources are communities, resource users,
resource management departments, and NGOs cooperating with community
management programs. There is no international source of data.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Conservation Union (IUCN).
The contact point is the IUCN International Assessment Team; fax no. (1 604)
474 6976.
(b) Other Organizations: The Office to Combat Desertification and
Drought, United Nations Development Programme has contributed to the
development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
Dudley, Eric. The Critical Villager: Beyond Community Participation.
Routledge, London and New York. 1993.
International Institute for environment and Development (IIED). Whose Eden?
An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management. London. 1994.
Murphree, M. Communities as Resource Management Institutions. Gatekeeper
Series, 36, IIED, London. 1993.
Prescott-Allen, Robert. Barometer of Sustainability: a Method of Assessing
Progress towards Sustainable Societies. PADATA, Victoria, Canada. 1995.
Prescott-Allen, Robert and Christine (eds.). Assessing the Sustainability of
Uses of Wild Species: Case Studies and Initial Assessment Procedure. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland. 1996.
(b) Other Contacts:
United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization; fax no. (39 6) 522 3369.
International institute for Environment and Development; fax no.
(44 71) 388 2826.
Office to Combat Desertification and Drought, United Nations Development
Programme; fax no. (1 212) 906 6345/6916.
LEAD AGENCY: IUCN
POPULATION LIVING BELOW POVERTY LINE IN DRYLAND AREAS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Population living below poverty line in dryland areas.
(b) Brief Definition: A measure of the number of persons/households
classified as living below the nationally-defined poverty line, given as a
fraction of the total population in a country's dryland area.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 12: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Combating
Desertification and Drought.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of the indicator is to show the extent to
which poverty affects dryland economies, limiting investment and increasing
short-term resource management leading to degradation. It indicates the need
for the establishment of alternative income-generating projects and food
security systems in drought-prone areas.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: This indicator
is relevant to policy decisions related to education, health, land tenure,
decentralization of resource management. It can guide decision making towards
preventive measures for lands that are not yet degraded or are slightly
degraded. In addition, it would contribute to the identification of factors
leading to desertification, the development of practical measures to combat
desertification and mitigate the effects of drought, and the implementation
and evaluation of national action plans. The sustainable development of
dryland ecosystems depends on supporting a diversified economy and re-
investing locally the revenues of goods and services produced.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The link between poverty and
environmental degradation was established by the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED). More specifically, the indicator is
better interpreted if paired with land use, infrastructure availability, and
other socioeconomic indicators, for example, population density, education,
food security, tenure, and percentage of household income spent on food.
(d) Targets: No international targets exist for poverty eradication or
rural development.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification and the International Conference on
Population and Development (Cairo) are relevant to this indicator.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Poverty concepts are available
at the national level or from the World Bank World Development Report.
However, this indicator is not operational to any degree at this time, due to
the severe limitations outlined under 4d below.
(b) Measurement Methods: A country-specific poverty line. The headcount
index as a percentage of the population is established. The headcount index
is the percentage of the population below the poverty line. This needs to be
computed at a regional or sub-regional level to cover the dryland area,
depending on the country.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: Poverty in dryland areas can be
considered a Driving Force inasmuch as it may cause people to mismanage
resources and contribute to desertification. This will not hold true in all
regions and at all times, given the cyclical nature of droughts. On the other
hand, poverty can be considered a State indicator wherever desertification
degrades the resource base and contributes to the expansion of poverty.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The concept of a poverty line can be
misleading. Poverty is measured in terms of income. However, populations in
dryland areas may be income-poor given lack of access to markets or monetized
economies, but wealthy in terms of livestock. Also, the poverty line
measurement is insensitive to the distribution of income below the poverty
line. Security of tenure, a key socioeconomic aspect of sustainable
development in drylands, is not reflected in poverty indicators. Therefore,
while the issues of poverty and population pressure are important in combating
desertification, further refinement of the indicator is necessary. Geo-
referencing to agro-ecological conditions and crops, and knowledge of carrying
capacity and its spatial/temporal variability is needed to properly capture
the role of poverty in the degradation of drylands. Disaggregation of poverty
data by dryland may not be readily available.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The focus of this indicator is limited to
dryland areas only. An alternative socioeconomic indicator may be proposed as
the "optimal land size for the sustenance of a household basic needs." The
sign and amplitude of the difference between the average landholding and this
optimal land size could serve as an indicator of the resulting wealth or
poverty of households and of pressures for degradation. Determination of
optimal land size, however, is a complex multi-disciplinary exercise. Amounts
of land needed would depend on life style (that is., nomadic, sedentary), food
products consumed, variability of rain, etc. Data on optimal farm sizes are
available from many member nations. "Basic needs" would generally be computed
by countries to establish poverty indices. Issues of land tenure are not
captured by this alternative indicator either.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Population and income
statistics disaggregated by dryland region.
(b) Data Availability: Data disaggregated by dryland area not readily
available at the international level. Relevant national data would be
available from national statistical institutions.
(c) Data Sources: The United Nations and World Bank data are the major
international sources of data for this indicator.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator
is the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact
point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development Department,
FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: Further development of the indicator would be
of interest to FAO, the United Nations Statistical Office (UNSO), and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
7. Further Information
The World Bank. World Development Report. 1990.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
NATIONAL MONTHLY RAINFALL INDEX
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: National monthly rainfall index (NMRI).
(b) Brief Definition: The national average of monthly station rainfall,
weighted by the long-term station rainfall average.
(c) Unit of Measurement: The preferred measure is the departure from
average in standard deviations. An alternate measure is the absolute value or
departure from the average in millimetres.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 12: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Combating
Desertification and Drought.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure rainfall water
availability in countries subject to desertification and drought.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Desertification
in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas results from various factors,
including climatic variations and human activities. It affects about one
sixth of the world's population, 70% of drylands, and about 25% of the total
land area of the world. Strengthening the access to the knowledge base on
biophysical factors such as rainfall availability will facilitate improved
management of freshwater and land resources. Rainfall data over the longer
term is significant from a climate change perspective, and, therefore, has
significance in the development of adaptive strategies. Rainfall information
is critical to, for example, habitat protection, and agricultural planning and
risk assessment.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely related to
other social, economic, and environmental measures important to dryland areas.
These would include: population growth rate, net migration rate, human and
economic loss due to natural disasters, Gross Domestic Product per capita,
groundwater reserves, land use change, land affected by desertification, and
arable land per capita.
(d) Targets: Not available.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The definitions and concepts
associated with this indicator are well-known and readily available. The NMRI
gives greater weight to areas with a high agricultural potential, assuming a
roughly linear relation between total monthly rainfall and agricultural
potential.
(b) Measurement Methods: This indicator is readily computed from monthly
station rainfall data. The NMRI is easy to interpret, and consistent across
time and countries.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator represents a
climate condition. As such, it is a State measure in the context of the DSR
Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Most dryland ecosystems transcend
national boundaries. Intra-seasonal patterns (bimodal rainfall, etc.) are not
taken into account. The quality of the indicator depends on the number and
geographic distribution of suitable rainfall stations.
(e) Alternative Definitions: For large countries or for countries only
partially affected by dryland conditions, regional reporting may be more
appropriate.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The essential data are monthly
rainfall statistics by meteorological station.
(b) Data Availability: The data required are readily available.
(c) Data Sources: The data are available from national climatological
services and international databases.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant
Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no.
(39-6) 5225 3152.
7. Further Information
Gommes, R. and F. Petrassi. Rainfall Variability and Drought in Sub-Sahara
Africa since 1960. FAO Agrometeorology Series Working Paper No. 9. FAO Rome.
November 1994.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
SATELLITE DERIVED VEGETATION INDEX
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Satellite derived vegetation index.
(b) Brief Definition: A Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) of
green leaf biomass derived from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Advanced Very High Resolution Radiance (AVHRR)
satellites.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Grid cells of 50 km2.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 12: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Combating
Desertification and Drought.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator measures the evolution of vegetation activity
as a result of the combined effect of meteorological and ecological
conditions, and human activity in dryland areas.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Desertification
and drought affect about one sixth of the world's population, 70% of drylands,
and about 25% of the total land area of the world. Strengthening the
knowledge base on biophysical factors such as vegetation biomass will
facilitate improved risk assessment and resource management. Areas under
recurrent low biomass NDVI values represent regions where the risk of
unsustainable development is high, especially if associated with high
population pressure.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The interpretation of this indicator
is strengthened if it is linked with the other measures proposed for this
Agenda 21 chapter. It is also linked to other social, economic, and
environmental indicators, such as population growth rate, net migration rate,
Gross Domestic Product per capita, land use change, and land condition change.
(d) Targets: Not available.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following United
Nations conventions are relevant to this indicator: Convention to Combat
Desertification; Framework Convention on Climate Change; and Convention on
Biological Biodiversity.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The NDVI is a well known
indicator measuring the amount and vigour of surface vegetation. Its magnitude
is related to the level of photosynthetic activity in the monitored
vegetation.
In general, higher values of NDVI indicate greater vigour and amounts of
vegetation. The indicator is usually presented in map form from a geographic
information system database. Its interpretation is enhanced if it is
georeferenced with such factors as rainfall and population pressure.
(b) Measurement Methods: The NDVI is calculated using a ratio of the
radiometric value obtained respectively from the near infra red (NIR) and
visible red (R) channels of low resolution satellite data. It is represented
by the formula:
NDVI = NIR-R
-----
NIR+R
It is computed every ten days from a series of daily NDVI values at a
resolution of 7.6 km at the global level, and at 1 km for some subregions or
countries.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator is a measure of
the State of vegetation.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The following limitations are
associated with this indicator: (i) calibration is needed to connect
atmospheric disturbance and variation of sensor sensitivity; (ii) correlation
between NDVI and biomass remains coarse if not correlated with vegetation maps
and/or ground measurements; (iii) problems exist in distinguishing very low
vegetative cover from soil background.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Satellite data such as those
from NOAA's AVHRR.
(b) Data Availability: Data are available daily from the AVHRR
satellites.
Data from the Syste`me Probatoire d'Observation de la Terre (SPOT) 4 satellite
(vegetation passenger data) will be available in 1997.
(c) Data Sources: Data at the global scale is available from NASA/NOAA or
SPOT (from 1997). Data at higher resolution are available for several
countries and regions from various national or regional remote sensing
centres. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in the
framework of the Application Research and Test for Emergency Management
Intelligent Systems (ARTEMIS) project and several remote sensing projects has
data for Africa and the Near East.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point
is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO;
fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The Agrhymet Centre of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), and the Regional Centre for Services in
Surveying, Mapping and Remote Sensing (RCSSMRS) in Kenya have been involved in
the development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
Not available.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
LAND AFFECTED BY DESERTIFICATION
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Land affected by desertification
(b) Brief Definition: This is a measure of the amount of land affected by
desertification and its proportion of national territory.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Area (Km2) and % of land area affected.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 12: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Combating
Desertification and Drought.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The indicator describes the extent and severity of
desertification at the national level. It should be: (i) a measure of the
state of the problem at any one time; (ii) an indication of the trend in the
severity of the problem over time and success of response mechanisms; and
(iii) a means of comparing the severity of the problem from one country to
another.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The indicator
should be a mechanism for determining the importance of this issue at the
national level. Trend data over time can indicate success of response
mechanisms. For dryland areas, desertification is a central problem in
sustainable development. While many dryland ecosystems have generally low
levels of absolute productivity, maintenance of that productivity is critical
to the present and future livelihood of many hundreds of millions of people.
Combating desertification is the core of sustainable development for large
areas of the world. Severe degradation is a major impedent to sustainable
development; moderate or slight degradation is also a significant barrier.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This state and trends indicator needs to
be considered in conjunction with related driving force and response
indicators, integrating physical and socio-economic processes, for meaningful
interpretation and policy relevance at the national level. It is closely
linked with indicators concerning land use, such as area affected by soil
erosion, deforestation, use of marginal land, area affected by waterlogging
and salinization, protected area as a percent of total land area, area of land
reclaimed, and population living below the poverty line in dryland areas.
(d) Targets: No specific targets have been defined, however, the goal
should be to reduce the area and percentage of land affected by
desertification, and/or reduce the severity of desertification.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The two most significant
agreements are: Agenda 21 of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and
Development; and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, 1994.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: For the purposes of this
indicator, desertification is defined as -land degradation in arid, semi-arid,
and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic
variations and human activities~ (UN Convention to Combat Desertification,
1994). Land degradation means reduction or loss, in arid, semi-arid and dry
sub-humid areas of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of
rainfed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest and woodlands
resulting from land uses or from a process or combination of processes,
including processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns,
such as: (i) soil erosion caused by wind and/or water; (ii) deterioration of
the physical, chemical and biological or economic properties of soil; and,
(iii) long-term loss of natural vegetation. Land degradation, therefore,
includes processes which lead to surface salt accumulation and waterlogging
associated with salt-affected areas.
Arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas means areas, other than polar and
sub-polar regions, in which the ratio of annual precipitation to potential
evapotranspiration falls within the range from 0.05 to 0.65 (UN Convention to
Combat Desertification, 1994)
(b) Measurement Methods: Measurement for this indicator initially requires
an assessment of the extent of land degradation throughout the arid, semi-
arid, and dry sub-humid zones of the nation. This is best done by a
combination of previous assessments represented in map form, carried out by
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) with the United Nations
Office to Combat Desertification and Drought (UNSO), and the Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO); and updates from a combination of remote
sensing and local knowledge.
The creation of an index which combines degrees of severity will require the
following measures:
(i) Area subjected to severe land degradation xKm2 (severe here includes
both the severe and very severe categories of UNEP.
(ii) Area subjected to moderate land degradation yKm2.
(iii) Area subjected to slight land degradation = zKm2.
(iv) National area (excluding surface water bodies) nKm2.
(v) National area of drylands (vulnerable to desertification, assuming
that all drylands are potentially vulnerable to desertification.
Hyper-arid lands are excluded), consisting of arid, semi-arid, and dry
subhumid land = dKm2.
From the above measurements, the following sets of numbers can be derived:
Indicator computations:
a. National area affected by desertification
= x + y + zKm2
b. Percent of national area affected by desertification
= x + y + z X 100
---------
n
c. Percentages of national area affected by severe,
moderate and slight desertification respectively can
be calculated in the same way.
d. Percent of national drylands affected by desertification
= x + y + z X 100
---------
d
e. National area not affected by desertification
= n - (x + y +z)Km2
f. National dryland area not affected by desertification
= d - (x + y + z)Km2
Trends can be determined by comparing results computed for a sequence of years
(for example., every five years).
A useful extension of the indicator would be for countries to report dryland
areas (d) as a percentage of all agriculturally productive areas (e=n-hyper
arid land) to give an indication of the overall vulnerability of the country
to desertification.
While it is based on a combination of analytical and subjective assessment, if
these are done systematically on an annual basis, a sound data base can be
developed. Given the importance of determining the extent and severity of
desertification to the index, it may be that a periodic special survey using
remote sensing and ground assessment may be important, though this may only be
technically feasible for some countries.
An important issue in the basis measurement of degradation is the factors
which are measured to assess the degree of local degradation. As Bie (1990)
clearly points out, the two factors of productivity and resilience are the
most important elements in assessing the existence and the extent of dryland
degradation. Accurate measurement of land affected by desertification is a
problem about which there is not yet complete consensus and further work needs
to be done to agree on a comparable methodology for the various countries
affected by desertification (UNEP, Atlas of Desertification;
UNEP/ISRIC/ISS/FAO, Global Assessment of the Status of Human-induced Soil
Degradation (GLASOD)) .
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This is an indicator of State as
it provides an assessment of the extent of land degradation in desertification
prone environments.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: There are a number of issues to be
resolved before this indicator can be entirely satisfactory. The ecosystems
addressed in this definition undergo cyclic episodes of more or less rainfall,
as well as long-term degradation in many cases. Separating short-term
fluctuations from longer-term trends is important, though scientists often
find this difficult to determine, except for longer time periods. Also, UNEP
has generally defined desertification (degradation) in categories (severe,
moderate, slight), and a national indicator needs to include an assessment of
this kind. It has been a practice to include problems of waterlogging and
salinization as part of desertification, if they occur within the ecosystems
as defined above. In this case the area affected by these problems should
also be included in the desertified area.
Because of these issues, the indicator may well benefit from further
refinement and definition. The concepts of land degradation in arid, semi-
arid, and dry sub-humid areas are well defined and described in a number of
UNSO, UNEP, and other UN publications, as well as in the academic literature.
The translation of these concepts into agreed national level indicators has
not been so well articulated. (Mabbutt, J.A. 1986; Maimuet 1991).
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
The data needed to complete the indicator are the extent and severity of
dryland degradation in the country concerned, the dryland area, and national
area (excluding surface water bodies). The degree of accuracy and reliability
of both spatial and statistical data varies considerably and are often poorly
documented and/or out of date. For some countries the data do not yet exist.
Dryland and national areas can be obtained from national statistical
institutions and publications, and can also be found in standard World
Resources Institute (WRI), UN and World Bank publications. Some data on extent
and degree of land degradation are available at the country level in national
institutions or from non-government organizations, in donor countries, and in
publications of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/UNSO, UNEP,
FAO and other international institutions.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Office to Combat Desertification
and Drought (UNSO) of UNDP. The contact point is the Director, UNSO; fax no.
(1 212) 906 6345.
(b) Other Organizations: Other contributing organizations include: UNEP,
FAO, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR),
International Fund for Agricultural Development (FAD), ISRIC, the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (ACNE), and selected
national governments.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
Bie, Stein W. 1990. Dryland Degradation Measurement Techniques, World Bank,
Environment Work Paper No. 26, 42 p.
Dregre, H., Kassas M. and Rozanov, B. 1991 -A new assessment of the world
status of desertification.~ Desertification Control Bulletin 20. p. 6-18.
Dumanski, J. And Pieri, C. 1994. -Comparison of available frameworks for
development of land quality indicators.~ Agr. Tech. Div., World Bank. p.
14.
Mabbutt, J.A. 1986. -Desertification Indicators.~ Climatic Change 9. P.
113-122.
Mainguet, M. 1991 Desertification: Natural Background and Human Mismanagement.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 306 p.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1991. Environmental
Indicators: a Preliminary Set. OECD. Paris. 77 p.
O~Connor, J. et al. 1995. Monitoring Environmental Progress (Draft). World
Bank. 72 p.
UNDP/UNSO and NRI. 1995. Development of Desertification Indicators for Field
Level Implementation. 53 p.
UNEP. 1992. World Atlas of Desertification. Edward Arnold. London.
UNEP. 1994. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those
countries experiencing drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa.
Text with Annexes. 71 p.
UNEP/ISRIC. 1988. Guidelines for General Assessment of the Status of Human-
induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD).
UNEP/ISRIC. 1990. World Map of the Status of Human-induced Soil Degradation:
An Explanatory Note (GLASOD).
UNEP/ISRIC. 1991. World Map of the Status of Human-induced Soil Degradation.
(GLASOD).
UNEP/ISRIC/ISSS/FAO. 1995. Global and National Soils and Terrain Digital
Databases (SOTER), Procedures Manual (revised edition). ISBN 90-6672-059-X.
UNEP/Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and Environment (RIVM).
1994. An Overview of Environmental Indicators: State of the art and
perspective. UNEP/EATR.94-01:RIVM/402001001. Environmental Assessment Sub-
Programme, UNEP, Nairobi. ISBN 92-807-1427-9.
WB/FAO/UNDP/UNEP. In print. Land Quality Indicators. World Bank Discussion
Papers.
(b) Other References:
See section 7a above.
(c) Status of the Methodology: The methodology for the compilation of the
above statistics has not yet been agreed upon by any inter-governmental fora,
however negotiations are underway. It has therefore the status of a
recommendation for guidelines.
LEAD AGENCY: UNDP
POPULATION CHANGE IN MOUNTAIN AREAS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Population change in mountain areas.
(b) Brief Definition: A measure of population (i) density, (ii) growth,
and (iii) migration, as indications of demographic changes in mountain areas.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Measurement units for population density,
growth, and migration in mountain areas are respectively: (i) households and
persons per unit area; (ii) numbers and percentage of households and persons
involved in out-migration; (iii) growth or reduction of population and of
migration numbers over time.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 13: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable
Mountain Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to show the extent to which
overall population density, migration patterns, and other demographic measures
affect sustainable mountain development, including resource availability and
management.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: This indicator
is relevant for policy decisions related to programs of rural education,
health, land titling and decentralized natural resource management, and for
understanding migration, social unrest, poverty, and related socioeconomic
factors.
