environmental indicators for north america · environmental indicators for north america for...

UNEP/DEWA/RS.06-1

Environmental Indicatorsfor North America

For further information

Division of Early Warning and AssessmentUnited Nations Environment Programme

P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi 00100, KenyaTel: (+254) 20 7624028 Fax: (+254) 20 7623943 Email: dewa.direc [email protected]

Web: www.unep.org

United Nations Environment ProgrammeP.O. Box 30552, Nairobi 00100, Kenya

Tel: (+254) 20 7621234Fax: (+254) 20 7623927

E-mail: [email protected]: www.unep.org

North America’s environment—air currents, watersheds, and wildlife and their habitat —is not dissected by political borders. But Canada and the United States often measure environmental conditions and report on them using di�erent indicators. This report examines the environmental indicators used by both nations, suggests a way develop a set of North American indicators, and using a number of common indictors, provides a snapshot of the level of progress being made in protecting the environmental assets and services that underpin North America’s economy.

DEW/0791/WA

�

Environmental Indicators for North America

�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Production Teams

Un�ted Nat�ons Env�ronment Programme (UNEP) Product�on and Support Team

AshbinduSingh—ProjectLeader

JaneE.Barr—Writer

ErikaMonnati—ResearchAssistant

JaimeThissen—ResearchAssistant

TejaswiGiri—ProductionSupport

KatharinaUmpfenbach—ProductionSupport

MamataSingh—ProductionSupport

KimberlyGiese—Design&Layout

CherylJohnstone—Editor

DanielArchambault—ResearchAssistance,CommissionforEnvironmentalCooperation

Acknowledgement:DraftReviewPaperonSelectedEnvironmentalReportingandIndicatorPractices,astudypreparedfortheCommissionforEnvironmentalCooperation(CEC)ofNorthAmerica,March2001,byPeterHardi,withPumuloMuyatwa.

Copyright 2006, United Nations Environment Programme

ISBN: 92-807-2683-8 Job Number: DEW/0791/WA

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP and the authors would appreci-ate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this report as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.

United Nations Environment ProgrammePO Box 30552, Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 7621234Fax: +254 20 7623943/44http://www.unep.orghttp://www.unep.net

United Nations Environment ProgrammeRegional Office for North America1707 H Street, NW, Suite 300Washington, D.C. 20006Tel: 1 (202) 785 [email protected]://rona.unep.org/

For bibliographic and reference purposes this publication should be referred to as:

UNEP (2006), “Environmental Indicators for North America.”Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA)United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi, Kenya

This book is available from Earthprint.com, http://www.earthprint.com.

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the agencies cooperating in this project. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or cooperating agencies concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area of its authorities, or the delineation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Mention of a commercial company or product in this report does not imply endorsement by the United Nations Environment Programme. The use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products for publicity or advertising is not permitted. Trademark names and symbols are used in an editorial fashion with no intention of infringement on trademark or copyright laws.

We regret any errors or omissions that may have been unwittingly made.

Printed in Canada Distribution by SMI (Distribution Services) Ltd. UK.

This publication is printed on process chlorine free paper made of 100% post-consumer fibers.

��

ListofFigures................................................................................................................................vListofTables................................................................................................................................viiListofBoxes................................................................................................................................viiPreface........................................................................................................................................viii

ChaPTer Oneenvironmental Indicators........................................................................................................1The State of SOe reporting............................................................................................................1What are environmental Indicators?...............................................................................................3 Types and presentation of environmental indicators..................................................................3The role of environmental Indicators.............................................................................................9 Limitations of indicators.......................................................................................................12Organizational and Conceptual Frameworks..................................................................................13 The PSR framework..............................................................................................................13 The DPSIR framework..........................................................................................................15 Limitations of the PSR framework.........................................................................................15 Natural capital flows and accounting approaches....................................................................16 Biogeophysical approach........................................................................................................18Methods for Selecting Indicators...................................................................................................19 Criteria for selecting indicators..............................................................................................20 Organizing indicators into sets..............................................................................................22