The sustainable development of mountain ecosystems will depend, among other
things, on the achievement of a self sustaining diversified mountain economy,
with mountain areas receiving a fair return for indigenous resources and the
goods and services produced. This is closely linked to conditions under which
the mountain population, including the young, can remain in the mountains with
an acceptable living standard. Status and change in population, and effects on
resources often are the key driving force considerations in mountain areas.
Seasonal migrant labour and permanent out-migration, for example, can be
factors in terms of draining labour, initiative, and cash income from mountain
areas.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to
those associated with poverty, population growth and migration, human
settlements, and sustainable mountain development. Some specific examples
would include: poverty gap index, population growth rate, net migration rate,
percent of population in urban areas, and sustainable use of natural resources
in mountain areas.
(d) Targets: International targets generally do not exist for this
indicator, but it is suitable for the establishment of national targets. The
indicator would relate closely to overall population targets.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The International
Conference on Population and Development (Cairo), and the Fourth World
Conference on Women (Beijing) are relevant to this indicator.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts are readily
available in national population statistics. Mountains are extensive
physiographic features which demonstrate clear altitudinal sequences in
climate, soil, or natural vegetation. Mountain ecosystems as a whole can
include mountain basins, valleys, and high plateaus, as well as the mountains
themselves.
Mountains may also be defined in terms of population groups which represent
social and economic living conditions related to the topography and distinct
from areas defined as plains and lowlands. Some countries may need to
delineate the appropriate mountain area for this indicator.
(b) Measurement Methods: The measurement of this indicator is outlined in
population census and statistics related to labour movement.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: Population density, growth, and
migration indicators are classified as Driving Force measures within the DSR
Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Good population and migration data are
often lacking for mountain areas.
(e) Alternative Definitions: If specific population data are not
available, estimates can be derived from national figures to give a general
overview of demographic characteristics in mountain areas.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data on mountain population and
labour migration, preferably gender specific, are required for this indicator.
(b) Data Availability: Good data are not usually available for mountain
areas.
(c) Data Sources: Date for this indicator can be derived from population
statistics, censuses, and migration and labour statistics.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point
is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO;
fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development (ICIMOD), The Mountain Institute, and other international mountain
organizations will play a key role in the development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
A discussion document on this indicator will result from the third annual
inter-agency meeting on Chapter 13, April 1996.
(b) Other Contacts:
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).
Consortium for Sustainable Andean Development (CONDESAN).
The Mountain Institute within the Mountain Forum.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN MOUNTAIN AREAS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Qualitative assessment of the condition and level of
sustainable use of natural resources in mountain areas
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator is a composite of four sub-indices
which describe in broad terms the state or condition of the natural resource
base in a mountain area: namely (i) the extent of protection of soil; (ii) the
area of hazard zones; (iii) the extent of degraded areas; and (iv) a measure
of productivity.
(c) Unit of Measurement: The first three indicators above relate to land
use or mis-use and can be measured in hectares of land area and expressed as
the percentage of a mountain area. The forth indicator measures yields of
natural resource products (fuelwood, timber, wildlife food, non-wood forest
products, etc.) which can be expressed in dollars, grain equivalent unit, or
other values and compared to the replacement of these products in terms of
reproduction and growth.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 13: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable
Mountain Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator assesses the condition or degree of
stability, which can be a clue of probable sustainability natural resource
uses in mountain areas. Another purpose of the indicator is to identify
obvious land degradation and mis-uses that need policy responses, in order for
mountains to be returned to sustainable use.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: A natural
resource base in a well-managed, protected, and productive state has a better
potential for sustainable use than a deteriorating or already degraded base.
The sustainable development of mountain ecosystems must be based on land uses
for which mountains have a comparative advantage and which are compatible with
long-term productivity in fragile upland ecosystems. This indicator relates
directly to the land capability or suitability of the areas, since land uses
exceeding the carrying capacity of an area are not sustainable. For example,
land uses related to parks, eco-tourism, harvesting non-wood products from
forests, biological preserves, etc are often sustainable uses in mountain
areas, whereas cultivation on steep slopes without extra-ordinary conservation
measures, or building housing in landslide hazard areas are not sustainable.
The indicator provides an approximation to determine if the land can
potentially provide for adequate livelihood for the local people without
degrading the natural resource base. Having information, at least an overview,
on the status of land and resource use is the first step relevant to policy
decisions related to fighting poverty in mountain areas, for land use
planning, and overall rural development. Such a database is also essential for
policy decisions on infrastructures, disaster planning, and economic
development in mountain areas.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator has close association
with several other environmental indicators pertaining to Chapters 10, 11, 13,
and 15 of Agenda 21. These would include: land use change, land condition
change, protected forest area as a percent of total forest area, population
change in mountain areas, and protected areas as a percent of total area. In
addition, the indicator is generally linked to other socioeconomic and
institutional measures, such as population density and sustainable development
strategies.
(d) Targets: Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 establishes objectives for
sustainable development related to land productivity and appropriate use. The
indicator is suitable for the setting of local targets. In some cases, it can
relate to national targets for forestry and land use.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The Convention on
Biological Diversity and the International Decade for Natural Disaster
Reduction apply to this indicator.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: An actual measurement of
sustainability of natural resource use is at best difficult. It requires a
good data base and at least several growing seasons to measure. The
indicator, therefore, is a simple measure of the probability of general
sustainability in a mountain area. Many countries already have programs for
land-use assessment, forest assessment, soil inventory, and other monitoring
and inventory data that can be used in this index.
In general terms mountains are extensive physiographic features which
demonstrate clear altitudinal features in climate, soil, or natural
vegetation, with high mountains being above the natural timber line. Mountain
ecosystems include mountain basins, valleys, and high volcanic ring plains and
high plateaux, as well as the mountains themselves. As the indicator is
further refined, the more precise definition of mountains, hills, and related
terms will follow FAO's Global and National Soils and Terrain Digital
Databases (SOTER) procedures, which define various landforms in terms of
slopes and relief intensity.
(b) Measurement Methods: For the sub-indices on soil protection, hazard
zones, and degraded areas, many of the measurements of vegetation, soils, and
land uses are standard procedures which draw on sources such as remote
sensing, existing maps, geographic information system (GIS) databases, field
observations, etc. to assess land use conditions. Forest assessment data and
soil surveys, for example, may be used. Some of the measurements, such as
identification of landslide hazard areas are somewhat more specific, but use
the same measurement techniques. The sub-index on productivity takes
volumetric units for yields of natural resource products (fuelwood, timber,
wildlife food, non-wood forest products, etc.). This may also be converted to
a standard unit of value, for example, to dollars or a grain equivalent type
unit).
To calculate the composite indicator, rate the four components descriptions
below for a mountain area, such as a watershed, and summarize the four scores
for a combined index from 0 to 400.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Soil Protection: Score approximate percentage of mountain area where this
statement generally applies:
Protection against accelerated erosion is good in terms of adequate vegetative
cover in forests, rangelands, parks, preserves or other wildlands;
conservation practices in agricultural or agro-forestry areas protect soil
from accelerated water and wind erosion.
.....%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Hazard Areas: Score approximate percentage of mountain area where this
statement does not apply:
Potential instable hazard areas exist where risk is high for landslides,
avalanches, mudflows, wildfires, volcanic effects, flooding, and other hazards
that endanger people and inhibit development in such areas.
.....%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Degraded Areas: Score approximate percentage of mountain area where this
statement does not apply:
Degraded areas exist where the production of natural resource goods and
development are obviously restricted and include: areas of accelerated surface
erosion; zones with vegetation degraded by overgrazing; areas of chemical or
other contamination; fire impacted areas; areas where some non-productive
vegetation dominates; zones where water supply is now restricted from, for
example, salt-water encroachment, ground water contamination, etc; and saline
areas.
.....%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Evidence of Productivity: Score approximate percentage of mountain area
where this statement applies:
For wildlands and rangelands: productivity or yields of timber, plants,
fuelwood, wildlife meat, beef, and other products is sustainable in that
present use approximately equals the replacement of these goods by
reproduction and growth and the resource base is not being destroyed.
For small-scale agricultural and agro-forestry areas: levels of agricultural
yields can probably continue approximately at present levels with the same
farming practices and inputs (as opposed to situations where crop productivity
is obviously declining due to excessive soil losses or other reasons).
For water: water use can continue at approximately present demand levels or
additional water can be imported (as opposed to situations where ground-water
mining, salt encroachment, contaminants, or other impacts threaten water
supplies; or where the available water supply is generally restricted).
.......%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index Total (0-400%)............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: Within the DSR Framework, this is
a State indicator of land use and condition.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Often data are not readily available
for mountain areas and may need to be collected. Productivity is a complex
measurement to standardize. Surveys for productivity, if based on interviews,
are subject to bias. The rationale for this index and its aggregation has its
limitations and may not apply to all countries. Attempts to extrapolate data
into mountain areas are not advisable. Hazard zones, such as landslide areas,
require techniques specific to mountain areas.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Land use, forest, and range
assessment data, such as vegetation, erosion, sedimentation, overgrazed and
burned areas, contaminated lands, water resources, and hazard areas, are
required. The data should be compatible with the United Nation Food and
Agriculture Organization's (FAO) Global Forest Resource Assessment methods to
facilitate data sharing.
(b) Data Availability: In some countries, a data base will be available
for mountain areas, but often these are the zones least well assessed. Remote
sensing and GIS will be important tools for many of the areas.
(c) Data Sources: National data sources can be based on remote sensing
data; field observations; interviews; agriculture census; existing surveys,
maps and available reports; economic studies.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant
Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39-6) 5225
3152.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
A discussion document on this indicator will result from the third annual
inter-agency meeting on Chapter 13, April 1996.
(b) Other Contacts:
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).
Consortium for Sustainable Andean Development (CONDESAN).
The Mountain Institute within the Mountain Forum.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
WELFARE OF MOUNTAIN POPULATIONS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Welfare of mountain populations.
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator focuses on the nutritional
anthropomentry of children and adults in mountain populations as a measure of
their overall welfare or well-being, their levels of prosperity or poverty,
and changes in their welfare status.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Weight in kilograms, height in centimetres.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 13: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable
Mountain Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: Nutritional status as indicated by anthropometry, is an
overall, simple measure of human welfare and development. Nutritional status
is the end result of a wide range of effects and conditions beyond food,
including factors such as availability of clean water and access to health
services.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: This indicator is
relevant for policy decisions related to setting priorities and determining
the location for programs of rural development, education, health, agriculture
and natural resource management. It is particularly relevant for policy
decisions where poverty and malnutrition need a primary focus.
The sustainable development of mountain ecosystems will depend, among other
things, on the development of a self sustaining diversified mountain economy.
This development is closely associated with human welfare and ecological
conditions that allow mountain populations to live in their homelands and
attain adequate nutrition, health care, education, an adequate income,and
other basic human needs. This indicator is also useful to assess the impact
of intervention programs over time.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to
those associated with poverty, population growth and migration, human health,
human settlements, international cooperation, and sustainable mountain
development. Some specific examples would include: poverty gap index,
population growth rate, net migration rate, infant mortality rate, percent of
population in urban areas, Gross Domestic Product per capita, and sustainable
use of natural resources in mountain areas.
(d) Targets: International targets for minimum nutritional levels apply
to this indicator. Rural development targets may also exist for some regions
and countries.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The upcoming World Food
Summit (Rome November 1996), the International Conference on Nutrition and
various other nutrition conferences, the International Conference on
Population and Development (Cairo), and the Fourth World Conference on Women
(Beijing) are relevant to this indicator.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The definitions and concepts
related to nutrition are well known and readily available. Nutritional status
is an synoptic indicator, reflecting the level of welfare in general,
including access to food, health services, and other needs. It is a sensitive
indicator while at the same time its response is relatively non-specific.
Thus, it is appropriate for monitoring changes in the overall welfare
situation and for evaluating welfare status. Normally, it is used in
conjunction with other indices, such as infant mortality (see section 3c
above).
(b) Measurement Methods: Nutritional status of children may be determined
by calculating how far the indicators deviate from international reference
values for growth status using weight and height. Nutritional status of
adults may be determined by calculating their Body Mass Index (BMI) which is
a
ratio of weight to height squared. Low numbers indicate malnutrition and poor
well-being, moderate numbers are desirable levels, and the highest numbers
reflect obesity. Lower cut-off points and goals can be established
quantitatively.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This is a State indicator within
the DSR Framework reflecting Driving Forces such as population pressures, and
declining land productivity of the land, environmental impacts, and other
factors. It is a measure of the general development level of an area.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator works best for
comparisons over time. It has some limitation for comparison from one ethnic
group to another, due to variation in natural body configurations. The
indicator itself can be quantitatively defined quite easily, however, its
interpretation is somewhat more complex in that bias can occur when comparing
one ethnic group to another or possibly one region to another. Therefore,
interpretation and use to set goals or targets requires care. The BMI, for
example, should be defined for each major ethnic group to have meaning.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Simple anthropometric
measurements of height, weight, sex and age are required for this indicator.
(b) Data Availability: Some of the data for the indicator may be
available in national institutions. Where this is not the case, data can be
generated through rapid assessment procedures and monitoring in the field.
(c) Data Sources: See section 5b above.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point
is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO;
fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development (ICIMOD), The Mountain Institute, and other international mountain
organizations will play a key role in the development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
Food and Agriculture Organization. Body Mass Index: A Measure of Chronic
Energy Deficiency in Adults. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper No. 56. Rome 1994.
A discussion document on this indicator will result from the third annual
inter-agency meeting on Chapter 13, April 1996.
(b) Other Contacts:
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).
Consortium for Sustainable Andean Development (CONDESAN).
The Mountain Institute within the Mountain Forum.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
USE OF AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Use of agricultural pesticides.
(b) Brief Definition: Use of pesticides per unit of agricultural land
area.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Pesticide use in metric tons of active
ingredients per 10 km2 of agricultural land.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator measures the use of pesticides in
agriculture.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The challenge for
agriculture is to increase food production in a sustainable way. One important
aspect of this challenge is the use of agricultural pesticides which add
persistent organic chemicals to ecosystems. Pesticides can be persistent,
mobile, and toxic in soil, water, and air; and can have impact on humans and
wildlife through the food chain. They tend to accumulate in the soil and in
biota, and residues may reach surface and groundwater through leaching.
Humans can be exposed to pesticides through food. Exaggerated use may result
from government subsidies and/or failure of pesticide users to internalize
health-related costs. The indicator is related to other agricultural
intensification practices.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to
others in the agricultural area, such as fertilizer use. Use of pesticides can
have wide implications for the environment, and is linked to the indicators
listed under toxic chemicals and biodiversity.
(d) Targets: Not available.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Some agricultural pesticides
are banned by international trade agreements.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts are available,
however, because of the limitations discussed below in section 4d, it should
only be regarded as an interim indicator. More work is required to develop a
more suitable pesticide indicator pertinent to sustainable development.
(b) Measurement Methods: Data on pesticide use are usually derived from
sales or "domestic disappearance" and expressed as active ingredients.
Agricultural area data are widely available. Interpretation will benefit from
information on types of active ingredients in use, seasonal doses, rate of
application, and variability on use for different crops and regions.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator relates to the
application of pesticides to the environment. It has implications to
biodiversity and human health. It is, therefore, a Driving Force indicator in
the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: This indicator provides an aggregation,
which ignores toxicity, mobility, and level of persistence; and spatial and
application variances. It does not consider the use of pesticides outside of
agriculture, which can be significant in developed countries. Data omissions
and errors often occur during the transfer of the primary data to statistical
authorities.
(e) Alternative Definitions: To meet some of the limitations expressed
above in section 4d, an indicator could be developed which would recognize the
classification of pesticide into classes, ranging from less harmful to highly
toxic. Such a pesticide index would show if pesticide use is becoming more
sustainable or not. The interpretation value of this indicator would benefit
from its application to crop types or agro-ecological zones. However, data
availability does not support this more many areas.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Pesticide sales data;
agricultural land area.
(b) Data Availability: The land area data are readily available for most
countries. However, pesticide supply-use data in metric tons are only
available from international sources for selected countries and limited to the
major types of pesticide. Some pesticide data are available for about 50-60
countries. The data are not regularly collected and reported, and not usually
available on a sub-national basis.
(c) Data Sources: Some data are available on total national pesticide use
from the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Eurostat maintains a data base
of their members' data. Landell Mills Market Research Ltd. (Bath, UK) also
has data.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant
Director-General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225
3152.
(b) Other Organizations: OECD, the European Economic Community, and
Landell Mills Marker Research Ltd. have been involved in the development of
this indicator.
7. Further Information
Not available.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
USE OF FERTILIZERS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Use of fertilizers.
(b) Brief Definition: Extent of fertilizer use in agriculture per unit of
agricultural land area.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Metric tons of fertilizer nutrients per 10 km2
of agricultural land.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the intensity
of fertilizer use.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The challenge for
agriculture is to increase food production in a sustainable way. This
indicator shows the potential environmental pressure from agricultural
activities. Extensive fertilizer use is linked to eutrophication of water
bodies, soil acidification, and potential of contamination of water supply
with nitrates. The actual environmental effects will depend on pollution
abatement practices, soil and plant types, and meteorological conditions.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to
others in the agricultural, water, and atmospheric groups, such as pesticide
use, biochemical demand in water bodies, algae index, and emissions of
greenhouse gases.
(d) Targets: Targets should be based on national situations.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts are available.
Data on the quantities of fertilizers used are converted into the three basic
nutrient components and aggregated. The three components are Nitrogen (N),
phosphorous (P205), and potassium (K20). Factors for chemical breakdown are
standardized. Data on agricultural land refer to arable and permanent crop
land. However, due to the limitations discussed in section 4d below, this
indicator should be regarded as interim for sustainable development purposes.
(b) Measurement Methods: Data on fertilizers are compiled from industry
sources and non-traditional sources. Data for developing countries generally
refer to domestic disappearance based on imported products. The derived
figures in terms of nutrients are then divided by the agricultural land area.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator pertains to the
application of fertilizers to agricultural land. It has implications to
soils, water, and the atmosphere; and thereby represents a Driving Force
indicator within the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Environmental impacts caused by leaching
and volatilization of fertilizer nutrients depend not only on the quantity
applied, but also on the condition of the agro-ecosystem, cropping patterns,
and on farm management practices. In addition, this indicator does not include
organic fertilizer from manure and crop residues, or the application of
fertilizers to grasslands. Reliability of fertilizer data is questionable. The
indicator assumes even distribution of fertilizer on the land.
(e) Alternative Definitions: A more relevant and sophisticated indicator
would focus on the nutrient balance to reflect both inputs and outputs
associated with all agricultural practices. This would address the critical
issue of surplus or deficiency of nutrients in the soil. This would need to be
based on agro-ecological zones.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data on fertilizer use for N,
P205, and K20; and agricultural area.
(b) Data Availability: Data for all countries exist at the national level
only. The data are updated on a regular basis.
(c) Data Sources: At the international level, the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) is the primary source.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant director-
General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The International Fertilizer Association is
associated with the development of this indicator..
7. Further Information
Not available.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
IRRIGATION PERCENT OF ARABLE LAND
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Irrigation percent of arable land.
(b) Brief Definition: Land area under irrigation as a percentage of total
arable land area.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose is to show the degree of importance of
irrigation within the country's agricultural sector, from the point of view of
water and land resource utilization.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: This indicator
shows to what extent arable land and water resources are already used in an
intensive manner. It can indicate level of conversion of land to high input
agriculture. Availability of irrigation water is linked to other
intensification processes with potentially negative effects on sustainability,
such as monoculture, selection of high yielding varieties in detriment to
genetic diversity, runoff and soil erosion, compaction, and salinization.
Extensive standing water area is linked to incidence of water borne disease.
Sustainability assessment of changes in the indicator is linked to water
availability and soil suitability for irrigation.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is closely linked to
others pertaining to agriculture and water, such as area affected by salinity
and waterlogging, annual withdrawals of water, groundwater reserves, and land
use change.
(d) Targets: The indicator can lend itself to the establishment of
national targets. It relates to targets for global, regional and national food
security.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following agreements
are relevant to this indicator: Mar del Plata 1977, Dublin ICDE 1992, and
international water sharing agreements between neighbouring countries.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Arable land is officially
defined as "land under temporary crops, temporary meadows for mowing or
pasture, land under market and kitchen gardens, and land temporarily fallow."
That definition tends to equate arable land with cultivated land. The Food and
Agricultural Organization's (FAO) definition of cultivated land is that under
temporary (annual) crops, but some countries may include perennial crops in
cultivated land. Therefore, complications may arise from cross-country
comparisons.