ChaPTer TWOnational Indicator Initiatives in Canada and the United States.....................................25SOe reporting and Indicator Development in Canada...................................................................25 Two National Indicator Reports for Canada...........................................................................27 Env�ronment Canada’s Env�ronmental S�gnals ser�es................................................................ 27 The Nat�onal Round Table on the Env�ronment and the Economy’s Env�ronment and Susta�nable Development Ind�cators for Canada............................................ 28SOe reporting and Indicator Development in the United States.................................................... 29 Two National Indicator Reports for the United States............................................................ 31 The US Env�ronmental Protect�on Agency’s Draft Report on the Env�ronment.............................. 31 The He�nz Center’s The State of the Nat�on’s Ecosystems: Measur�ng the Lands, Waters, and L�v�ng Resources of the Un�ted States...................................... 32a Comparison of Canadian and US national Indicators................................................................ 34 Common issues.................................................................................................................... 34 Common indicators: Notes on Table 2................................................................................... 35 Analysis............................................................................................................................... 36Canada-US Bilateral environmental and ecosystem Indicator Initiatives........................................ 37 The State of the Great Lakes................................................................................................. 38 Georgia Basin–Puget Sound................................................................................................. 40 Gulf of Maine...................................................................................................................... 42 Analysis............................................................................................................................... 45

Table of Contents

�v Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca

ChaPTer ThreeInternational environmental Indicator Initiatives........................................................... 47Un Commission for Sustainable Development.............................................................................. 47United nations environment Programme: GeO Indicators.............................................................49Organisation for economic Co-operation and Development...........................................................52 Other initiatives...................................................................................................................55 Common issues.....................................................................................................................56

Common indicators...............................................................................................................56

Analysis................................................................................................................................56an integration of north american and international indicators.......................................................56

ChaPTer FOUrDeveloping Indicators for north america......................................................................... 61Lessons Learned........................................................................................................................... 61 Issue areas........................................................................................................................... 61 Frameworks......................................................................................................................... 61 Informing policy.................................................................................................................. 66 Lack of comparability.......................................................................................................... 68 Spatial and temporal scales.................................................................................................. 70 Numbers and sets of indicators............................................................................................. 71 Data limitations.................................................................................................................. 71 Management and monitoring issues...................................................................................... 73 Collaboration...................................................................................................................... 74 Summary of lessons learned.................................................................................................. 74Conclusions................................................................................................................................. 75

ChaPTer FIveUsing Indicators to Track environmental Trends in north america...................................... 83The economy............................................................................................................................ 84 GDP.................................................................................................................................. 84 Structure of GDP.............................................................................................................. 84 Private Consumption........................................................................................................... 85 Comparat�ve Ind�cator...................................................................................................... 86energy use................................................................................................................................. 86 Primary energy consumption............................................................................................ 86 Energy intensity (apparent consumption)........................................................................ 87Transportation........................................................................................................................... 88 Energy consumption by transportation............................................................................ 88 Motor vehicles................................................................................................................... 89 Comparat�ve Ind�cator...................................................................................................... 89Population................................................................................................................................. 90 Total population................................................................................................................ 90 Population density............................................................................................................ 90 Comparat�ve Ind�cator...................................................................................................... 91Urban areas............................................................................................................................... 92 Urban growth.................................................................................................................... 92Climate Change......................................................................................................................... 92 CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions.................................................................................... 92 Comparat�ve Ind�cator...................................................................................................... 93

v

Carbon Intensity....................................................................................................................... 94 Comparat�ve Ind�cator...................................................................................................... 94Ozone Layer.............................................................................................................................. 95 CFC consumption.............................................................................................................. 95 HCFC and methyl bromide consumption......................................................................... 95 Total column ozone........................................................................................................... 96air Quality................................................................................................................................. 96 SOx emissions .................................................................................................................... 96 NOx emissions.................................................................................................................... 97Toxic Substances........................................................................................................................ 98 Releases and transfers....................................................................................................... 98Waste.......................................................................................................................................... 99 Municipal waste................................................................................................................ 99 Comparat�ve Ind�cator...................................................................................................... 99 Nuclear waste.................................................................................................................... 99Freshwater............................................................................................................................... 100 Use of water..................................................................................................................... 100 Comparat�ve Ind�cator.................................................................................................... 100 Wastewater treatment..................................................................................................... 100Fisheries................................................................................................................................... 101 Fish harvests.................................................................................................................... 101Forests...................................................................................................................................... 102 Forest area....................................................................................................................... 102 Certified sustainable forests............................................................................................ 102agricultural Lands.................................................................................................................. 104 Area of cropland.............................................................................................................. 104 Area of grassland............................................................................................................. 104 Irrigated area.................................................................................................................. 105 Fertilizer use.................................................................................................................... 106 Nitrogen balance............................................................................................................. 107 Comparat�ve Ind�cator.................................................................................................... 107Biodiversity.............................................................................................................................. 107 Protected areas................................................................................................................ 107national responses................................................................................................................. 108 Official development assistance...................................................................................... 108List of acronyms and abbreviations...................................................................................... 109references................................................................................................................................ 112appendix 1: Table 2: Comparative table of Canadian and US environmental indicators.... 122appendix 2: Data Sources for Selected Issues........................................................................ 147