The way multiple cropping and intercropping are accounted for is not
standardized and not always clear. Irrigation potential is determined on
assumptions that vary from country to country. It should be based on
annual/seasonal water and land resource availability (depending on topography,
infiltration). As land and water resources not always coincide, technological
options (that is., basin transfers, storage) should be judged by economic and
environmental considerations. Except in a few cases, no consideration is given
to the possible double counting of shared water resources. Mangrove, wetland
and flood plains (resources with high environmental value) are usually, but
not systematically included in the irrigation potential. The concept of "water
managed areas" includes "irrigated areas" (that is., equipped with hydraulic
structures) as well as cultivated wetland and valley bottoms without
irrigation equipment.
(b) Measurement Methods: Irrigated area (area equipped with hydraulic
structures) divided by arable land as defined above in section 4a.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: Intensive agriculture due to
either high population pressure or commercial factors acts as a Driving Force
within the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: There are conceptual and methodological
difficulties of interpretation. Some national data use a narrow definition
while other data may be broadly defined. Some countries report areas with
irrigation facilities, while others use areas provided with water. The
indicator value does not capture the quality or conditions of both land and
water resources. Knowledge of other factors such as crops grown, agro-
ecological zone type, and distribution of farm size would be relevant to its
interpretation. Other aspects of irrigation, including equity, efficiency, and
importance to the overall national agricultural production are not reflected
in the indicator. The indicator does not provide a measure of lands with
irrigation potential.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The definition could be broadened to
include less formal irrigation. FAO AQUASTAT reports on "irrigated area as a
percentage of cultivated area." As discussed in section 4a above, the use of
"cultivated area" instead of "arable land" can avoid interpretation problems.
At the sub-national level, irrigated area as a percent of irrigable area can
be a better indicator of both development potential and sustainable
development.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data on irrigated land and
arable land. Supplementary data on drained area, the area equipped with
sub-surface or open drains, and the residual area, can be useful for the
interpretation of sustainability.
(b) Data Availability: The data are available for some countries.
(c) Data Sources: Recent data are available at the country level in FAO's
AQUASTAT (1994/1995) which is directly based on official national data. At
present AQUASTAT covers Africa but will eventually cover the Middle East, Asia
and Latin America). Data are also available from national sources in some
countries only. The data are estimated by countries at various periods and are
then interpolated. Data from 1970s are available as part of country
statistics in WAICENT.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact
point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainability Department, FAO; fax
no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
7. Further Information
FAO. Irrigation in Africa in Figures. FAO Water Reports 7 (in preparation).
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
ENERGY USE IN AGRICULTURE
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Energy use in agriculture.
(b) Brief Definition: The energy utilized in agriculture on a yearly
basis expressed as a ratio of energy inputs and agricultural production as
well as in absolute terms.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Joules per tons of agricultural products.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of the indicator is to provide a measure of
energy intensity in agriculture.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Energy is
essential for most human activities, including agriculture. Too little energy
makes it difficult to realize decent productivity and meet food requirements.
Too much energy signifies waste, global warming, and other stress on the
environment.
The indicator can guide policies and investments regarding (i) energy
requirements in all stages of agricultural production in order to measure
agricultural productivity and, (ii) energy efficiency, to reduce energy
intensity. The indicator is relevant to promote an increase in agricultural
production with a parallel increase in energy efficiency.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is closely related to the
energy indicators under consumption and production patterns. It is also
linked to environmental indicators such as land condition change and emissions
of greenhouse gases.
(d) Targets: No international targets exist or apply. At the national
level targets could be developed, depending on the country's range of
agricultural products.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: No binding agreements
exist. Agenda 21 makes reference to the need to promote energy efficiency.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Total energy consumption in
agriculture derives from the energy inputs in all the stages of agricultural
production and processing, that is land preparation, mechanization,
fertilization, irrigation, harvesting, transport, processing, and storage.
Each of these stages use different forms of energy (mechanical, electrical,
thermal) which can be aggregated in equivalent units. Total agricultural
production is an established concept and needs no further elaboration.
(b) Measurement Methods: Annual energy inputs for each stage in
agricultural production and processing are determined and converted into
equivalent units such as terajoules (TJ)) and aggregated as total energy.
Annual agricultural production figures are collected for all products. The
obtained values are then compared for the same year, and can be tracked over
time to see how changes in both terms affect their ratio.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator is a Driving
Force in the DSR Framework. It can guide a response especially if normative
targets for increase of agricultural production or energy intensity are
established.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Agricultural production is affected by
factors other than energy inputs (for example, climate, availability of other
inputs). These factors are less distorting if comparative values are collected
for consecutive years. Data for energy use in agriculture at the present time
are not considered to be very reliable. Special surveys could generate sound
data, but would be expensive, and may not be a priority for statistical
agencies.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The indicator could be expanded to include
non-commercial energy inputs, such as human and animal power. Human power
quantification methodologies might need to be further elaborated. The
relevance of this alternative to sustainable development is questionable.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data is needed on energy inputs
for different agricultural activities and on agricultural production.
(b) Data Availability: Some data is available for most countries,
although reliable and comprehensive statistics to enable time-series analysis
are elusive.
(c) Data Sources: Energy balances are prepared by energy ministries or
other competent national authorities. Agricultural production figures are
available from agriculture ministries. The Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) has processed and compiled considerable data in both energy and
production at the international level.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director-General,
Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
The World Bank, and UN Regional Commissions could be involved in further
development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
FAO and African Development Bank. Future Energy Requirements for Africa's
Agriculture. 1995.
FAO. State of Food and Agriculture. 1995.
World Energy Council Developing Country Committee Publications (1993-1996).
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
ARABLE LAND PER CAPITA
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Arable land per capita.
(b) Brief Definition: Arable land area, that is land allocated to
perennial crop production, in a country expressed on a per capita basis.
(c) Unit of Measurement: ha.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator shows the amount of crop land area available
for food production. To be useful, it must be available as a time series.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The capacity of
agriculture and technology to satisfy the increasing demands for food is
uncertain. The world's population is rapidly rising putting in question
society's food security capability. In addition, other uses, for example
urban, are putting increasing pressure on available agricultural land. Changes
in indicator value over time may show increased/decreased pressure on land
resources. This indicator is of value to land planning decision making.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is primarily linked to
other measures related to the land resource, such as agricultural land
affected by salinization and waterlogging, forest area, and area of urban
settlements. It is a sub-component of the land use change indicator. It is
also linked to population indicators, such as population growth rate,
population density, etc.
(d) Targets: Not available.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts of arable land as
defined in the agricultural censuses at the national level is clear. Arable
land is officially defined as "land under temporary crops, temporary meadows
for mowing or pasture, land under market and kitchen gardens, and land
temporarily fallow."
(b) Measurement Methods: The indicator is calculated as a ratio of
arable land area to total population.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: In portraying the per capita
availability of arable land, this indicator is a State measure in the DSR
Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: This indicator does not reveal anything
about increased productivity of agricultural land, or of the spatial variation
in land quality. This may be a more important factor than the amount of
arable land. Area under permanent crops is not included in the concept of
arable land.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Agricultural land per capita could be used
as a more inclusive definition of land available for food production.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Arable land and population
figures. Interpretation for sustainable development would benefit from data
related to yields or production per capita.
(b) Data Availability: National data for arable land has been derived,
for the most part, from estimates, some of questionable quality. Remote
sensing is improving the data quality.
(c) Data Sources: The primary data sources include: the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Population Division of the United Nations
Department of Economics and Social Information and Policy Analysis (DESIPA),
and national statistical centres.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is FAO. The contact point is the Assistant Director-General,
Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
7. Further Information
Not available.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
AREA AFFECTED BY SALINIZATION AND WATERLOGGING
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Area affected by salinization and waterlogging.
(b) Brief Definition: Total area affected in hectares compared to the
total land area.
(c) Unit of Measurement: ha. and %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of the indicator is to show the degree of loss
of productive land and decreasing production from non-sustainable water
management, especially irrigation and drainage practices. It could also
indicate the potential for reclamation of natural areas affected by
waterlogging or salinity.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: This indicator is
highly significant to determine degradation of land resources. It is related
to intensification processes with potentially negative effects on
sustainability, such as multi-cropping, and runoff problems, etc. Extensive
standing water area is linked to incidence of water-borne disease. The
indicator reveals the extent of unsustainable water management practices
leading to reductions of productive land and production losses. The indicator
could reflect two extreme cases in agriculture: low efficiency due to over
irrigation; and high efficiency, as when scarce water resources are reused due
to scarcity of water resources.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is most closely linked
with other land and water measures, such as irrigated portion of arable land,
dryland degradation, land condition change, and water withdrawals. Response
indicators, such as agricultural education and extension, provide evidence of
preventive action to counter land degradation.
(d) Targets: Not available.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following agreements
are relevant to this indicator: Mar del Plata 1977; the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) 1992; and the United
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts are available and
shown on soil resources maps from the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO)/United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) (see 1990 Legend).
(b) Measurement Methods: The indicator is computed as the land that is
lost to salinization and waterlogging such that it cannot be cultivated. The
data is directly derived from official national sources.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The extent of degraded land
results from driving forces related to unsustainable irrigation development.
This result provides a State measure within the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator is a crude measure of the
land under severe conditions. Its value does not capture the conditions of
man-caused or natural salinization/waterlogging. There are conceptual and
methodological difficulties of interpretation. Other aspects of irrigation
sustainability, impact on different crops and overall national agricultural
production, are not reflected in the indicator. The cost of mitigative
measures are not captured; neither is the degree of restriction for
agricultural use. Salt-intrusion is also a concern for any irrigated
agriculture activity in coastal areas.
(e) Alternative Definitions: It would be possible to report separately on
salinity area only. The waterlogged area can be confused with naturally
waterlogged wetlands. Reporting on the degree of severity would increase the
interpretation sensitivity of this indicator, but data availability would be
problematic.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Land areas under different
degrees of salinity and waterlogging conditions. Interpretation would be
enhanced with data on water withdrawals as a percent of available water,
amount of irrigated land, drained area, and drought frequency.
(b) Data Availability: Quality data are not available. Global assessments
of annual losses of land area to salinization and waterlogging are available
from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
(c) Data Sources: Data are available at the country level in the Food and
Agricultural Organization's (FAO) AQUASTAT database (1994/1995) for Africa.
This database will eventually cover Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.
Other sources include the World Map of the Status of Soil Degradation by the
International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC); and a World Soils
and Terrain Digital Database (SOTER).
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead organization is the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The
contact point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development
department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
FAO. Irrigation in Africa in Figures. FAO Water Reports 7 (in preparation).
International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), ISSS, FAO, UNEP.
Procedures Manual. Global and National Soil and Terrain Digital Databases.
(b) Other References:
FAO. International Action Programme on Water and Sustainable Agricultural
Development. 1990.
In 1987 UNEP formulated a proposal for a Global Assessment of the Status of
Human-induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD).
The SOTER concept endorsed by ISSS in 1986.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Agricultural education.
(b) Brief Definition: Public expenditure on agricultural education (both
secondary and post-secondary schools that teach agriculture) reflecting
national investment in human capital for sustainable agricultural and rural
development (SARD).
(c) Unit of Measurement: % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 14: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Development.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure public sector
investment in human resource development for SARD.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The challenge for
agriculture is to respond to meet the future food needs of an expanding
population. This must be accomplished in a sustainable way by protecting the
land and associated resources. Investment in human capital through
agricultural education represents an effective avenue to enhance food
production and protect the natural resource base.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to other
socioeconomic, environmental, and institutional measures, such as GDP spent on
education, adult literacy rate, land condition change, and access to
information.
(d) Targets: Both the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) and the World Bank have established international
targets for investing in education.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The definitions and concepts
associated with this indicator are well known and readily available. The
concept is based on the use of national and international data that use
investment in education as a percentage of GDP; for example,
UNESCO at the international level, and Ministries of Education or Agriculture
at the country level.
(b) Measurement Methods: The indicator is calculated from current public
expenditure on agricultural education as a percentage of GDP measured in US$.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator reflects a
country's commitment to agricultural education over time. As such, it is a
Response measure within the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator does not reflect the
quality of the education provided. It is assumed that there is a relationship
between the level of investment and the quality of educational services.
(e) Alternative Definitions: An indicator for agricultural education
expenditure could be expressed as: (i) a percentage of GDP (or Gross National
Product); (ii) agricultural education expenditure as a percentage of the total
expenditure on education; or (iii) as a percentage of total government
expenditure.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data on public expenditure on
agricultural education and GDP are required.
(b) Data Availability: The data are generally available in most countries
or through international sources such as UNESCO and the World Bank.
(c) Data Sources: National data sources include ministries of education
or agriculture; while the primary international sources are UNESCO and the
World Bank.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point
is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO;
fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: Other organizations involved in the development
of this indicator include UNESCO, the World Bank, and national ministries of
education and agriculture.
7. Further Information
Not available.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
WOOD HARVESTING INTENSITY
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Wood harvesting intensity.
(b) Brief Definition: The indicator compares the total forest fellings as
percentage of net annual increment. In other words, it compares the amount of
yearly, or other time period, harvested wood, or any other forest product,
with the annual increment from the forest. If annual increment is not know,
allowable cut can be used as a surrogate.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 11: Combating Deforestation.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The indicator aims at assessing whether forests are being
used within the limits of their actual productivity. If the ratio is smaller
or equal to one, it means that the country is harvesting less, or equal, to
the annual forest increment. This represents the sustained yield principle.
If the ratio is more than one, a country is over-harvesting its wood, or other
specific forest resource.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Forests serve
multiple ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural roles in many countries. They
are among the most diverse and widespread ecosystems of the world. Forests
provide many significant resources and functions including: wood products,
recreational opportunities, habitat for wildlife, water and soil conservation,
and a filter for pollutants. They support employment and traditional uses, and
biodiversity. There is general concern over human impact on forest health,
and the natural processes of forest growth and regeneration. Combating
deforestation to preserve soils, water, air and biological diversity is
explicitly considered in Agenda 21.
This indicator is relevant for assessing the sustainability of forest
management when interpreted over a long time period. The harvest rate set by
a country is a function of the size of its forests, proportion of the forest
area dedicated to timber production, the productivity of the forest and its
age class structure, and the management objectives and sustained yield
policies of the country.
The indicator relates sustained yield to actual harvest in terms of a relative
balance between forest growth and harvest.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to other
natural resource indicators within the environment category, such as protected
forest area, and land use and condition change. It is also linked to such
socioeconomic indicators as share of natural resource industries in
manufacturing.
(d) Targets: In general, the target would be set by the sustained yield
principle. Several countries have calculated their total annual allowable cut,
or total annual increment, and their total annual removals. Most developed
countries are harvesting between 70 and 80% of the total annual increment of
their forests. Targets still need to be established for tropical forests.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Many international
agreements cover forests. Countries are supported to maintain or increase
their forested areas, and discouraged to strongly reduce their forest lands.
Specific forest agreements would include the Non-Legally Binding Authoritative
Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation
and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests (the Forest Principles of
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)); and the
International Tropical Timber Agreement. Many other international agreements
deal with forests within the context of natural resources and environment
conservation, for example Convention on International trade in Endangered
Species (CITES), Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands of International
Importance (Ramsar Convention), Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention
on Climate Change, Convention to Combat Desertification. In addition,
regional/ecoregional agreements on sustainable forest management have been
established.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Concepts and definitions are
generally available for developed countries, and for all countries in the case
of plantations. Additional work is required to determine the natural increment
concept for tropical forests. The following definitions are available from the
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Annual Roundwood Production includes
all wood obtained from removals from forest and from trees outside the forest.
FAO statistics include recorded volumes as well as estimated unrecorded
volumes.
Forest Growing Stock means the above-ground volume of all living standing
trees down to a stated minimum diameter. Total Annual Increment represents the
total annual increment of wood due to the growth of the trees during a year.
(b) Measurement Methods: The enumerator is the total annual roundwood
production. The denominator is the total annual productive forest increment.
An adequate time series is required to show meaningful trends. For tropical
natural forests, where no data is available on the forest annual increment, or
where the harvested wood comes only from a few species, an adjustment is
proposed which relates annual production to the total standing volume of the
forest and the average rotation cycle applied in a country for a given
reference year. This, for example, would be 120 years for teak forests in
Burma.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator provides a measure
of the intensity of forestry operations. From a forest resource perspective,
it represents a Driving Force in relation to the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator is related to timber
production. It does not relate to non-productive land from a forestry
perspective. It has implication for other forest resources, but an indicator
considering all values of forest ecosystems would be more appropriate from a
sustainable development perspective. For the present indicator, reliable data
are only available from a minority of countries, mostly developed, and for
plantations. However, research data on the annual increment of tropical
natural forests are improving, and it is expected that sufficient data and
estimates should become available during the coming years.
This indicator should be interpreted over the longer term. In given cases, the
annual roundwood production might exceed the forest increment for market
reasons, age structure of forests, or other reasons for a few years without
being an indication for unsustainable management. However, such an
unsustainable situation should under no circumstances persist over several
decades.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data are needed on growing
stock, annual roundwood production, annual increment, and the rotation cycle.
(b) Data Availability: Data are available for most countries at both
national and sub-national levels. However, in many cases, especially for
natural forests where rough estimates are only available, data are available
for only one time period, with no time series data.
(c) Data Sources: The primary international source of data in the Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO). At the country level, the data would be
available from national ministries responsible for forestry.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable
Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The International Tropical Timber Organization
(ITTO) could assist with the development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
FAO Forestry publications including Forestry Papers.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Timber Studies, Timber Bureau,
Geneva.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
FOREST AREA CHANGE
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Forest area change.
(b) Brief Definition: The amount of natural and plantation forest area
tracked over time.
(c) Unit of Measurement: ha.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 11: Combating Deforestation.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of the indicator is to show the area covered by
the forest formations of a region/country over time.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Forests serve
multiple ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural roles in many countries. They
are among the most diverse and widespread ecosystems of the world. Forests
provide many significant resources and functions including: wood products,
recreational opportunities, habitat for wildlife, water and soil conservation,
and a filter for pollutants. They support employment and traditional uses, and
biodiversity. There is general concern over human impact on forest health,
and the natural processes of forest growth and regeneration. Combating
deforestation to preserve soils, water, air and biological diversity is
explicitly considered in Agenda 21.
The forest area of a country is not directly related to
sustainable/unsustainable development. However, a continuing and fast
decreasing forest area in a country might be a alarm signal of unsustainable
practices in the forestry and agricultural sector. A change in the forested
area in a country or region over time can be positive showing a loss of forest
area or negative showing an increase. The availability of accurate data on a
country's forest area, which is a basic characteristic of its forest
resources, is an essential requirement for forest policy and planning within
the context of sustainable development.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is closely linked with
several other environmental indicators, such as land use and land condition
change, wood harvesting intensity, protected forest area, arable land,
threatened species, sustainable use of natural resources in mountain areas,
etc. In some countries, it will also be generally linked to some of the
socioeconomic indicators, such as population growth and share of natural
resource industries in manufacturing.
(d) Targets: There are no international targets or standards set for size
of forest or rate of deforestation. It is however understood that the higher
the deforestation rate is, the more critical the forestry situation is in a
country/region. Several countries have set targets for the extent of their
forest area, either in absolute values or as a percentage of total land area
of the country.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Many international
agreements cover forests. Countries are supported to maintain or increase
their forested areas. Specific forest agreements would include the Non-Legally
Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the
Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests
(the Forest Principles of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED)); and the International Tropical Timber Agreement. Many
other international agreements deal with forests within the context of natural
resources and environment conservation, for example Convention on
International trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Convention on the
Conservation of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention),
Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Climate Change, Convention
to Combat Desertification. In addition, several regional conventions cover
forests.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Definitions are available from
the Food and Agricultural Organization's (FAO) Forest Resources Assessments.
The forest area is defined as "Lands with a tree crown cover equal or more
than 10% of the area" ; plantation as the artificial establishment of forests
by planting or seeding; and natural forests as natural and/or semi-natural
established forests. In addition, the definition of forest exists in most
countries. The comparisons of forest area over time using reference years
allows the calculation of change in absolute values, and as a percentage of
the deforestation rate.
Different land use practices and ranges of ecological conditions result in
different forest types, such as tropical or temperate. These differences
should be recognized, especially in country comparisons.
(b) Measurement Methods: The measurement methods for forest area can be
contained in national forest inventories, and obtained by sampling ground
surveys, cadastral surveys, remote sensing, or a combination of these.
The forest area is calculated as the sum of plantations and natural forests
areas with tree crown cover equal and more than 10%. This calculation is made
at given reference years as follows:
The deforestation rate (DR) is the compound annual rate in % from year P to
year N:
Forest area (year N) exp ( 1/N-P)
DR (%) = 100 { 1 - (-------------------)
Forest area (year P)
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator represents
changing environmental conditions. It is, therefore, a State indicator in the
DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The area figure does not give any
indication on the quality of the forest, its ecosystem context, nor forest
values or practices. The indicator does not provide information on the
degradation of the forest resources in a country. The total forest area in a
country might remain unchanged, but the quality of the forest can become
degraded. Due to the definition used, the indicator covers a very diversified
range of forests ranging from open tree savanna to very dense tropical
forests.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Plantation area compared to natural forest
would provide a measure of the intensity of forest practices for timber
production and possible ecosystem implications.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The total forest area of a
country, including plantations, at different yearly intervals.
(b) Data Availability: Data on the extent of forest areas (natural and
plantations) are available for most countries, both at national and
sub-national scales. The data are often estimates, which are not always
comparable because of changes in definitions and assessment methodologies.
(c) Data Sources: International data are available from FAO Forest
Resources Assessments. National data is available from ministries responsible
for forestry and statistics.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director-General,
Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP);
United Nations regional commissions; and national agencies responsible for
forestry, remote sensing and geographic survey; and universities and
research institutes could all play a useful role in the development of this
indicator.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
FAO. Forest Resources Assessments 1980.
FAO. Forestry Papers: Nos. 112 and 124.
FAO. Forest Resource Assessment 1990 - Non Tropical Developing Countries,
1995.
(b) Other References: International data provided by other institutions,
for example World Resources Institute, are mostly based on the FAO Forest
Resources Assessment information and data.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
MANAGED FOREST AREA RATIO
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Managed forest area ratio.
(b) Brief Definition: Proportion of the total forest area covered by
officially approved and actually implemented forest management plans.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 11: Combating Deforestation.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The phenomenon is meant to represent the percentage
proportion of forests which are managed according to a forest management plan
approved by the forestry agency of the country at a given reference year.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Forests serve
multiple ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural roles in many countries. They
are among the most diverse and widespread ecosystems of the world. Forests
provide many significant resources and functions including: wood products,
recreational opportunities, habitat for wildlife, water and soil conservation,
and a filter for pollutants. They support employment and traditional uses, and
biodiversity. There is general concern over human impact on forest health,
and the natural processes of forest growth and regeneration. Combating
deforestation to preserve soils, water, air and biological diversity is
explicitly considered in Agenda 21.
This indicator is highly relevant for assessing sustainable forestry
development. Forest management plans, elaborated according to sustainable
management guidelines, are the cornerstone for the implementation and
monitoring of forest practices in a country.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is closely linked with
several other environmental indicators, such as land use and land condition
change, wood harvesting intensity, protected forest area, arable land,
threatened species, sustainable use of natural resources in mountain areas,
etc.
(d) Targets: At the international level targets have been established for
tropical forests, namely the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)
Target 2000. Some countries have set national targets.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Many international
agreements cover forests. Countries are supported to maintain or increase
their forested areas, and discouraged to strongly reduce their forest lands.
Specific forest agreements would include the Non-Legally Binding Authoritative
Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation
and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests (the Forest Principles of
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)); and the
International Tropical Timber Agreement. Many other international agreements
deal with forests within the context of natural resources and environment
conservation, for example Convention on International trade in Endangered
Species (CITES), Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands of International
Importance (Ramsar Convention), Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention
on Climate Change, Convention to Combat Desertification. In addition,
regional/ecoregional agreements on sustainable forest management have been
established within the framework of the Helsinki Process for European
countries, and the Montreal Process for non-European countries.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Concepts and definitions exist
in forest management plans approved by the national governmental institution
responsible for forest resources management. Many guidelines for forest
management exist and guide plans implementation.
(b) Measurement Methods: Compilation of the aggregate area for forest
management plans to provide the total managed forest area; divided by the
total forest area.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator shows the extent of
management plans for forest areas. As such, it represents a Response
indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator only shows the extent of
forest management. It says nothing about the quality of plan implementation
against sustainable development objectives. No internationally accepted
operational definition of sustainable forest management exists, although work
is in progress under the aegis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests.
Although many guidelines on sustainable forest management exist, there are
only a few agreed minimum sets of essential elements of sustainable forest
management at the regional level, and none yet at the global level. Total
forest area in some countries would include some forest area which will never
be productive from a forestry viewpoint, and thus, probably not subject to
management plans, unless for purposes other than forestry.
(e) Alternative Definitions: An alternative indicator could focus on the
contents and implementation of management plans with respect to multiple
objectives needed to satisfy sustainable development. Such an alternative
would measure the extent to which management plans accommodate multiple uses
and forest resource protection.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Areas of forest management
units which are effectively managed according to an approved management plan.
Total forest area.
(b) Data Availability: Data are available for most developed countries,
but may be lacking for most developing countries. Data for privately owned
forests will be generally scarce.
(c) Data Sources: The primary source of data is national forestry
administrations.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO). The contact point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable
Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The International Tropical Timber Organization
(ITTO) and national forestry administrations could assist with the
development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
FAO Forestry publications including Forestry Papers.
Reports of the international processes for developing Criteria and Indicators
for Sustainable Forest Management ("Helsinki" and "Montreal" processes,
Tarapoto report).
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
PROTECTED FOREST AREA AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL FOREST AREA
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Protected forest area as a percent of total forest area.
(b) Brief Definition: The definition of a protected area is an area of
land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of
biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and
managed through legal or other effective means (World Conservation Union
(IUCN)).
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 11: Combating Deforestation.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator measures the part of the total forest area
which has been delineated for protection purposes. It includes areas
established to protect wildlife, special ecosystems, soil and water resources,
etc. It is understood that the higher the percentage of the indicator, the
better the performance of the country in protecting and conserving its forest
resources.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Forests serve
multiple ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural roles in many countries. They
are among the most diverse and widespread ecosystems of the world. Forests
provide many significant resources and functions including: wood products,
recreational opportunities, habitat for wildlife, water and soil conservation,
and a filter for pollutants. They support employment and traditional uses, and
biodiversity. There is general concern over human impact on forest health,
and the natural processes of forest growth and regeneration. Combating
deforestation to preserve soils, water, air and biological diversity is
explicitly considered in Agenda 21.
This indicator measures societal response to protect biodiversity and
landscapes through the creation of representative reserves of various forest
ecosystems.
It represents only one element of a sound forest conservation policy aimed at
sustainable development.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to
others which relate to natural resource use and management. Closely
associated indicators would include: protected area percent of total land
area, wood harvesting intensity, forest area, land use change, and threatened
species. It is also linked to such socioeconomic and institutional indicators
as population density and ratification of international agreements.
(d) Targets: Guidelines for the classification and establishment of
protected areas are available from IUCN. Many countries have established
guidelines for protected areas suited to their national situation.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Many international
agreements deal with forests within the context of natural resources and
environment conservation, for example Convention on International trade in
Endangered Species (CITES), Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands of
International Importance (Ramsar Convention), Convention on Biological
Diversity, Convention on Climate Change, Convention to Combat Desertification.
For this indicator, the most relevant convention is the one on biological
diversity.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: There is wide international
understanding and agreement on the terminology of protected forests.
However, the application of the concepts vary from country to country,
especially with respect to the definition of protect area in relation to the
IUCN classes.
Further work needs to be done to evaluate the relative importance of different
kinds of forest ecosystems and how to assess the relative value of endemic
forest ecosystems. The concepts at the international level are available from
IUCN, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (WCMC).
(b) Measurement Methods: The measurement compares the amount of
protected forest area to the total forest area as a percent.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator provides a measure
of the degree of protection of forest biodiversity. It represents a societal
Response in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator is limited to forest
ecosystems. It does not provide information on the ecological value of the
protected areas. A country can set aside large areas of forests with a low
importance for biological diversity and continue to unsustainably harvest high
valuable non-protected forests. The indicator says nothing about the
effectiveness of the protection; either from the viewpoint of ecological
representivity, or management and law enforcement. Ideally, the protected
forest area should cover representative examples of all existing forest
ecosystems, with the area appropriate to their rarity or uniqueness. The
indicator does not in itself provide information on the degree of protection,
including the range of allowable uses.
(e) Alternative Definitions: One alternative definition would consider
forest protected areas as only one component of a protected area system, as
implied in indicator protected area as a percent of total land area. A more
meaningful indicator would consider the proportion of forest protected area
for each major ecosystem of the country. However, this may present problems of
data availability.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data on the forest area, and
areas of forests in protected status.
(b) Data Availability: Data are available for most countries on both a
national and sub-national level. Data are available on a regular basis for
time series analysis. For forest area, the data are often estimates, which
are not always comparable because of changes in definitions and assessment
methodologies. For protected areas which cover more than forested lands, it
may be difficult to obtain a precise estimate of the area of the forested part
due to a lack of good vegetation maps.
(c) Data Sources: At the international level, data are available from
FAO, UNEP, IUCN, and WCMC. At the national level, data should be available
from forestry or natural resource management ministries.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the completion of this methodology
sheet is the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The primary contact
point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development Department,
FAO; fax no. (396) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: Other organizations who can play a role in the
development of this indicator include: FAO, UNEP, WWF, WCMC, United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); together with
national conservation agencies and environment ministries.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
IUCN. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. 1994.
IUCN. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. 1994.
(b) Other References:
FAO. Forest Department Conservation Guides.
FAO. Forestry Papers, Nos. 6, 37, 55, 77, 81, 88, 89, 101, 107.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
THREATENED SPECIES AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL NATIVE SPECIES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Threatened species as a percent of total native species.
(b) Brief Definition: Number of species at risk of extinction in
proportion to the total number of native species.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 15: Conservation of Biological Diversity.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to represent the
maintenance or, conversely, the loss of species diversity.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Maintenance of
biodiversity is essential for ecosystem wellbeing. Species diversity is one of
the three main levels of biodiversity, the others being ecosystem and genetic
diversity.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to other
indicators which have implications for biodiversity. These would include:
protected area as a percent of total area, land use change, wood harvesting
intensity, population growth, etc.
(d) Targets: No international targets exist for this indicator. National
targets may be set, for example, to reduce threats to species so that
threatened species are less than 1% of the total species in any class.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Convention on Biological
Biodiversity.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The underlying concepts are well
articulated, although countries may use variations of terminology. Threatened
species are those at risk of extinction, and include endangered, vulnerable,
rare, and indeterminate species as defined by the World Conservation Union
(IUCN). Extinction means no longer existing anywhere in the world, at least
in the wild. Extirpation means no longer existing in the country or area of
interest. Species are defined as full native species (not introduced species),
not sub-species or other infraspecific taxa. Threatened species relates to
Class, the third highest level in the taxonomic hierarchy, after kingdom and
phylum.
(b) Measurement Methods: Select all classes for which numbers of native
species are known (or estimated), and whose status is monitored or assessed
from time to time. For each class, calculate the percentage of threatened
native species against total native species in this class.
It is recommended to report on 4 sub-indicators:
i) % threatened vascular plant species, total all classes;
ii) % threatened species within each vascular plant class;
iii) % threatened vertebrate species, total all classes; and
iv) % threatened species within each vertebrate class.
Sub-indicators i) and iii) give an overall picture for plants and animals
respectively. Sub-indicators ii) and iv) show which classes are most
threatened.
Countries may wish to make separate compilations for each of the 4
sub-indicators of species at risk of extinction, and species at risk of
extirpation.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator is a State
indication of biodiversity.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: It is possible to monitor only the more
conspicuous and well-known species, which make up a small proportion of total
species diversity. Genetic variation within some species may be as important
as differences between species, but may be missed by reporting at the species
level alone.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Some species and genetic stocks not covered
by this indicator could be captured by indicators of ecosystem and genetic
diversity.
This indicator better reflects the status of species diversity and is more
amenable to target setting than alternatives such as number of threatened
species. Number of threatened species does not by itself reflect maintenance
or loss of species diversity, since there is no way of distinguishing how much
of the number is due to impacts on species and how much to a high total number
of species (the more species, the greater the potential of threatened
species). Threatened species as a percentage of total species overcomes this
problem and enables comparisons between countries and different numbers of
species.
However, the number of all species is not known; and only a few species groups
are monitored for species status. Therefore, the percentage has to be
calculated on the basis of groups whose total numbers of species is known and
whose status is monitored. Among animals the highest taxonomic level that
meets this criteria is the class. Among plants, it is the class or divisions
depending on the classification system.
Number of extinct species is an indicator of the ultimate effectiveness of
responses to the threatened species indicator. But the threatened species
indicator is a more useful single indicator of impacts on species diversity
because it is forward-looking and less difficult to monitor.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Total number of species and
number of threatened species, preferably for all vascular plant and vertebrate
animal classes.
(b) Data Availability: National data are available for most countries for
higher plants (up to 11 classes, but not reported by class); and for four
animal classes (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). National data on
threatened fishes are also available for many countries, but not reported by
class, and usually for freshwater only. National data on total numbers of
fish species are not as widely available. Few countries have sub-national
data. Many countries hold the data, but for some, it is easier to obtain them
from international sources.
(c) Data Sources: National sources include agencies responsible for
wildlife management and/or implementing the Biodiversity Convention. The
international source is the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC).
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Conservation Union (IUCN).
The contact point is the IUCN International Assessment Team; fax no. (1 604)
474 6976.
(b) Other Organizations: Other organizations contributing to the
development of this indicator include WCMC, World Resources Institute (WRI),
and the Secretariat of the Biological Diversity Convention.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
Mabberley, D.J. The Plant Book: A Portable Dictionary of the Higher Plants.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 1987.
Margulis, Lynn, and Karlene V. Schwartz. Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide
to the Phyla of Life on Earth. 2nd edition. W.H. Freeman, New York. 1987.
McNeely, Jeffrey A., et al. Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. IUCN,
WRI, CI, US World Wildlife Fund, World Bank, Gland, Switzerland and
Washington, D.C. 1990.
Reid, Walter V., et al. Biodiversity Indicators for Policy Makers. WRI,
Washington, D.C.
WCMC. Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth's Living Resources. Chapman and
Hall, London. 1992.
(b) Other Contacts:
World Conservation Monitoring Centre; fax no. (44 1223) 277 136.
Species Survival Commission, World Conservation Union; fax no.(41 22)999 0015.
World Resources Institute; fax no. (1 202) 638 0036.
LEAD AGENCY: IUCN
PROTECTED AREA AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL AREA
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Protected land area as a percent of total land area; and
protected marine area as a percent of total marine area.
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator combines the area of protected land
(including freshwater areas), expressed as a percentage of the total land (and
freshwater area; and the area of protected marine area expressed as a
percentage of the total marine area.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 15: Conservation of Biological Diversity.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator represents the extent to which areas important
for conserving biodiversity, cultural heritage, scientific research (including
baseline monitoring), recreation, natural resource maintenance, and other
values, are protected from incompatible uses.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Protected areas
are an essential tool for ecosystem conservation, with functions going well
beyond the conservation of biological diversity. As such, they are one of the
building blocks of sustainable development.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to other
indicators which have implications for land and resource use. These would
include: land use change, wood harvesting intensity, forest area, ratification
of global agreements, etc.
(d) Targets: The 1991 Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable
Living establishes a target of 10% protected area for each major ecological
region for countries by the year 2000 (see section 7a below). A similar
target was agreed to by the IVth World Congress on National Parks and
Protected Areas in 1992 (see McNeely reference in section 7a below). Both
targets reflect recognition that representation of ecosystem diversity is more
meaningful than a flat percentage of the country's area.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: None exist for this
indicator.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The World Conservation Union
(IUCN) defines six management categories of protected area in two groups.
Totally protected areas are maintained in a natural state and are closed to
extractive uses. They comprise Category I, Strict Nature Reserves/Wilderness
Area; Category II, National Park; and Category III, National Monument.
Partially protected areas are managed for specific uses such as recreation, or
to provide optimum conditions for certain species or ecological communities.
They comprise Category IV, Habitat/Species Management Area; Category ,
Protected Landscape/Seascape; and Category VI, Managed resource Protected
Area (full definitions are included in IUCN CNPPA, 1994 see section 7a below).
Totally protected areas are necessary to protect as wide a range as possible
of natural ecological communities and the species that depend on them. For
such communities to persist and evolve "naturally" buffered as far as possible
against human activities, the protected areas need to be large. Partially
protected areas are useful when certain human activities are actually required
to protect particular species or ecological communities. They are also
necessary to protect valued expressions of human relationships with nature in
terms of landscape. The size of the area is usually less important.
(b) Measurement Methods: The usefulness of this indicator depends on
clearly distinguishing totally protected areas and partially protected areas,
since they have different, although complementary, functions. Each requires
a
separate expression of the indicator as follows: Calculate the combined area
of totally protected areas of 1 000 ha. or more. Calculate the combined area
of partially protected area regardless of size. Calculate the percentage of
the total land/marine area occupied by each group.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator represents a
Response to threats to ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity. It also
partially reflects the state of ecosystem biodiversity.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The effectiveness of this indicator is
limited by two problems. First, it represents de jure not de facto
protection. It does not indicate the quality of management or whether the
areas are in fact protected from incompatible uses. Second, the indicator
does not show how representative the protected areas are of the country's
ecological diversity. This is a significant deficiency, since a large
proportion of some ecosystems may be protected to the neglect of others.
(e) Alternative Definitions: An alternative definition could be coverage
of ecosystem diversity by protected area. This uses the same concepts and
measurement methods, but distinguishes the percentages of each main ecosystem
type that are in protected areas in different size classes.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Classification of protected
areas that can be matched to the IUCN categories. Area of each totally and
partially protected area, preferably by size class. Total land and marine
area of the country. Classification of ecological regions and ecosystem
types, with their areas and locations recorded in a geographical information
system is desirable.
(b) Data Availability: National data on protected areas are available for
virtually all countries. Sub-national data are available for many. Data on
ecological regions and ecosystem types are not so widely available.
(c) Data Source: National sources include agencies responsible for parks
and protected areas. The international source is the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (WCMC).
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Conservation Union (IUCN).
The contact point is the IUCN International Assessment Team; fax no. (1 604)
474 6976.
(b) Other Organizations: The WCMC has contributed to the development of
this indicator.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
IUCN CNPPA. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. CNPPA with
the assistance of WCMC, IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United
Kingdom. 1994.
IUCN, United Nations Environment Programme, World Wildlife Fund. Caring for
the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland and Nairobi.
1991.
McNeely, Jeffrey (ed). Parks for Life: Report of the IVth World Congress on
National Parks and Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 1993.
(b) Other Contacts:
Protected Areas Data Unit, World Conservation Monitoring Centre; fax no.
(44 1223) 277 136.
World Conservation Union Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas; fax
no. (41 22) 999 0015.
LEAD AGENCY: IUCN
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Research and Development (R&D) expenditure in the area of
biotechnology.
(b) Brief Definition: The value of R&D expenditure in the area of
biotechnology.
(c) Unit of Measurement: $US.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 16: Environmentally Sound Management of
Biotechnology.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The indicator is meant to represent one particular aspect of
biotechnological capability, namely investment in R&D. It can be seen as a
proxy measure of the volume of 'production/absorption' of biotechnology
knowledge and serves to assess changes in biotechnology capability.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Biotechnology, an
emerging knowledge-based field, brings about human-induced changes to
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), or genetic material, in plants, animals, and
microbal systems, leading to useful products and technologies. Biotechnology
capability can play a pivotal role for sustainable development through its
potential contributions to better health, increased food production, better
reforestation, more efficient industrial processes, decontamination of water
and the cleanup of hazardous waste. Care must be exercised, however, to ensure
that biotechnology developments do not create negative impacts. Biotechnology
offers opportunities for global partnerships between countries rich in
biological resources and those with the technological expertise to transform
biological resources to serve sustainable development.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is most closely linked
to others in the economic, environmental, and institutional areas concerned
with research and expenditures, such as investment share in Gross Domestic
Product, environmental protection expenditures, new funding for sustainable
development, scientists and engineers engaged in R&D, and expenditure on
research and experimental development.
(d) Targets: No specific targets for this indicator have been set.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: There are no international
conventions or agreements relating to this indicator.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts and definitions for
this indicator to enable it to be used in an operational sense are still under
development and discussion. The elements of the indicator are private
(business) and public (government) expenditure on R&D in biotechnology. What
is relevant in monitoring the indicator is cross-country comparison of trends
after appropriate normalization.
(b) Measurement Methods: Measurement issues for R&D in biotechnology are
still under discussion. Some guidance is available form the overall
measurement of R&D expenditure.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator represents a
Response of the scientific and engineering community to apply biotechnology to
sustainable development.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Limitations of the indicator stem mainly
from the shortcoming of available measures of R&D activity and capability.
Data may be difficult to obtain because of corporate competitiveness.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Detailed information on the
various types of R&D expenditure are required. It would be desirable to have
disaggregated investment data by the type of application, and by institutional
category (for example, private sector, public sector).
(b) Data Availability: The issues of data availability and potential data
sources are still being explored using the pertinent information systems of
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) (see section 7
below).