List of FiguresFigure1:MapofpercentagecrownclosurerepresentingforestcoverinCanada............................. 4Figure2:Arepresentativeindicatorshowinghistoricaltrends......................................................... 4Figure3:Apredictiveindicatorshowingfuturetrends.................................................................... 4Figure4:Aperformanceindicatorbasedonascientificbenchmark................................................ 5Figure5:Aperformanceindicatorbasedonapolicytarget............................................................. 5Figure6:Anindexbasedonequalweights..................................................................................... 6

Figure7:Acomparativeindexforenvironmentalsystems............................................................... 6

Figure8:Arankingschemebasedonthe“state”ofecosystems....................................................... 7

Figure9:Arankingschemebasedon“pressures”onnations........................................................... 8

v� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca

Figure10:Aperformanceindexcomparingtrends........................................................................... 9

Figure11:Anintensityorefficiencyindicatorcomparingtrends...................................................... 9

Figure12:Theroleofindicatorsinthepolicycycle........................................................................ 10

Figure13:Theenvironmentmanagementcycle............................................................................. 10

Figure14:Anindicatordesignedtoinfluencedecisionmaking.Actualandprojectedemissions ofGHGcomparedtoKyototargets,1990-2010........................................................... 11

Figure15:ExampleofthePSRframework,illustratingtheissueofstratosphericozone.................. 14

Figure16:TheDPSIRframework,illustratingtheissueoftransport.............................................. 14

Figure17:Materialflowsindicator:USflowofrawmaterialsbyweight,1900-2000...................... 16

Figure18:Naturalresourceaccountingindicator(inCanadianDollars)......................................... 17Figure19:EnvironmentCanada’smeter......................................................................................... 27Figure20:Indicatorsshowingcriticalgaps..................................................................................... 33Figure21:EnvironmentCanada’sindexofdriversofenvironmentalchange................................... 36Figure22:EPA’sindexofdriversofenvironmentalchange............................................................. 36Figure23:TheGreatLakes............................................................................................................ 38Figure24:BeachadvisoriesinUSandCanadianGreatLakesbeaches............................................ 40Figure25:CumulativenumberofintroducedspeciesintheGreatLakessincethe1830s............... 40Figure26:GeorgiaBasin–PugetSound.......................................................................................... 41Figure27:Speciesatrisk,usingastandardizedassessmentmethod................................................. 42Figure28:TheGulfofMaine......................................................................................................... 42Figure29:OECD’sPSRframework............................................................................................... 52Figure30:WatererosionindicatorsforCanadaandtheUS........................................................... 69Figure31:Theinformationpyramid.............................................................................................. 72Figure32:TrendinGDP,1990–2000............................................................................................ 84Figure33:TrendsinthestructureofGDP:agriculture,industry,services,1990–2000................... 84Figure34:Trendinprivatefinalconsumptionexpenditure,1990–2000......................................... 85Figure35:Privatefinalconsumptionexpenditure,1999................................................................. 86Figure36:Trendinprimaryenergyconsumption,1993–2002....................................................... 86Figure37:Trendinapparentconsumptionofenergy,1990–2001.................................................. 87Figure38:Trendsinenergyconsumptionbytransportationsector: air,road,rail,andtotal,1970–2000.............................................................................. 88Figure39:Motorvehiclespercapita,1998..................................................................................... 89Figure40:Trendintotalpopulation,1990–2000........................................................................... 90Figure41:Trendinpopulationdensity,1990–2000....................................................................... 90Figure42:Populationdensity,1999............................................................................................... 91Figure43:Trend(andprojection)intotalurbanpopulation,1950–2030....................................... 92Figure44:TrendintotalCO

2emissions,1990–2001..................................................................... 92

Figure45:Percapitagreenhousegasemissions,2000..................................................................... 93Figure46:CO

2emissionsperunitGDP,1998............................................................................... 94