(c) Data Sources: See section 5b above.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is the United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO). The contact point is the Chief, Industrial Statistics Branch,
Information and Research Division, UNIDO; fax no. (43 1) 232 156.
7. Further Information
UNIDO. Environmentally Sound Management of Biotechnology. The Task Manager's
Report on Chapter 16 of Agenda 21, 1995.
LEAD AGENCY: UNIDO
EXISTENCE OF BIOSAFETY REGULATIONS OR GUIDELINES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Existence of biosafety regulations or guidelines.
(b) Brief Definition: The existence or non-existence of national
biosafety regulations or guidelines.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Yes/no.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 16: Environmentally Sound Management of
Biotechnology.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The indicator is meant to represent one particular aspect of
response to potential risks of the application of biotechnology.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Biotechnology,
an emerging knowledge-based field, brings about human-induced changes to
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), or genetic material, in plants, animals, and
microbial systems, leading to useful products and technologies. Biotechnology
capability can play a pivotal role for sustainable development through its
potential contributions to better health, increased food production, better
reforestation, more efficient industrial processes, decontamination of water
and the cleanup of hazardous waste. Biotechnology offers opportunities for
global partnerships between countries rich in biological resources and those
with the technological expertise to transform biological resources to serve
sustainable development.
Due to the risks inherent in biotechnology applications care must be taken
that the new techniques do not damage environmental integrity, pose threats to
human health, or adversely affect the socioeconomic welfare of countries. One
aspect of biosafety is the existence of pertinent regulations and guidelines.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is most closely linked
to others in the economic, environmental, and institutional areas concerned
with research, such as new funding for sustainable development, scientists and
engineers engaged in R&D, and expenditure on research and experimental
development.
(d) Targets: this indicator is not open to the setting of targets.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: There are no international
conventions or agreements relating to this indicator.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The elements of the indicator
are taken from descriptive information on the existence or non-existence of
biosafety regulations or guidelines.
(b) Measurement Methods: Measurement issues have to do mainly with the
question of whether a given regulation or guideline has relevance for
biotechnology.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: In terms of the DSR framework, the
indicator generally characterizes the Response of a country to the potential
risks of a body of new technology.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The presence or absence of biosafety
regulations or guidelines is recognized as only a crude measure. The
indicator does not distinguish between regulations which are legally binding
and enforceable, and guidelines which are practical reference points with no
force of law. In addition, the indicator provides no information on their
adequacy, or implementation and enforcement. No international standards exist
on which to judge adequacy.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Reliable and clear information
on the aforementioned regulations is required.
(b) Data Availability: The issues of data availability and potential data
sources are still being explored using the pertinent information systems of
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO); the work on a
biosafety protocol under the Biodiversity Convention; and the development of
biosafety guidelines and capacity building by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) (see section 7 below).
(c) Data Sources: See section 5b above.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is the United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO). The contact point is the Chief, Industrial Statistics Branch,
Information and Research Division, UNIDO; fax no. (43 1) 232 156.
7. Further Information
UNIDO. Environmentally Sound Management of Biotechnology. The Task Manager's
Report on Chapter 16 of Agenda 21, 1995.
UNIDO. Documentation on BINAS (Biosafety Information Network and Advisory
Service), 1995.
UNEP. International Technical Guidelines for Safety in Biotechnology, 1995.
LEAD AGENCY: UNIDO
EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG).
(b) Brief Definition: National anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
(c) Unit of Measurement: Annual emission levels in gigagrams (Gg) of CO2
equivalents; methane and nitrous oxide emissions are converted into CO2
equivalents by using global warming potentials (GWP); annual percentage
change in total GHG emissions beginning with 1990 as base year would provide
trends and rate of change in emission levels for each Party to the Climate
Change Convention.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 9: Protection of the Atmosphere.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator measures the major anthropogenic emissions
contributing to global warming.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The main
greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O). While there are natural emissions of GHGs, anthropogenic emissions have
been identified as a source of climate change (IPCC Second Assessment Report,
1995) and are the subject of an international instrument (the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change). Such emissions are largely influenced by a
country's energy use and production systems, its industrial structure, its
transportation system, its agricultural and forestry sectors, and the
consumption patterns of the population. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions
are particularly influenced by a country's agricultural production, waste
management, and livestock management.
Climate change results in part by the increased concentration of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere. At one level, global warming due to anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases can be said to have no adverse effect on
ecosystems if the increase in global temperature is within 0.1 degree C per
decade, with a maximum total warming of 2 degrees C above the pre-industrial
situation (IPCC, 1992).
In this case, it is suggested that ecosystems can adjust or adapt to the
temperature changes within these limits. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has worked out levels for the most important greenhouse
gases that should lead to a stabilization of total GHGs at the no-adverse
effect level.
This is known as the accelerated policies scenario. However, given the
increase in the atmospheric concentration of GHG from 280 ppmv in the
pre-industrial period ( that is, before 1850) to 356 ppmv in 1994, the
temperature increase may be occurring more rapidly and randomly than ever
before. Based on the findings of three working groups, the IPCC says that the
earth's temperature could rise by between one and 3.5 degrees Celsius by the
year 2010; an average rate of warming probably higher than any in the last
10,000 years.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to
many other socioeconomic and environmental indicators, for example, GDP per
capita growth rate, annual energy consumption per capita, environmental
protection expenditures, and expenditures on air pollution abatement.
(d) Targets: The objective of the Climate Change Convention (Article 2)
is to achieve the stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change entered into force in March 1994 and,
as of end January 1996, it had been ratified by 152 Parties. Article 4 of the
Convention, among other commitments, calls for Annex I Parties to return by
2000 (individually or jointly) their anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol to their
1990 level. Additionally, some Annex I Parties to the Convention have set
national targets that go beyond those of the Convention. Based on a first
compilation and synthesis of data requested from Parties (see doc. A/AC.237/81
and corr.1) only a few countries seem to be in a position to reach the
stabilization target by 2000. These include the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
Greenhouse gases will contribute at varying degrees to global warming
depending on their concentration and life horizon in the atmosphere and their
heat absorptive capacities. Global warming potentials (GWP) are used for each
gas (other than CO2) as a weighting factor to calculate national GHG emissions
in CO2 equivalents.
Emissions for CO2, CH4 and N2O are estimated based on activity data from fuel
combustion, fugitive fuel emissions, industrial processes, solvent use,
agriculture, land use change, and forestry and waste. Emission levels are
calculated using emission factors associated with emissions of each gas for
relevant activities. A greater degree of international comparability has been
achieved by using default emission factors proposed by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). National emission factors have been used,
whenever available, which has resulted in increased precision in national GHG
emissions.
Proposed additional related indicators would include annual GHG emissions per
capita, and annual GHG emissions per unit of GDP.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
Thirty-one of the 38 Parties included in the Annex I to the Convention have
submitted national communications containing detailed national GHG
inventories.
As part of the review process under the Convention, in-depth reviews of these
national communications have been undertaken resulting in the collection of
detailed information on GHG emissions by Annex I Parties. It is estimated that
these Parties, as a group, are responsible for over 60% of total global GHG
emissions annually.
As part of the review process of the Climate Change Convention, emission
levels would initially be available only for Annex I Parties to the Convention
(OECD plus EIT countries). By mid-1997, non-Annex I Parties will also start
to submit first-hand information on their annual GHG emissions.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). The contact point is the Executive Secretary, Secretariat, UNFCCC;
fax no. (41 22) 970 9034.
7. Further Information
First review of information communicated by each Party included in Annex I to
the Convention. A/AC.237/81 and corr. 1.
In-depth review reports on individual countries.
LEAD AGENCY: UNFCCC
EMISSIONS OF SULPHUR OXIDES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Emissions of sulphur oxides.
(b) Brief Definition: National anthropogenic emissions of sulphur oxides
(SOx) expressed as amounts of sulphur dioxide (SO2).
(c) Unit of Measurement: Tonnes or 1000 tonnes; % change in emissions over
time (for example, % change in emissions between 1980 and 1995). Proposed
denominator: per capita, per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), per unit of
gross energy consumption.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 9: Protection of the Atmosphere.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The indicator is used to evaluate the environmental
performance of national policies and to describe the environmental pressure in
relation to air emission abatement.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Anthropogenic
sulphur oxide emissions are influenced by a country~s industrial structure and
energy consumption, which in turn is affected by both energy intensity and
efficiency.
The emissions are also influenced by the country's standard of pollution
abatement and control and the use of clean production technology. They give an
indication of human impact on the environment through production and
consumption.
Countries' efforts to abate sulphur oxide emissions are reflected in national
policies and international commitments. Concrete actions include structural
changes in energy demand (energy savings and fuel substitution) as well as
pollution control policies and technical measures (for example, the
installation of industrial desulphurisation facilities).
Together with nitrogen compounds, sulphur compounds are the source of
environmental acidification. Anthropogenic sulphur oxides are predominantly
emitted by energy production plants, followed by industrial combustion and
industrial processes. Airborne emissions of sulphur oxides contribute to local
pollution as well as to large scale pollution through long distance transport
in the atmosphere.
Human exposure to sulphur oxides in the air contributes to respiratory
morbidity and mortality. The population subgroups most sensitive to sulphur
dioxide include asthmatics and individuals with cardiovascular disease or
chronic lung disease, as well as children and the elderly.
Sulphur dioxide acts as a precursor to sulphuric acid, which can kill aquatic
organisms, damage habitat and erode buildings. Sulphur is the major component
of increased acidification of the environment. Atmospheric sulphur is not
usually absorbed by vegetation, but passes through to the soil in the form of
sulphate.
The deposition of sulphur may be dry (in the form of gases and particles), wet
(in rain or snow), or in the form of condensation (as fog and cloud droplets).
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: In addition to annual sulphur oxide
emissions and the percentage change in emissions, emission intensity expressed
as quantities emitted per unit of GDP, per capita and per unit of gross
consumption of energy should be presented in order to assess sustainability.
The indicators are therefore closely linked to GDP per capita, transport fuel
consumption per capita, expenditure on air pollution abatement, and annual
energy consumption per capita. High sulphur dioxide emissions per unit of GDP
are, to some extent characteristic of countries undergoing rapid economic and
industrial development or which have high industrial output in relation to
population.
High emissions per unit GDP may also reflect a lack of pollution control for
sulphur dioxides and/or reliance on high-sulphur coal.
(d) Targets: For international targets, see section 3e below. Some
countries have set national targets that are tighter than those of the
international agreements. Few have met these national targets.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Within the framework of
the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (Geneva, 1979), the
Helsinki Protocol to reduce sulphur emissions by 30 percent from 1980 levels
by 1993 was signed in 1985 and entered into force in 1987. Within the
framework of the same convention, the Oslo Protocol on sulphur emission
ceilings and percentage emission reductions was signed in 1994.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
In some rare cases emissions are known by direct measurements in stacks or by
material balances. Generally sulphur oxide emissions are calculated with the
help of emission factors that reflect the presence of sulphur compounds in
different types of fuels and other products:
Emission = (Emission factor) x (Activity level)
Emission factors for stationary sources should be disaggregated by fuels,
facilities or economic sectors. They should include power stations (gas, oil
and coal), industrial processes (pollutants emitted in manufacturing products
from raw materials), non-industrial fuel combustion, and other stationary
sources (waste treatment and disposal, sewage treatment, agricultural
activities and coal refuse burning). Emission factors for mobile sources
should be disaggregated by fuels and types of vehicles. They should cover road
traffic (passenger cars, light and heavy duty trucks, buses and coaches and
motorcycles) and other mobile sources (navigation, railways, air traffic and
agricultural equipment).
National emission factors should be used whenever available. If they are not
readily available, or if the aim is to achieve a greater degree of
international comparability, regionally specific or fuel specific emission
factors can be used.
Data derived this way, however, are likely to differ from official estimates.
Differences still exist in countries~ emission factors, estimation methods and
definitions. Estimations of previous years are typically subject to revision
as estimation methods become better. These underlying differences should,
therefore, be kept in mind when interpreting the data.
Since the objective of the set of indicators is to describe the impact of
human activity on environment, emissions from natural sources (such as forest
fires and volcanic eruptions) should be excluded.
In recent years, considerable effort has been made to standardize or harmonize
the calculation of national emission inventories for sulphur oxides in order
to improve the comparability of national estimates. Work to standardize
sampling and analytical methods for air pollution has been completed by the
International Organization for Standardization, World Meteorological
Organization (WMO), World Health Organization (WHO), the Economic Commission
for Europe (UN ECE), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), and the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP). The EMEP
Task Force on Emission Inventories has developed a set of agreed technical
guidelines for the calculation and reporting of national sulphur dioxide
emissions. Under the terms of the Protocols to the UN ECE Convention on
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, signatory nations are required to
submit data on national emissions to EMEP under these guidelines.
Purchasing power parities (PPPs) should be used instead of exchange rates when
relating the emissions to GDP, as the objective of comparing levels of
economic activity is to reflect underlying volumes and physical processes as
closely as possible. In order to assess sustainability, it is important to
study the trends in emissions over a longer time period (15 or 20 years).
PPPs are defined as the ratio between the amount of national currency and the
amount of a reference currency needed to buy the same bundle of consumption
goods in the two countries. Typically, PPPs are different from exchange rates
as the latter reflects not only the relative prices of consumption goods but
a
host of other factors, including international movements of capital, interest
rate differentials and government interventions. As a consequence, exchange
rates exhibit much greater variations over time than PPPs.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
Presently, the main challenge concerning data on sulphur oxide emissions is to
increase the frequency at which the data is collected, processed and updated
at the national level. Annual changes in emissions cannot be calculated unless
annual data is available. In a number of countries the current practice still
is to publish emission inventories at five year intervals.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The contact point is Head,
State of the Environment Division, Environment Directorate, OECD; fax no.
(33 1) 45 24 78 76.
7. Further Information
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Air Quality Trends and
Emissions Trends Report, 1993. EPA 454/R-94-026, 1994.
OECD. Environmental Data Compendium 1995. OECD, Paris, 1995.
OECD. Environmental Indicators: OECD Core Set. OECD, Paris, 1994.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Environmental Data Report
1993-1994. Basil Blackwell: Oxford, 1993.
Related work is being carried out by EMEP, UNEP, UN ECE, The World Bank, UN
Commission on Sustainable Development, Eurostat, and the European Environment
Agency.
LEAD AGENCY: OECD
EMISSIONS OF NITROGEN OXIDES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Emissions of nitrogen oxides.
(b) Brief Definition: National anthropogenic emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) expressed as amounts of nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
(c) Unit of Measurement: Tonnes or 1000 tonnes; % change in emissions over
time (for example, % change in emissions between 1980 and 1995). Proposed
denominator: per capita, per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), per unit
of gross energy consumption.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 9: Protection of the Atmosphere.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The indicator is used to evaluate the environmental
performance of national policies and to describe the environmental pressure in
relation to air emission abatement.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Anthropogenic
nitrogen oxide emissions are influenced by a country~s industrial structure
and energy consumption, which in turn is affected by both energy intensity and
efficiency.
The emissions are also influenced by the country~s standard of pollution
abatement and control, and the use of clean production technology. They give
an indication of human impact on environment. Countries~ efforts to abate
nitrogen oxide emissions are reflected in national policies and international
commitments. Concrete actions include structural changes in energy demand
(energy savings and fuel substitution) as well as pollution control policies
and technical measures (for example, the installation of industrial
denitrification facilities, the use of catalytic converters on cars). The
indicator can be used, therefore, to evaluate the environmental performance of
national policies and to describe the environmental pressure in relation to
production and consumption.
Together with sulphur compounds, nitrogen compounds are the source of
environmental acidification. Anthropogenic nitrogen is predominantly emitted
as nitrogen oxides by transport sources, as well as by other energy uses and
industrial processes. Airborne emissions of nitrogen oxides contribute to
local pollution as well as to large scale pollution through long distance
transport in the atmosphere. Another source of nitrogen is nitrogenous
fertilisers when used in excessive quantities in agriculture.
Nitrogen oxides are associated with both respiratory morbidity and mortality
in humans. Nitrogen dioxide can irritate the lungs and lower the resistance to
respiratory infections. The effects of short-term exposure are still unclear,
but continued or frequent exposure to concentrations higher than those
normally found in the ambient air may cause increased incidence of acute
respiratory disease.
In the presence of sunlight, nitrogen oxides react with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) to form tropospheric ozone and other oxidizing chemicals;
forms of oxygen that are toxic to living things, including human beings.
Nitrogen oxides are also a precursor of nitric acid in rainwater, and they
reinforce the deleterious effects of sulphur dioxide on artefacts, aquatic
organisms, agriculture and habitat. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen oxides
can contribute to eutrophication. In some areas, nitrogen oxides are
precursors to particulate matter concentrations. The deposition of nitrogen
may be dry (in the form of gases and particles), wet (in rain or snow) or in
the form of condensation (as fog and cloud droplets).
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: In addition to annual nitrogen oxide
emissions and their percentage change, emission intensity expressed as
quantities emitted per unit of GDP, per capita and per unit of gross
consumption of energy should be presented in order to assess sustainability.
The indicators are therefore closely linked to GDP per capita, transport fuel
consumption per capita, expenditure on air pollution abatement, and annual
energy consumption per capita.
(d) Targets: See section 3e below.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Within the framework of the
Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (Geneva, 1979), a
protocol to reduce nitrogen emissions to their 1987 level by 1995 (Sofia,
1988) entered into force in 1991.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
In some rare cases emissions are known by direct measurements in stacks or by
balance of material. Generally nitrogen oxide emissions are calculated with
the help of emission factors that reflect the presence of nitrogen compounds
in different types of fuels and other products:
Emission = (Emission factor) x (Activity level)
Emission factors for stationary sources should be disaggregated by fuels,
facilities or economic sectors. They should include power stations (gas, oil
and coal), industrial processes (pollutants emitted in manufacturing products
from raw materials), non-industrial fuel combustion and other stationary
sources (waste treatment and disposal, sewage treatment, agricultural
activities and coal refuse burning). Emission factors for mobile sources
should be disaggregated by fuels and types of vehicles. They should cover road
traffic (passenger cars, light and heavy duty trucks, buses and coaches and
motorcycles) and other mobile sources (navigation, railways, air traffic and
agricultural equipment).
National emission factors should be used whenever available. If they are not
readily available, or if the aim is to achieve a greater degree of
international comparability, regionally specific or fuel specific emission
factors can be used.
Data derived this way, however, are likely to differ from official estimates.
Differences still exist in countries~ emission factors, estimation methods and
definitions. Estimations of previous years are typically subject to revision
as estimation methods become better. These underlying differences should,
therefore, be kept in mind when interpreting the data.
Since the objective of the set of indicators is to describe the impact of
human activity on environment, emissions from natural sources (such as
lightning) should be excluded.
In recent years, considerable effort has been made to standardize or harmonize
the calculation of national emission inventories for nitrogen oxides in order
to improve the comparability of national estimates. Work to standardize
sampling and analytical methods for air pollution has been completed by the
International Organization for Standardization, World Meteorological
Organization (WMO), World Health Organization (WHO), the Economic Commission
for Europe (UN ECE), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), and the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP). The EMEP
Task Force on Emission Inventories has developed a set of agreed technical
guidelines for the calculation and reporting of national nitrogen oxide
emissions. Under the terms of the Protocols to the UN ECE Convention on
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, signatory nations are required to
submit data on national emissions to EMEP under these guidelines.
Purchasing power parities (PPPs) should be used instead of exchange rates when
relating the emissions to GDP, as the objective of comparing levels of
economic activity such as GDP is to reflect underlying volumes and physical
processes as closely as possible. In order to assess sustainability, it is
important to study the trends in emissions over a longer time period (15 or 20
years). PPPs are defined as the ratio between the amount of national currency
and the amount of a reference currency needed to buy the same bundle of
consumption goods in the two countries. Typically, PPPs are different from
exchange rates as the latter reflects not only the relative prices of
consumption goods but a host of other factors, including international
movements of capital, interest rate differentials and government
interventions. As a consequence, exchange rates exhibit much greater
variations over time than PPPs.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
Presently, the main challenge concerning data on nitrogen oxide emissions is
to increase the frequency at which the data is collected, processed and
updated at the national level. Annual changes in emissions cannot be
calculated unless annual data is available. In a number of countries the
current practice still is to publish emission inventories at five year
intervals.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The contact point is Head, State
of the Environment Division, Environment Directorate, OECD; fax no.
(33 1) 45 24 78 76.
7. Further Information
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Air Quality Trends and
Emissions Trends Report, 1993. EPA 454/R-94-026, 1994.
OECD. Environmental Data Compendium 1995. OECD, Paris, 1995.
OECD. Environmental Indicators: OECD Core Set. OECD, Paris, 1994.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Environmental Data Report
1993-1994. Basil Blackwell: Oxford, 1993.
Related work is being carried out by EMEP, UNEP, UN ECE, The World Bank, UN
Commission on Sustainable Development, Eurostat, and the European Environment
Agency.
LEAD AGENCY: OECD
CONSUMPTION OF OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS).
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator will show the amounts of Ozone
Depleting Substances being eliminated as a result of the Montreal Protocol.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Weighted tonnes of ODS.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 9: Protection of the Atmosphere.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator signifies the commitment of the countries
which have ratified the Montreal Protocol to the phaseout of ODS.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The phaseout of
ODS, and their substitution by less harmful substances, will lead to the
recovery of the ozone layer and the use of more sustainable products.
Stratospheric ozone absorbs most of the biologically damaging ultraviolet
radiation (UV-B). Without the filtering action of the ozone layer more UV-B
radiation can penetrate the atmosphere to have profound effects on human
health, animals, plants, microorganisms, marine life, materials,
biogeochemical cycles, and air quality.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator has links to other
environmental and institutional indicators, such as number of chemicals banned
or restricted and ratification of international agreements. It has
significant implications to human health and natural resources.
(d) Targets: The target under the agreements listed in 3e below is the
complete phaseout of ODS.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The Vienna Convention for
the Protection of the Ozone Layer and its Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Ozone Depleting Substance means
any organic substance containing chlorine or bromine, which destroys the
stratospheric ozone layer. Production means the amount of listed, controlled
substances produced; minus the amount destroyed by technologies to be approved
by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, and minus the amount entirely used as
feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals. The amount recycled and
reused is not to be considered as "production". Consumption is the sum of
production plus imports minus exports of controlled substances. Weighted
tonnes of ozone depleting substances means the amount of ODS multiplied by
their ozone depleting potential. Ozone depleting potential is a relative index
of the ability of a substance to cause ozone depletion.
The reference level of 1 is assigned as an index to CFC-11 and CFC-12. If a
product has an ozone depleting potential of 0.5, a given weight of the product
in the atmosphere would, in time, deplete half the ozone that the same weight
of CFC-11 or CFC-12 would deplete. Ozone-depletion potentials are calculated
from mathematical models which take into account factors such as the stability
of the product, the rate of diffusion, the quantity of depleting atoms per
molecule, and the effect of ultraviolet light and other radiation on the
molecules.
(b) Measurement Methods: Weighted Tonnes of ODS for production are the
sum of national annual production (in tonnes) of each controlled substance (as
reported to the Ozone Secretariat in accordance with Article 7 of the Montreal
Protocol) multiplied by the ozone depleting potential of that substance (as
listed in Annexes A, B, C and E of the Handbook of the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 1993).
Weighted Tonnes of Ozone Depleting Substances for consumption are obtained
through a similar calculation using national annual consumption values (in
tonnes).
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The production and consumption of
ODS represent a Driving Force indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Availability and accuracy of data and
timely reporting will determine the country's ability to use the indicator.
The indicator by itself does not reveal much about current trends in the
deterioration of the ozone layer because of delays in ecosystem response.
(e) Alternative Definitions: An alternative indicator could focus on the
phaseout of ODS.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data on production, imports and
exports of controlled substances by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
(b) Data Availability: The data are available for most countries, on a
national level, on a regular annual basis, as part of their reporting
obligations to the Montreal Protocol.
(c) Data Sources: Data are available from the Ozone Secretariat and the
national government ministry responsible for reporting to the Montreal
Protocol.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP). The contact point is the Director, Environmental ASSessment
Programme, UNEP; fax no. (254 2) 62 42 74.
(b) Other Organizations: Other organizations interested in the further
development of this indicator would include: the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol, the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
and members associated with the Alternative Fluorocarbon Environmental
Acceptability Study (AFEAS).
7. Further Information
(a) Further Reading:
Ozone Secretariat. Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer. 1993.
Montreal Protocol Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Reports.
Reporting of Data by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Solomon and Albritton. Time-dependent Ozone Depleting Potentials for Short and
Long Term Forecasts. Nature, Vol. 356, 7/5/92.
Environment Canada. Environmental Indicator Bulletin for Stratospheric Ozone.
State of the Environment Reporting, 1995.
United Nations Environment Programme. Ad-hoc Technical Advisory Committee on
ODS Destruction Technologies. 1992.
(b) Other Contact Points:
Coordinator, Secretariat for the Vienna Convention or the Protection of the
Ozone Layer; fax. no. (254 2) 226886.
Chief, Global Environment Coordination, The World Bank; fax no.
(1 202) 522 3256.
United Nations Industrial and Development Organization (UNIDO); fax no.
(43 1) 211 232156.
Principal Technical Adviser, Environment & Natural Resources Group, BPPE,
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); fax no. (1 212) 906 6947.
Director, UNEP Industry & Environment Office (UNEP IE/PAC); fax no.
(33 1) 4437 1474.
Chief Officer, Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal
Protocol; fax no. (1 514) 282 0068.
AFEAS Project Administrator, Alternative Fluorocarbon Environmental
Acceptability Study (AFEAS); phone no. (1 202) 789 1201.
Environment Directorate, OECD; fax no. (33 1) 45 24 78 76.
LEAD AGENCY: UNEP
AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN URBAN AREAS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Ambient concentrations of pollutants in urban areas.
(b) Brief Definition: Ambient air pollution concentrations of ozone,
carbon monoxide, suspended particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, and nitrogen monoxide.
(c) Unit of Measurement: fg/m3 or ppb for all pollutants except carbon
monoxide which is measured in mg/m3 or ppm.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 9: Protection of the Atmosphere.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of these indicators is to measure the exposure
of people to various air pollutants.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: An increasing
percentage of the world's population lives in urban areas. The majority of
pollution sources tend to be found in or close to urban areas. As a result,
the greatest potential for human exposure to adverse environmental conditions
and subsequent health problems occurs in urban areas. Improving air quality
is a significant aspect of promoting sustainable human settlements.
Knowledge of air pollutant concentrations is needed to define areas of non
attainment of air quality standards or guidelines, and to determine
appropriate control measures on pollution sources. It is important to
recognize that synergistic effects among these pollutants may increase the
potential for adverse health effects.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to
others which relate to causes, effects, and societal responses. These
include, for example, the indicators on population growth rate, rate of growth
of urban population, percent of population in urban areas, annual energy
consumption per capita, emissions of sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides, life
expectancy at birth, total national health care as a percent of Gross National
Product, share of consumption of renewable energy resources, environmental
protection expenditures as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, and
expenditure on air pollution abatement.
(d) Targets: World Health Organization (WHO) air quality guidelines exist
for all the pollutants of this indicator, except nitrogen monoxide. Many
countries have established their own air quality standards for many of these
pollutants.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Air pollution monitoring is
performed by representative random sampling and chemical analysis of air
samples and comparison of statistical local parameters (such as arithmetic or
geometric means, percentiles) with air quality standards or guidelines. Air
samples may include samples of outdoor and/or indoor air.
(b) Measurement Methods:
i) Ozone:
Passive Samplers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagent Product of reaction Analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2, -di-(4-pyridyl) Aldehyde; Spectrophometry;
ethylene (DPE);
Indigo carmine; Reflectance;
NaNO2 + Na2CO3 + Nitrate; Ion chromography or
glycerine; spectrophotometry;
KI (buffered to pH 9) I complex Spectrophotometry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Samplers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absorption solution Product of reaction Analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potassium iodide; Iodine; Spectrophotometry;
5.5'-Indigo sulphone acid Spectrophotometry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Samplers: Chemiluminiscence, UV-Absorption.
ii) Carbon monoxide:
Passive Samplers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagent Product of reaction Analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenax (zeolite absorber) Thermal desorption GC-
FID after conversion
to methane
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Samplers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absorption solution Product of reaction Analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conductometry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Samplers: Non-dispersive infrared absorption, gas filter correlation
method.
iii) Suspended particulate matter:
Active Samplers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method Analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Smoke Reflectometer
High Volume Sampler Gravimetry
Beta Ray Absorption Beta ray attenuation
Particle Size Monitoring Gravimetry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Samplers: Beta Ray Absorption.
iv) Sulphur dioxide:
Passive Samplers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagent Product of reaction Analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrachloromercurate Sulphite; Spectrophotometry
(TCM; West-Gaeke); (pararosaniline);
TEA (+glycol); Sulphite; Spectrophotometry
(pararosaniline);
KOH + glycerol); Sulphate; Spectrophotometry
(barium ions + DMSA);
Na2CO3 (+glycerine); Sulphate; Ion chromography;
TEA + Na2CO3 Thorin method after
ion exchange
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Samplers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absorption solution Product of reaction Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen peroxide; Sulphuric acid; Titration with sodium
tetraborate,
Ion Chromatography;
Sodium Tetrachloromercurate; Dichloro-sulphito- Spectrophotometry
mercurate complex; Colorimetry;
Potassium hydroxide Sulphate Spectrophotometry
impregnated filter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Samplers: Conductometry, UV fluorescence.
v) Nitrogen dioxide:
Passive Samplers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagent Product of reaction Analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Triethanolamine (TEA); Nitrite Ion chromography or
NaI + Na2CO3 Nitrite spectrophotometry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Samplers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absorption solution Product of reaction Analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alkaline solution; Nitrite; Spectrophotometry,
Colorimetry (Sulphanilic
acid + N-(1-naphthyl)-
ethylene diamine
dihydrochloride (NEDA);
Triethanolamine, Guaiacol, Nitrite; Spectrophotometry
Sodium metabisulfite (TGS); (sulphanilamide + 8-
anilino-1-
naphthalenesulphonic
acid ammonium salt
(ANSA));
Glass beads coated with Nitrite Spectrophotometry,
potassium iodide and sodium (Sulphanilic acid +
arsenite NEDA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Samplers: Chemiluminiscence.
vi) Nitrogen monoxide:
Passive Samplers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagent Product of reaction Analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CrO3 (oxidation), TEA Nitrite Spectrophotometry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Samplers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absorption solution Product of reaction Analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxidation to nitrogen Nitrite; Spectrophotometry
dioxide and alkaline Colorimetry
(Sulphanilic solution;
acid + N-(1-naphthyl)-
ethylene diamine
dihydrochloride
(NEDA);
Oxidation to nitrogen Nitrite; Spectrophotometry
dioxide and (sulphanilamide +
triethanolamine, 8-anilino-1-
Guaiacol, Sodium naphthalenesulphonic
metabisulfite (TGS); acid ammonium salt
(ANSA));
Oxidation to nitrogen Nitrite Spectrophotometry,
dioxide and glass beads (Sulphanilic acid +
coated with potassium NEDA)
iodide and sodium arsenite
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Samplers: Chemiluminiscence after oxidation to nitrogen dioxide.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator is a measure of
the State of air quality in urban areas.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Measurement limitations for this
indicator relate to the level of detection and accuracy of readings with
respect to the maximal registered value. These are as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Detection Limit Precision
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone about 1 fg/m3 below 2%
Carbon monoxide about 1 mg/m3 below 1%
Suspended particulate matter about 1 fg/m3 below 2%
Sulphur dioxide about 1 fg/m3 5-8.5% minimum;
2.5-6% for high
performance labs
Nitrogen dioxide about 1 fg/m3 4.5-7% minimum;
2.5-5% for high
performance labs
Nitrogen monoxide about 1 fg/m3 4.5-7% minimum;
2.5-5% for high
performance labs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data must be time and spatially
representative concentrations which allow the estimation of statistical
location parameters up to 1 fg/m3 accuracy.
(b) Data Availability: Air quality data are routinely collected by
national environmental and health agencies.
(c) Data Sources: Data sources include national ambient air pollution
concentration inventories; the Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS)
for Air; and international databases held by, for example, the European Union
or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the World Health
Organization (WHO). The contact point is the Director, Division of
Operational Support in Environmental Health, WHO; fax no. (41 22) 791 4159.
7. Further Information
Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS/Air). Methodology Review
Handbook Series. Volumes 2, 3, and 4.
Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. Environmental Health Criteria for Ozone,
Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen.
WHO. Global Strategy for Health for All by the Year 2000. Geneva. 1981.
WHO. Ninth General Programme of Work covering the Period 1996-2001. Geneva.
1994.
WHO. Development of Indicators for Monitoring Progress towards Health for All
by the Year 2000. Geneva. 1981.
Urban Air Pollution in Megacities of the World.
LEAD AGENCY: WHO
EXPENDITURE ON AIR POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Expenditure on air pollution abatement.
(b) Brief Definition: Air pollution abatement expenditure comprises the
flow of investment and current expenditure that is directly aimed at pollution
abatement and control, and which is incurred by the public sector, the
business sector, and possibly private households.
(c) Unit of Measurement: US$.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 9: Protection of the Atmosphere.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of the indicator is to measure expenditures on
air pollution abatement as a societal response.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Expenditures on
air pollution abatement provide a general indication of a country~s financial
efforts directed towards air pollution. However, as absolute figures, their
relevance for policy purposes is limited and air pollution abatement
expenditure has to be related to other variables, such as Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) or gross fixed capital formation. The relation between air
pollution abatement expenditure and the state of the environment can only be
explored with supplementary information on the overall context of a country.
Out of context, high abatement expenditure can be associated both with low
environmental quality (the situation makes expenditure necessary) and with
high environmental quality (which has improved as a result of the abatement
expenditure). Also the trend in pollution abatement expenditure should be
interpreted with caution: if, at some point in time, all production processes
use cleaner technology and no emissions are created, no further abatement will
be required. Hence, in the long run the trend in air pollution abatement
expenditure can be downward sloping.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked with
others in the socioeconomic and environmental categories such as GDP per
capita, transport fuel consumption per capita, emissions of SOx and NOx and
reductions in these emission), and annual energy consumption per capita.
(d) Targets: No targets are available for this indicator.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
Air pollution abatement activities are defined as purposeful activities aimed
at the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution. Air pollution
abatement includes the following activities: monitoring and regulation of
atmospheric pollution, prevention of air pollution linked to the production
process, installation of non-polluting technologies (clean technologies and
clean products used in the production process), and elimination of emissions
at the source (dedusting equipment and filters).
The abatement and control of residuals from production processes can take
place either by end-of-pipe technology, which is attached to a given
production process, or by changing the process itself. Investments in
end-of-pipe technologies do not change the production process and the entire
outlay is for pollution control. The difficulty associated with integrated
(change-in-production) technologies is establishing what proportion of the
total cost should be allocated to pollution abatement, given that there could
be other reasons for the acquisition of the new equipment, for example, to
improve production capacity to meet expanding demand.
The scoping of the indicator is problematic. In can be relatively narrow to
include initial investment and operating costs for industrial pollution
control. A broader scope would consider research and development, automobile
emission devices, traffic control systems, etc. This makes comparisons among
countries difficult.
Air pollution abatement investment expenditure data form the basis for the
calculation of the costs of air pollution abatement investment. It is
important to notice the difference between the two terms: the estimation of
costs would require appropriate assumptions about the service lives, interest
rates, and other parameters. From the viewpoint of assessing the economic
impact of environmental policies, it would thus be preferable to look at cost
rather than expenditure.
In discussing the unit of measurement, Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) should
be used instead of exchange rates, as the objective of comparing levels of
economic activity such as GDP is to reflect underlying volumes and physical
processes as closely as possible. PPPs are defined as the ratio between the
amount of national currency and the amount of a reference currency needed to
buy the same bundle of consumption goods in the two countries. Typically, PPPs
are different from exchange rates as the latter reflects not only the relative
prices of consumption goods but a host of other factors, including
international movements of capital, interest rate differentials and government
interventions. As a consequence, exchange rates exhibit much greater
variations over time than PPPs.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
Data on private and public sector investments and current costs of air
pollution abatement are needed to compile the indicator. Countries often
experience difficulties in identifying environmental investments (or in
identifying the environmental component of an investment) and, therefore, it
is unlikely that pollution abatement expenditure data will be available for
many countries in the near future. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) is one international agency which collects data on
pollution abatement and control expenditure from its member countries. Thus,
for most OECD countries, reasonably harmonised expenditure data are available
on a regular basis. In other countries, some expenditure data can be obtained
from national reports or pilot studies. Few countries are able to distinguish
between national and local government abatement expenditure.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). The contact point is the Head, State of the Environment Division,
Environment Directorate, OECD; fax no. (33 1) 45 24 78 76.
7. Further Information
OECD. Pollution Abatement and Control Expenditure in OECD Countries. OECD
Environment Monographs No. 75, Paris, 1993.
The OECD questionnaire on pollution abatement and control expenditure and the
underlying definitions have been approved by the OECD Group on Economic and
Environmental Policy Integration.
Other institutions where related work is carried out include the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE), Eurostat, and the European
Environment Agency.
LEAD AGENCY: OECD
GENERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Generation of industrial and municipal solid waste.
(b) Brief Definition: The generation of industrial and municipal solid
waste is derived from the production of waste on a weight basis at the point
of production.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Tonnes per capita per annum.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 21: Environmentally Sound Management of Solid
Wastes and Sewage-related Issues.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The main purpose is to represent the production of solid
waste produced by all types of human settlements activity.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Generation of
waste as an indicator is intimately linked to the level of economic activity
in a particular country. It is also an indication of the patterns of
consumption of raw materials. Wealthier economies tend to produce more waste.
In many developed countries a reduction in the volume of waste generated is an
indication of changes in consumption patterns with respect to raw materials
and increase in recycling and reuse.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is intimately linked to
other socioeconomic and environmental indicators especially those related to
income-level and economic growth. Those would include: rate of growth of
urban population, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, waste disposal, and
waste recycling.
(d) Targets: Some countries have set national targets for the reduction
of solid waste within a specified time frame.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: No international agreements
exists for reduction in solid waste production.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The precise definition of what
constitutes solid waste is variable, but principally it can be considered as
that material which has no further useful purpose and is discarded. It is,
therefore, perceived to have no commercial value to the producer. This does
not, however, preclude it being of value to some other party. Solid waste is
generally produced in three ways: through the production and consumption of
goods and services; through the processing of wastes from these services; and
through end-of-pipe control or treatment of emissions. Waste is generally
reported based on source under the following categories: mining and
construction wastes; energy production wastes; agricultural wastes; municipal
wastes; and industrial waste or sludge.
Industrial wastes can be expressed in terms of tonnes per annum or in some
cases related to the production volume of the product being processed or
manufactured.
Municipal wastes are produced by a variety of establishments in the urban
environment in addition to households, including institutions such as schools,
government buildings, commercial establishments such as hospitals and hotels,
and some scattered sources of hazardous wastes.
(b) Measurement Methods: Solid waste production at source is difficult to
measure for municipal wastes, except by using intensive studies at the
household level. It is highly dependent on the mode of collection by the
local authorities and whether or not the waste is actually disposed of in the
official system. For industrial wastes the volume of waste can most easily be
measured as the weight which leaves the factory compound.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator is a measure of
the amount of solid waste produced by human settlements activity. It
represents a Driving Force in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Solid waste production is expensive to
measure at source; thus, consistent and comparable statistics are difficult to
obtain. The indicator does not distinguish between toxic and hazardous wastes,
and those more benign; nor does it cover waste stored on site. It is often
confused with the amount of solid waste disposed, which is measured by
recording the weight or volume of waste disposed at the disposal or treatment
site.
Volume of waste produced may be significantly affected by the presence of
particular wastes. For example, the inclusion of construction wastes in
domestic refuse will greatly affect the waste density and hence the indicator.
The actual method of storage of waste and its moisture content will also
affect the waste density. The volume of waste produced is often affected by
seasonal variations in the production of various agricultural foodstuffs.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The use of solid waste disposal, which is
easier to measure, may be a suitable proxy measure for this indicator in some
countries.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The weight of waste produced by
municipal and industrial sources; and population.
(b) Data Availability: Generally, data is scattered, may be difficult to
obtain, and consist of only rough estimates. Where it is available, data for
municiple wastes can be obtained from studies of representative cross-section
of the population. For industrial sources, data on the volume of waste is
monitored by waste collection contractors.
(c) Data Sources: At the international level, specialised research surveys
have been conducted by the Settlement Infrastructure and Environment Programme
of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS or Habitat). At
the national level, data sources would include ministries responsible for
urban affairs and the environment, and statistical agencies.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements (Habitat). The contact point is the Director, Programme
Coordination, Habitat: fax no. (254 2) 624 266.
(b) Other Organizations: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
the World Bank, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and Eurostat are involved in the
development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
Various publications from the Settlement Infrastructure and Environment
Programme, Habitat.
UNEP. Environmental Data Report. 1993-94.
OECD. OECD Environmental Data Compendium 1995. OECD, Paris, 1995.
Eurostat. Europe's Environment: Statistical Compendium for the Dobris
Assessment. 1995.
LEAD AGENCY: HABITAT
HOUSEHOLD WASTE DISPOSED PER CAPITA
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Household waste disposed per capita.
(b) Brief Definition: The volume of waste disposed per capita is derived
from the actual volume of waste that is disposed of at a point outside the
producers premises. Some proportion may be disposed of by the formal waste
management system. The volume of waste disposed should be considered as that
which is either landfilled or incinerated not that which is recycled or
reused.
(c) Unit of Measurement: kg/capita/day.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 21: Environmentally Sound Management of Solid
Wastes and Sewage-related Issues.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The main purpose of this indicator is to represent the
amount of waste which is disposed of from the household, some of which is
disposed through the official waste management system.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: An increase in
waste disposal is clearly unsustainable in the long term. The amount of waste
reflects on society's production and consumption patterns, and has potential
impact on human health and the environment. An indicator on the amount of
waste generated is, therefore, a first approximation of environmental pressure
on air, water, and land resources. The type of waste and waste handling
facilities will, of course, greatly influence the actual impact. A
sustainable waste management program will strive to minimize the amount of
waste, maximize the amount of reuse and recycling, and promote appropriate
waste disposal and treatment. This indicator is designed to be a measure of
the waste leaving the domestic unit as distinct from that produced. The
difference between waste generated and waste disposed provides an indication
of the amount reused or recycled at the household level.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is linked with those in
the areas of human health, human settlements, financial mechanisms,
freshwater resources, land resources, and the atmosphere. Closely associated
indicators would include: access to safe drinking water, rate of growth of
urban population, environmental protection expenditures, land condition
change, and ambient concentrations of pollutants in urban areas.
(d) Targets: No targets exist for this indicator.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: No international agreements
apply.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The quantity of waste produced
per capita is directly related to an individual's production and consumption
patterns. The higher their income, the higher the volume of waste they tend to
produce. As their wealth increases, they tend to purchase more consumables,
including goods which are contained in large amounts of packing material. For
those who are not so well off, or where public pressure is applied,
communities will try to recover and reuse as much as possible to reduce
expenditure and the volume of waste.
(b) Measurement Methods: This indicator will be the result of specific
surveys which measure the amount of waste on a weight basis leaving the
physical boundaries of the household.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator is a measure of
the amount of waste produced by households. As such, it is a Driving Force
indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: This indicator is difficult to measure
without planning a specific study and is highly dependant on the sample
households which are measured. There is a large variation between the volumes
of waste disposed of by high and low-income residents. There is also the
problem that when evaluated in a particular study, people have been shown to
modify their behaviour with regard to what they discard. This indicator is
closely related with the volume disposed by waste management authorities. The
indicator applies primarily to urban areas only; rural data would be very
difficult to obtain.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The use of an indicator measuring the
generation of municipal waste may be adequate and more appropriate for some
countries.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The data required is the total
volume of waste that leaves a household; together with the number of
householders.
(b) Data Availability: Data is not readily available and must be the
result of a specific study.
(c) Data Sources: At the international level, specialised research
surveys have been conducted by the Settlement Infrastructure and Environment
Programme of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS or
Habitat). At the national level, data sources would include ministries
responsible for urban affairs and the environment, and statistical agencies.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements (Habitat). The contact point is the Director, Programme
Coordination, Habitat: fax no. (254 2) 624 266.
(b) Other Organizations: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
the World Bank, and the World Health Organization (WHO) are involved in the
development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
Various publications from the Settlement Infrastructure and Environment
Programme, Habitat.
LEAD AGENCY: HABITAT
EXPENDITURE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Expenditure on waste management.
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator relates to the amount of municipal
and/or private money spent on waste collection and treatment.
(c) Unit of Measurement: $US per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 21: Environmentally Sound Management of Solid
Wastes and Sewage-related Issues.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The main purpose of this indicator is to give an indication
of the type and level of service that the city authority provides for waste
management and the relative importance that it attaches to waste management in
relation to other services. It is also an indication of the efficiency of the
waste collection service when expressed per tonne of waste disposed and can be
used to compare relative efficiency within a country or region where the
overall costs are of the same order.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Expenditure on
waste management is an important factor in determining the commitment to
sustainable development. If waste is not handled properly, there is a
significant level of deterioration in the health and living environment which
results in a loss in productivity and reduced economic output. There have been
examples of poor waste management leading to disease epidemics which have
seriously affected human health, tourism, and other industries.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is linked to other
social, economic, and environmental indicators, for example GDP per capita,
Environmentally Adjusted Domestic Product (EDP) per capita, environmental
protection expenditures, and those associated with the generation, disposal,
and recycling of waste.
(d) Targets: No targets exist for this indicator.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: No international agreements
apply.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The expenditure on waste
management is most usually the amount spent on the provision of public and
private services for waste management. It is important that the indicator is
derived from waste management data rather that other forms of waste such as
street cleansing or certain industrial wastes. The budgeted figures should
include both per capita expenditure, and operation and maintenance budgets.
The costs are usually composed of capital equipment costs, amortised over the
life of the equipment; and operational costs such as staff, fuel and
maintenance.
(b) Measurement Methods: The expenditure exclusively used for waste
management services can sometimes be difficult to extract from financial
records, as it may be combined with other public health facilities. The
indicator is derived from the ratio of total expenditure to the total volume
of waste collected by the waste management authority or private contractors it
has engaged. In some countries, it may be possible that some of the operations
for waste management are undertaken on so-called community contracting
schemes.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator is an indication of
the level and efficiency of municipal service provision and a measure of their
ability to respond to the increasing problem of waste management. The
indicator will also be a measure of the level of cost recovery received for
the provision of services. It is clearly a Response indicator in the DSR
Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Where a country receives a substantial
level of donor support, care must be taken to include these finances in the
calculation of expenditure.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The volume of waste disposed of
per unit time. The total expenditure on solid waste management per unit of
time. GDP levels.
(b) Data Availability: The data are generally available from municipal
records or from private contractors where appropriate.
(c) Data Sources: Data are usually derived from local authority records.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements (Habitat). The contact point is the Director, Programme
Coordination, Habitat: fax no. (254 2) 624 266.
(b) Other Organizations: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), and Eurostat are involved in the development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
Various publications from the World Bank and the Settlement Infrastructure and
Environment Programme, Habitat.
LEAD AGENCY: HABITAT
WASTE RECYCLING AND REUSE
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Rate of waste recycling and reuse.
(b) Brief Definition: This is the volume of waste which is reused or
recycled based on the volume actually generated at source on a per capita
basis.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 21: Environmentally Sound Management of Solid
Wastes and Sewage-related Issues.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure the proportion
of waste which is reused or recycled.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Solid waste
recycling and reuse is an important component of a sustainable approach for
solid waste management. As communities expand, the available sinks for waste
disposal will become limited and necessitate the transport of waste for
greater distances. The ecological footprint of urban areas will therefore be
greatly increased. By stimulating recycling and reuse, landfill capacity is
conserved and operational costs for solid waste management reduced. There is
also the benefit of increased income generation for the urban poor through
recycling schemes.
This indicator has a different relevance for developed and developing
countries. In developed countries it represents a willingness on the part of
national and local governments to consider waste recycling as an
environmentally sound policy option, whereas in developing countries it
represents the level of the informal sector waste recycling industry, which is
usually promoted for its income-generating potential.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is intimately linked to
the other solid waste management indicators for Chapter 21. It is also
associated with some of the indicators for human settlements and financial
mechanisms, such as percent of population in urban areas, and environmental
protection expenditures.
(d) Targets: Some developed countries have established voluntary targets
for the proportion of waste recycled by year 2000.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: No international agreements
apply.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The proportion of waste recycled
requires accurate estimation of the proportion of waste generated, as much
waste is recycled or pre-sorted at the household level before it reaches the
formal waste management system. For this purpose the measurement of the
indicator is often completed by means of a specialised survey. Generally the
proportion of wastes recycled is reported based on the type of recyclable
components. For example, metals, plastics, paper, glass, textiles, organic
etc. It should be noted that due to pre-separation of inorganic recyclables,
organic waste often constitutes 50% of the total volume of the waste from
developing countries.
In addition to recycling at the industrial and household level, in many cities
waste is recycled outside the producer's premises, either on the street, by
formal waste management employees, or at the dumpsite. The indicator must
consider all sources of recycling and the additional methods combine to give
a
complex expression or the overall percentage of recycling. The amount of
recycling undertaken outside the producer's premises has to be estimated from
detailed surveys of all the dealers in recycled material and requires an
inventory of all small-scale reprocessors who recycle wastes.
(b) Measurement Methods: The volumes of waste produced and the percentage
recycled at the industrial and household levels are measured by simple
weighing. At the municipal level the volume recycled is best estimated by
quantifying the output by the producers of recycled products and the volume of
waste that is disposed of by the formal sector.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator as a measure of
recycling and reuse of waste, is a Response indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator should be expressed in
terms of particular components to be useful in determining the actual
recycling rate. If all components are lumped together on a weight or volume
basis the indicator is not particularly useful. Some recycling, for example
waste oils and solvents, is not captured by this solid waste indicator.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Sometimes it is worthwhile to express the %
recycled based on the useage of a particular comodity, for example volume of
aluminium recycled per volume produced. This enables a better estimation of
the level of resource conservation, and for some industries, could be done on
a national basis.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Weight of waste produced by
component; weight of waste disposed or discarded, by component; weight of
waste recycled by the formal and informal sectors, by component.
(b) Data Availability: Generally, there is little problem in obtaining
the data from municipal or industrial records. However, data can be scattered
and time consuming to compile for indicator purposes. Some informal sector
industries are reluctant to declare their activities and data collection from
them could be difficult.
(c) Data Sources: At the international level, specialised research
surveys have been conducted by the Settlement Infrastructure and Environment
Programme of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS or
Habitat). Within countries, data sources would include national and local
agencies responsible for urban affairs and the environment.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements (Habitat). The contact point is the Director, Programme
Coordination, Habitat: fax no. (254 2) 624 266.
(b) Other Organizations: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
the World Health Organization (WHO), and industry associations would be
interested in the development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
Various publications from the Settlement Infrastructure and Environment
Programme, Habitat.
UNEP. Environmental Data Report. 1993-94.
LEAD AGENCY: HABITAT
MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Municipal waste disposal.
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator relates to the volume of waste
collected and disposed of by official means, either landfilling, incineration,
or other processing.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Tonnes per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
per annum.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 21: Environmentally Sound Management of Solid
Wastes and Sewage-related Issues.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The volume of waste disposed by the municipal authority is
an indicator which relates to the effficiency of service provision for waste
management. In addition, when compared to the waste generation rate, it will
give some indication of both the amounts of waste that are dumped
indiscriminately and that recycled and reused by the formal and informal
sectors.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: High waste levels
result from consumption and production. Policies and decision making with
respect to waste are significant in terms of budgets, potential human health,
and environmental effects. Urban authorities who attach little importance to
waste management will have a very low level of waste disposal, in relation to
the volume produced, unless recycling and reuse are extensive. Generally,
adequate waste management indicates that the authorities are aware of the
preventative nature and reduction of health and environmental risks.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is linked to other
social, economic, and environmental indicators, for example GDP per capita,
environmental protection expenditures, and those associated with the
generation and recycling of waste.
(d) Targets: No targets exist for this indicator.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: No international agreements
apply.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: For local authorities, the level
of service provision for solid waste disposal services is an important
indicator of the maximum capacity of municipal facilities for waste disposal.
In many developing countries service provision cannot keep up with demand and
it can be assumed that there will always be room for improvement. In more
developed countries, there is not so much of a problem with service provision
and the indicator could be viewed as the proportion of the waste from human
settlements that is not recycled or reused.
(b) Measurement Methods: The indicator is most easily measured by
extracting data from municipal records on the number and loads of refuse
vehicles used by the authority and any private contractors which collect
waste. Some waste disposal sites are equipped with weigh-bridges to control
unauthorised tipping and may also be used for the purpose of data collection.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator is a measure of the
capacity of municipal authorities to collect waste and may be used together
with population data to estimate the level of service coverage for waste
management. It is a Driving Force indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator may not represent the
level of service coverage if a large proportion of the waste is recycled or
reused by the informal sector or private sector waste managers who are
operating in an unregulated manner. The waste disposed may not always include
wastes that are incinerated or disposed of by other means such as composting.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The generation of municipal waste can be
considered a proxy for this indicator.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Weight of waste being disposed
of by the formal waste management authority or under its direction.
(b) Data Availability: Generally, data is available from municipal
records for domestic wastes.
(c) Data Sources: The primary sources for data are specialised research
surveys and local authority records.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements (Habitat). The contact point is the Director, Programme
Coordination, Habitat: fax no. (254 2) 624 266.
(b) Other Organizations: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), and Eurostat are involved in the development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
Various publications from the Settlement Infrastructure and Environment
Programme, Habitat.
UNEP. Environmental Data Report. 1993-4.
Eurostat. Europe's Environment:Statistical Compendium for the Dobris
Assessment. 1995.
LEAD AGENCY: HABITAT
CHEMICALLY INDUCED ACUTE POISONINGS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Chemically induced acute poisonings.
(b) Brief Definition: Number of unintentional acute poisonings caused by
chemicals per 100 000 inhabitants per year with % of cases with fatal outcome.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Number of cases / 100 000 inhabitants /year,
with % fatalities.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 19: Environmentally Sound Management of Toxic
Chemicals, Including Prevention of Illegal International Traffic in Toxic and
Dangerous Products.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
(Indicator under development)
LEAD AGENCY: UNEP
NUMBER OF CHEMICALS BANNED OR SEVERLY RESTRICTED
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Number of chemicals banned or severely restricted.
(b) Brief Definition: Number of chemicals banned or severely restricted,
that is chemicals for which, for health and environmental reasons (including
occupational health and safety), all or virtually all uses have been
prohibited by final governmental regulatory action.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Number of chemicals.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Environmentally Sound Management of Toxic Chemicals
Including Prevention of Illegal International Traffic in Toxic and Dangerous
Products.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
(Indicator under development)
LEAD AGENCY: UNEP
GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Generation of hazardous wastes.
(b) Brief Definition: The total amount of hazardous wastes generated per
year through industrial or other waste generating activities, according to the
definition of hazardous waste as referred to in the Basel Convention and other
related conventions (see sections 3(e) and 7 below). (c) Unit of
Measurement: Metric tonnes or tonnes per unit of Gross Domestic Product
(GDP).
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 20: Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous
Wastes, including Prevention of Illegal International Traffic in Hazardous
Wastes.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: In the case of industrial wastes it provides a measure of the
extent and type of industrialization in a country and in this connection
industrial activities of using technologies and processes generating hazardous
wastes.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The generation of
hazardous wastes has a direct impact on health and the environment through
exposure to this kind of wastes. Normally, long term exposure is required
before the manifestation of harmful effects. Reduced generation of hazardous
wastes may indicate either reduced industrial activities in a country,
introduction of cleaner production in the industrial processes, or changing
patterns in consumers' habits, which implies savings in the use of energy and
raw material as well as improving protection of landscapes. The introduction
of environmentally sound management systems for hazardous wastes implies
reduction of risks to health and environment due to lesser exposure to
hazardous wastes.
If one studies the different categories of wastes being generated this
provides an indication of the nature of industrial activities being undertaken
in a country. In the case of other hazardous wastes such as hospital wastes
it is first of all a measure of the size of population, and second, the
percentage of this population being treated in hospitals and other medical
care units.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to the amount
of hazardous wastes exported or imported; as well as to the indicators on area
of land contaminated by hazardous wastes, and expenditures on hazardous waste
treatment or disposal.
(d) Targets: No quantitative targets exist at the international level.
In Agenda 21, Chapter 20, an overall target of "preventing or minimizing the
generation of hazardous wastes as part of an overall integrated cleaner
production approach" is provided. Targets exist at the national level in many
countries.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following conventions
and agreements pertain to this indicator: Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; Bamako
Convention on the Ban on the Import into Africa and the Control of
Transboundary Movement within Africa; Waigani Convention to Ban the
Importation of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes into Forum Island Countries,
and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes
within the South Pacific Region; Central American Agreement; Draft Protocol
for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) Council Decisions and ED Council
Directives and Regulation on Waste and Hazardous Wastes.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: In order to facilitate the
definition of whether a waste, as defined under the Basel Convention, is
hazardous or not, the Technical Working Group established under the Basel
Convention has been mandated by the Conference of the Parties to undertake
work on hazard characterization (Decision III/1 of the third meeting of the
Conference of the Parties). In addition, the Technical Working Group is to
develop lists of wastes which are always hazardous and, on the other hand,
lists of wastes which are not subject of the Convention. This work, which is
expected to be finalized in 1997, will facilitate decisions on priority wastes
to be subject to cleaner production efforts or improved technological changes.
In relation to the definition of hazardous wastes under the Basel Convention
(article 1 of the Convention), it should be noted that under article 3 of the
Convention, Parties should inform the Secretariat of the Convention (SBC) of
wastes, other than those listed in Annexes I and II of the Convention,
considered as hazardous under national legislation. This is to enable all
Parties to respect this designation in relation to planned transboundary
movements involving such wastes.
(b) Measurement Methods: In relation to the Basel Convention, its
Secretariat requests information from the Parties to the Convention on a
yearly basis regarding the amount of hazardous wastes generated at the
national level. This information is being introduced in the SBC data base,
which includes data and information on hazardous wastes related issues in
accordance with Articles 13 and 16 of the Convention. Other agencies, such as
OECD, are also collecting information on hazardous wastes generated by OECD
countries.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: Generation of hazardous wastes
which is an indicator of the extent to which environmentally unsound
technologies are being used in the production process. It also includes,
through the definition of hazardous wastes, activities concerning
international trade in such wastes for recovery or recycling operations.
Thus, this indicator is a Driving Force in the DSR Framework. The impact of
hazardous wastes can be measured by state indicators such as air and water
pollution and contaminated soils. Response indicators, such as expenditures on
hazardous wastes treatment or the introduction of cleaner technologies in
industry, are of course directly related to protection of human health and the
environment.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The present problem of defining whether
a waste is hazardous or not will, in some cases, cause difficulties in
relation to the use of amounts of hazardous wastes generated as a sustainable
development indicator. The quantity of the hazardous wastes generated alone
may not reflect changes towards a more "sustainable" society. Consideration
of the nature of the different kinds of hazardous wastes generated would be a
better indicator of sustainable development progress. Availability and
accuracy of data represents another limitation of this indicator. Finally, the
nature of the waste itself makes it sometimes difficult to use them as
indicators because wastes are often mixed and not produced to specifications.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The amounts and type of specific waste
streams generated per year through industrial or other waste generating
activities as defined in the Basel Convention represents an alternative
indicator which would allow for normalization based on relative toxicity.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data on the generation of
hazardous wastes.
(b) Data Availability: Data are available for many developed countries,
but very few developing countries are collecting data on hazardous waste
generation. The Parties of the Basel Convention are requested to provide data
to the Secretariat of the Convention on a yearly basis.
Assistance to developing countries will be needed in identifying the main
hazardous waste streams being generated in their countries in order to prepare
and maintain inventories of hazardous wastes. In this connection difficulties
may be encountered in relation to hazardous waste generation by small scale
enterprises, since they are scattered and often operating on an informal basis
and are therefore not registered. It may be less of a problem to identify
amounts of hazardous waste generated by larger industries, since they are
normally registered.
(c) Data Sources: The primary source of data at the international level
is the SBC.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Secretariat to the Basel
Convention (SBC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The contact
point is the Coordinator, SBC; fax no. (41 22) 797 3454.
(b) Other Organizations: Other organizations include: UNEP/IE, UNEP/IRPTC,
ICRED, OECD, US Environmental Protection Agency, Switzerland, Institute for
Applied Environmental Economics, the Netherlands, European Institute of
Business Administration, France, Technical University, Graz, Austria,
Wuppertal Institute, CEFIC, Netherlands National Institute of Public Health
and Environment, Environment Canada.
7. Further Information
Basel Convention for the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal.
Bamako Convention.
Waigani Convention.
Draft Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.
Bakkes, J.A. et al. An Overview of Environmental Indicators: State of the Art
and Perspectives. Environment Assessment Technical Reports. Netherlands
National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in
cooperation with the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. June 1994.
Reporting and Transmission of Information under the Basel Convention
(UNEP/CHW.3/Inf.6), Section on Waste Generation, Tables 5 and 6.
LEAD AGENCY: SCB, UNEP
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Imports and exports of hazardous wastes.
(b) Brief Definition: Total amounts of hazardous wastes subject to
transboundary movements, including a breakdown of specific types of hazardous
wastes according to definitions of the Basel Convention.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Metric tonnes.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 20: Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous
Wastes, including Prevention of Illegal International Traffic in Hazardous
Wastes.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: the indicator shows the extent to which different categories
of hazardous wastes are being exported or imported, as well as the countries
involved in the transboundary movement.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development:
This indicator is related to the amount of hazardous wastes being generated in
a particular country, to the availability of disposal options in the country
of export and import, and to the demand in the country of export or import to
recycle and/or use the waste as secondary raw material. It provides a measure
of current trade practices in hazardous wastes.
By treating hazardous wastes as close to source of generation as possible, the
need for transboundary movements of such wastes is reduced, and harm to human
health and the environment is minimized. In some cases transboundary movements
may be necessary in order to ensure the environmentally sound treatment and
disposal of such wastes. Transboundary movement of hazardous wastes may also
be justified if such wastes are going to be used as secondary raw material or
for energy recovery.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is, of course, linked to
the indicators on hazardous waste generation, and expenditures on hazardous
waste treatment. It is also linked to economic indicators, such as export and
import of goods and services (which would include non-ferrous metals and
precious metals), and GDP per capita.
(d) Targets: According to the Basel Convention, a decision was adopted at
its second meeting of the Conference of the Parties (decision II/12) to ban
transboundary movements of hazardous wastes from Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) countries to non-OECD countries with
immediate effect for disposal and for recycling as of 31 December 1997. As a
follow-up, a decision was adopted at the third meeting of the Conference of
the Parties (decision III/1) to amend the Convention to this effect. The
Bamako Convention for Africa as well as the Waigani Convention for South
Pacific already have provisions for a total ban of import of hazardous wastes
into their respective regions. Under the Basel Convention, no specific
targets have been set to control or reduce the transboundary movements of
hazardous wastes.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following conventions
and agreements pertain to this indicator: Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; Bamako
Convention on the Ban on the Import into Africa and the Control of
Transboundary Movement within Africa (not yet in force); Waigani Convention to
Ban the Importation of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes into Forum Island
Countries, and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of
Hazardous Wastes within the South Pacific Region (not yet in force); Central
American Agreement; Draft Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the
Mediterranean Sea by Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their
Disposal (to be adopted April 1966); Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) Council Decisions and ED Council Directives and
Regulation on Waste and Hazardous Wastes.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Export or import of hazardous
wastes is the total yearly quantity of hazardous waste subject to
transboundary movement which takes place in accordance with the Basel
Convention or any of the other legally binding instruments referred to in
section 3e above, from (or to) one State to (or from) another, possibly
passing through one or several transit States. It can also be the total
yearly quantity of any specific category of hazardous wastes, subject to
transboundary movements.
In order to facilitate the definition of whether a waste, as defined under the
Basel Convention, is hazardous or not, the Technical Working Group established
under the Basel Convention has been mandated by the Conference of the Parties
to undertake work on hazard characterization (Decision III/1 of the third
meeting of the Conference of the Parties). In addition, the Technical Working
Group is to develop lists of wastes which are always hazardous and, on the
other hand, lists of wastes which are not subject of the Convention. This
work, which is expected to be finalized in 1997, will facilitate decisions on
priority wastes to be subject to cleaner production efforts or improved
technological changes.
(b) Measurement Methods: The Parties of the Basel Convention are
requested to report on a yearly basis information regarding transboundary
movements of hazardous wastes or other wastes in which they have been
involved. The information should include the amount of hazardous wastes or
other wastes exported or imported, their category characteristics, origin,
destination, any transit country, and disposal methods for the wastes in
question. This information is compiled and entered into a database by the
Secretariat of the Convention, which analyzes the data and presents a
compilation and summary of all information provided to the Conference of the
Parties of the Basel Convention on a regular basis.
The amount of hazardous wastes exported has to be measured by the exporter,
and entered into the appropriate place in the notification and movement
documents, which have to be used for each case of a transboundary movement
according to the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The movement of hazardous wastes
represents a Driving Force indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The present problem of defining whether
a waste is hazardous or not will, in some cases, cause difficulties in
relation to the use of amounts of hazardous wastes generated as a sustainable
development indicator. The quantity of the hazardous wastes generated alone
may not reflect changes towards a more "sustainable" society. Consideration
of the nature of the different kinds of hazardous wastes generated would be a
better indicator of sustainable development progress. Availability, accuracy,
and harmonization of data represent other limitations of this indicator.
Finally, the nature of the waste itself makes it sometimes difficult to use
them as indicators because wastes are often mixed and not produced to
specifications. Additional limitations relate to the existence of illegal
traffic in hazardous wastes.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The amount of exports in proportion to the
total hazardous waste generated, and the relationship between imports and the
treatment capacity of a country represent two possible supplementary
indicators.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Information on the amounts,
categories and characteristics of each type of hazardous wastes or other
wastes being exported and/or imported for each case of transboundary movement.
(b) Data Availability: It should be possible to obtain data regularly,
provided that a notification form has been used for each transboundary
movement and the government has a procedure to record and monitor this data on
a continuous basis at the national level. This is normally the case for
developed countries which are Parties to the Basel Convention. However, many
developing countries have no such procedure in place at this time.
(c) Data Sources: In the case of the Basel Convention, each Party is
obliged under Article 5 to designate a competent authority and a focal point.
The competent authority is the entity in the government which should receive
the notification of a transboundary movement of hazardous wastes or other
wastes, and the focal point should receive and submit information as provided
for in Articles 13 and 16, including information on export and import of
hazardous wastes.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Secretariat to the Basel
Convention (SBC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The contact
point is the Coordinator, SBC; fax no. (41 22) 797 3454.
(b) Other Organizations: Other organizations include: UNEP/IE, UNEP/IRPTC,
ICRED, OECD, US Environmental Protection Agency, Switzerland, Institute for
Applied Environmental Economics, the Netherlands, European Institute of
Business Administration, France, Technical University, Graz, Austria,
Wuppertal Institute, CEFIC, Netherlands National Institute of Public Health
and Environment, Environment Canada.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
Basel Convention for the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal.
Bamako Convention.
Waigani Convention.
Bakkes, J.A. et al. An Overview of Environmental Indicators: State of the Art
and Perspectives. Environment Assessment Technical Reports. Netherlands
National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in
cooperation with the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. June 1994.
Reporting and Transmission of Information under the Basel Convention
(UNEP/CHW.3/Inf.6), Section on Waste Generation, Tables 5 and 6.
(b) Status of the Methodology:
The methodology agreed under the Basel Convention is the obligation: (i) to
use the notification and movement document by the exporter of hazardous wastes
and other wastes; and (ii) that the government designated focal point report
on the amounts of hazardous wastes exported and imported to the Secretariat of
the Basel Convention on a yearly basis.
LEAD AGENCY: SCB, UNEP
AREA OF LAND CONTAMINATED WITH HAZARDOUS WASTES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Area of land contaminated by hazardous wastes.
(b) Brief Definition: The area of contaminated and clean-up sites and/or
land in a country as result of pollution and/or emissions or illegal dumping
of hazardous wastes in unprotected or unsuitable sites/land areas, where no
appropriate measures have been taken to prevent harm to human health and the
environment due to exposure of hazardous wastes.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Km2.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 20: Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous
Wastes, including Prevention of Illegal International Traffic in Hazardous
Wastes.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator can be used to assess current threats to
human health and the environment, to detect trends in land pollution due to
unsound hazardous waste management practices or illegal dumping and to assess
risks from contaminated sites and set up priorities for decontamination and/or
clean-up.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Contaminated land
is a sign of unsustainable development. Decreases in the area of contaminated
land represents a trend towards sustainable development, since it diminishes
the risks of exposure to hazardous wastes causing harmful effects on human
health and the environment. To achieve this and to prevent future
contamination of land by hazardous wastes as far as possible, the management
of these wastes should be improved including introduction of cleaner
production processes in industries and the prevention of spills and misuse of
pesticides and fuels in agriculture. The impact by contaminated lands has a
negative effect on human health and the environment, either by causing toxic
emissions from the sites affecting nearby populations, or by absorption of
toxic substances into the environment.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is directly related to
the ones on hazardous waste generation, expenditures on hazardous waste
treatment, and export and import of hazardous wastes. It is also closely
connected with the following indicators: use of agriculture pesticides, use of
fertilizers, arable land per capita, area of land reclaimed, and land
condition change.
(d) Targets: No specific targets relate to this indicator. However, the
targets set in other areas of Agenda 21 have bearing on the amount of
contaminated land. Chapter 14, for example, calls for mechanisms to control
the distribution and use of pesticides by the year 2000. Such objectives
could contribute to decreases in the area of contaminated land.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following conventions
and agreements pertain to this indicator: Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; Bamako
Convention on the Ban on the Import into Africa and the Control of
Transboundary Movement within Africa; Waigani Convention to Ban the
Importation of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes into Forum Island Countries,
and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes
within the South Pacific Region; Central American Agreement; Draft Protocol
for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) Council Decisions, ED Council Directives
and Regulation on Waste and Hazardous Wastes, ACP/Lome Convention, and
International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and use of Pesticides.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The indicator to be measured
includes land contamination due to lack of environmentally sound management of
hazardous wastes generated through industrial or other waste generating
activities (for example, from military establishments), illegal dumping,
and/or through contamination in relation to accidents involving hazardous
wastes. The definition of hazardous wastes for this indicator should follow
those stipulated by the provisions of the Basel Convention. In order to use
this indicator in a meaningful way, there is a need to develop criteria for a
more precise definition of contaminated lands, by taking into account
concentration levels of specific hazardous waste constituents and also
considering what type of land is contaminated, whether arable land, land
located in protected areas, land close to human habitats, soil conditions,
degree of contamination, as well as size and depth of contamination.
(b) Measurement Methods: The indicator should be measured in km2.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The area of land contaminated by
hazardous wastes is an indicator on the lack of environmentally sound
management of hazardous wastes. It also shows a lack of appropriate control
and enforcement mechanisms to prevent, for instance, illegal dumping,
accidents involving hazardous wastes; or insufficient capacity to manage such
wastes. The indicator is a measure of State in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator needs to be further
developed in terms of the classification of contaminated land in order to
become as useful as possible (see section 4a above). Land tenure aspects are
critical; radioactive contamination is an important consideration in the case
of mixed contamination which could, in particular, be relevant to military
sites.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Measurement by land type would provide
additional meaning to this indicator. However, the data are probably not
available in many countries. For contamination of running waters or fragile
ecosystem, other measures may be required.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: data on types and
concentrations of specific waste constituents; data and information on type of
contaminated land (arable land, protected area, land close to human
settlements, etc.); sources of contamination; number of contaminated
sites/land areas per country and also number per critical area; number of
sites cleaned-up per year; and area of each contaminated site/land.
(b) Data Availability: No regular data collection is being undertaken.
However, data are available for some, mainly developed countries.
(c) Data Sources: Data may be available in some countries from government
ministries in charge of agriculture, land-use, planning and/or environment,
and the military. International organizations such as the Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), the International Soil Reference and Information Center (ISRIC), World
Resources Institute, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) are potential data sources.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Secretariat to the Basel
Convention (SBC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The contact
point is the Coordinator, SBC; fax no. (41 22) 797 3454.
(b) Other Organizations: Other organizations include: FAO, UNEP, ISRIC,
World Resources Institute, and OECD. Countries with experience in this area
include: Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the
USA.
7. Further Information
Basel Convention for the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal; Bamako Convention; and Waigani Convention.
LEAD AGENCY: SCB, UNEP
EXPENDITURE ON HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Expenditure on hazardous waste treatment.
(b) Brief Definition: Total expenditures by government institutions,
state-owned enterprises, municipalities, or by the private sector on treatment
of all hazardous wastes indicating breakdown of total costs for each type of
hazardous wastes according to definitions in the Basel Convention. Treatment
includes some disposal operations as described in the Basel Convention.
(c) Unit of Measurement: $US.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 20: Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous
Wastes, including Prevention of Illegal International Traffic in Hazardous
Wastes.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator represents the commitment by all levels of
government and the private sector to minimize risks posed to human health and
the environment by exposure to hazardous wastes.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Increase in
expenditures inhazardous waste treatment may indicate an increased concern by
government and the private-sector to reduce threats of exposure to hazardous
wastes. The expenditures may result from the setting of environmental
standards, introduction of legislative and non-regulatory measures such as
economic incentives/disincentives, voluntary plans, enforcement, and capacity
building programmes. The level of expenditures in treatment of hazardous
wastes by government, municipal, and the private sector could also reflect on
the efforts of other stakeholders like the academic sector and non-government
organizations (NGOs) which can devote important human and financial resources
to the implementation of research and development projects, assessment of
community case issues, and public awareness campaigns.
Care must be taken in the interpretation of the indicator. The indicator may
also indicate an increased generation or importation of hazardous wastes at
the national level. In addition, a decrease in expenditure on hazardous waste
treatment could be the result of the introduction of waste minimization
practices in the production process, decreases in the manufacture of goods
which generate hazardous wastes due to economic recession, or the shifting of
public and private sector expenditures to other priority areas.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is directly linked to
the one on hazardous waste generation, and to a lesser extent to the indicator
on import and export of hazardous wastes. It is also directly related to the
indicators on environmental protection expenditure as a percentage of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP).
(d) Targets: No international targets exist. National targets may exist in
some member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), particularly in order to promote waste minimization
efforts by industry.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following conventions
and agreements pertain to this indicator: Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; Bamako
Convention on the Ban on the Import into Africa and the Control of
Transboundary Movement within Africa; Waigani Convention to Ban the
Importation of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes into Forum Island Countries,
and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes
within the South Pacific Region; Central American Agreement; Draft Protocol
for the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) Council Decisions and ED Council
Directives and Regulation on Waste and Hazardous Wastes.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: There is a need to work further
on this indicator and consider whether it would not be more useful to measure
it as an expenditure in relation to the amount of hazardous waste generated
or as a percentage of the GDP. There is also a need to identify the kind of
treatment methods which are included for the use of this indicator, for
example, disposal operations. Such operations would include expenditure
related to resource recovery, recycling, reclamation, reuse or alternative
uses (such as, incineration, biological treatment, landfill, physical-chemical
treatment, etc.).
(b) Measurement Methods: Expenditures incurred by government agencies,
municipalities, and private sector enterprises designed for hazardous waste
treatment could relatively easily be measured by calculating all related costs
for treatment of the wastes. The costs, however, incurred for the treatment
of hazardous wastes generated in the production process within a company are
more difficult to estimate, since these costs would be considered as part of
the general operational costs of the company.
The calculation of costs of treatment of hazardous wastes in real terms is
difficult, however, because of the complexity of the relationships with other
socioeconomic parameters that could be specific to the country.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator can be used to
assess the effort to develop and manage hazardous waste management
strategies, including the introduction of cleaner production and other waste
minimization measures as part of the life cycle approach. It can also be used
for the identification of priority waste streams to be subject to waste
minimization efforts in order to promote maximum cost efficiency in waste
treatment. Furthermore, it can be used to measure progress in the
implementation of hazardous waste management strategies both at the national
level and at the level of individual industries or industry sectors. The
indicator reflects a State measure in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: As mentioned above, the indicator needs
to be further developed especially with regard to the definition of the kind
of treatment methods to be included. Illegal traffic of hazardous wastes as
a result of high disposal/treatment costs need to be considered, but are
difficult to quantify.
The indicator is further limited by the fact that the policies of treatment of
hazardous wastes are also influenced by parameters other than expenditures.
Finally, depending on their legal status, private, semi-private, state-owned
companies may be reluctant to reveal costs for treatment of hazardous wastes.
Such enterprises could, however, be required to estimate and provide
information of such costs.
(e) Alternative Definitions: It could be more useful to measure the
indicator using $US per 1,000 tonnes of hazardous waste generated, or as a
percentage of the GDP. However, more development work is required (see section
4a above).
The use of the indicator would be optimized by referring to specific waste
streams, recognized treatment methods, and levels of technology and management
practices. Relationships between political, legal, economic and social
parameters for different levels of development would be required in order to
use the indicator in a uniform manner. By giving a more precise definition,
it would be easier to compare data between different types of waste generated
in a particular country and also to facilitate comparison of treatment costs
with other countries.
5. Assessment of the Availability of the Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: There is a need to identify and
agree upon which costs are related to the treatment of hazardous wastes such
as investment in infrastructure including site, buildings and hardware;
salaries for operation of facilities; chemicals and other products required
for treatment; maintenance; etc. Other actual costs to consider in relation
to treatment are transportation costs to bring the waste to the site for
treatment and, if applicable, transportation after treatment to, for example,
a landfill or any other disposal site.
(b) Data Availability: Data may be available in several OECD countries,
but most probably not on a comprehensive basis and particularly not from
individual manufacturers who treat the wastes they generate themselves. Data
from non-OECD countries may be available only if specific hazardous waste
treatment facilities are provided by the government or by the private sector.
No data are regularly collected at present on a global or regional level, for
example through the activities of the Basel Convention.
(c) Data Sources: Potential data sources include government agencies,
commercial private sector facilities, specific industrial sectors, or
individual industries.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the Secretariat to the Basel
Convention (SBC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The contact
point is the Coordinator, SBC; fax no. (41 22) 797 3454.
(b) Other Organizations: Other organizations include: UNEP, the European
Community, and OECD. Countries with experience in this area include: Canada,
Denmark, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the USA. Industry associations
would also be able to contribute to the development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
Bakkes, J.A. et al. An Overview of Environmental Indicators: State of the Art
and Perspectives. Environment Assessment Technical Reports. Netherlands
National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in
cooperation with the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. June 1994.
Reporting and Transmission of Information under the Basel Convention
(UNEP/CHW.3/Inf.6), Section on Waste Generation, Tables 5 and 6.
LEAD AGENCY: SBC, UNEP
GENERATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Generation of Radioactive Waste.
(b) Brief Definition: The generation of radioactive waste is derived from
various sources, such as nuclear power generation and other related nuclear
fuel cycle activities, radioisotope production and uses, medical and
industrial uses, and research.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Cubic metres for volume; hectares for land mass
contamination.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 22: Safe and Environmentally Sound Management of
Radioactive Wastes.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The main purpose of this indicator is to measure the
generation of radioactive waste produced by fuel and other nuclear activities.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Radioactive
waste, if not managed properly, can have a direct impact on human health and
the environment through exposure to ionizing radiation. From a sustainable
development viewpoint, it is prudent to keep radioactive waste generation to
the practical minimum, and ensure safe transportation and storage. Improper
management may result in the loss of goods, land, and structures which could
be used for other purposes.
The production of radioactive waste indicates several economic and technical
trends in a country. The application of radioactive materials results from an
advanced level of technical knowledge, training, and support. This indicator
is also related to the processing of nuclear waste to reduce the total amount,
the availability of appropriate waste disposal facilities, and the
contribution of nuclear power to the total energy output.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to
other measures, such as annual energy consumption per capita, emissions of
sulphur oxides, emissions of nitrogen oxides, and generation of hazardous
waste.
(d) Targets: In general, national targets do not exist, although several
national policies address pollution and waste generation levels. At a local
scale, organizations and companies who generate waste have waste reduction
targets.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: No international agreements
exist for radioactive waste production. However, the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) is currently leading the preparation of a Convention on
the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. This Convention may require
contracting parties to account for waste inventories.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: At present, there is no
universal or global quantitative definitions for radioactive wastes. However,
the Convention referred to in section 3e above is expected to include waste
definitions.
(b) Measurement Methods: It is expected that under the above Convention,
once adopted, contracting countries will probably be required to report waste
inventories on a periodic basis.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator is a Driving Force
measure within the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The definition of radioactive waste
varies from country to country at this time (see section 4a above). In some
countries, it may be difficult to separate radioactive waste from the more
general category of hazardous waste. Some developing countries lack the legal
and social infrastructure to track activities that may generate radioactive
waste.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The type, source, and amount of
radioactive waste generated are required for this indicator.
(b) Data Availability: At the national level, the volume of waste
generated can be obtained from the waste accountancy made by the various
producers or agencies responsible for radioactive waste management and
control. About 25-30% of IAEA member states keep some type of national
radioactive waste registry.
(c) Data Sources: National or state governmental organizations and the
IAEA are the primary sources for radioactive waste data.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The contact point at IAEA is
the Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Management; fax no. (43 1) 20607.
(b) Other Organizations: Other international agencies involved include:
the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and
the European Community. Relevant non-governmental organizations would
include: the International Union of Producers and Distributors of Electricity
(UNIPEDE) and the Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI).
7. Further Information
IAEA Waste Management Profiles.
Various national inventory publications related to radioactive waste
generation.
LEAD AGENCY: IAEA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RRojas Research Unit/1997