Figure47:Trendinozone-depletingCFCconsumption,1990–2000............................................. 95Figure48:TrendsinconsumptionofHCFCsandmethylbromide,1988–1998............................ 95Figure49:Trendintotalcolumnozoneoverselectedcities,1979–1999......................................... 96Figure50:TrendintotalemissionsofSO

x,1990–1999.................................................................. 96

Figure51:TrendintotalemissionsofNOx,1990–2000................................................................. 97

Figure52:Changeinreleasesandtransfersofpollutants,1998–2001............................................ 98Figure53:Generationintensitiesofmunicipalwastepercapita,late1990s.................................... 99Figure54:Trendinnuclearwaste:spentfuelarisings,1982–2000.................................................. 99Figure55:Percapitafreshwaterabstractions,late1990s............................................................... 100Figure56:Trendinwastewatertreatmentconnectionrates,1980–1997....................................... 100Figure57:Trendintotalfisheryproduction,allareas,1990–2000............................................... 101

v��

Figure58:Trendintotalforestareaaspercentoflandarea,1990and2000................................ 102Figure59:TrendinFSC-certifiedforests,1996–2001.................................................................. 102Figure60:Toptencountrieswithcertifiedforests......................................................................... 103Figure61:Trendinarableandpermanent-cropland,1990–2000................................................ 104Figure62:Trendinpermanentgrassland,1990–2000.................................................................. 104Figure63:Trendinirrigatedarea,1990–2000.............................................................................. 105Figure64:Trendinapparentconsumptionofnitrogenousfertilizers,1990–2000........................ 106Figure65:Nitrogenbalance,1995–1997..................................................................................... 107Figure66:Trendinprotectedareas,1994–2003........................................................................... 107Figure67:Trendinofficialdevelopmentassistance(ODA),1990–2000...................................... 108

List of TablesTable1:ComparativetableofCanadianandUSenvironmentalissueareas.................................... 35Table2:ComparativetableofCanadianandUSenvironmentalindicators.................................. 122Table3:Indicatorscommontoatleasttwointernationalinitiatives................................................ 57Table4:IndicatorscommontoNorthAmericanandinternationalinitiatives................................. 58Table5:Integrationofcommonnationalandinternationalenvironmentalindicators.................... 59Table6:FeasiblebilateralenvironmentalindicatorsforCanadaandtheUnitedStates.................... 78List of BoxesBox1:TrendsinSOEreporting..................................................................................................... 2Box2:Anindicatorspecies............................................................................................................. 3Box3:Criteriaforperformanceindicators..................................................................................... 5Box4:Asetofindicatorscreatesaprofile....................................................................................... 6Box5:EEA’ssmiley-facescheme.................................................................................................... 8Box6:Useofindicatorstoinfluencetheclimatechangepolicycycle........................................... 12Box7:QuestionsaddressedbythePSRapproach......................................................................... 13Box8:DPSIRindicators.............................................................................................................. 15Box9:Stepsinagenericindicatordevelopmentprocess............................................................... 18Box10:Potentialcriteriaforenvironmentalissueranking.............................................................. 19Box11:Questionstoelicittheidentificationofpotentialindicators............................................... 20Box12:Criteriaforselectingenvironmentalindicators.................................................................. 21Box13:Variousindicatorsets......................................................................................................... 22Box14:CriteriaforCanadianSOEreports.................................................................................... 26Box15:IndicatorprofilesinEnv�ronmental S�gnals........................................................................ 27Box16:NRTEE’sproposedenvironmentalindicators.................................................................... 28Box17:IndicatorprofilesintheEPAdraftreport.......................................................................... 31Box18:TheHeinzCenter’scorenationalindicators...................................................................... 33Box19:Issuesselectedbythebilateralindicatorinitiatives............................................................. 45Box20:The1992EarthSummitcalledforharmonizingindicatorefforts...................................... 47Box21:CSDenvironmentalindicators.......................................................................................... 49Box22:GEOYearBookindicators(2003)..................................................................................... 50Box23:OECDsetofkeyenvironmentalindicators....................................................................... 53Box24:OECDenvironmentalindicators...................................................................................... 54Box25:Internationalenvironmentalissueareas............................................................................. 56Box26:Measuringenvironmentallyharmfulsubsidies................................................................... 62Box27:Examplesofresponseindicators........................................................................................ 64Box28:Indicatorsfordecision-makers........................................................................................... 66Box29:CSD’smethodologysheets................................................................................................ 70

v�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca

Thepurposeofthisreportistodeterminethecurrentstatusofenvironmentalindica-torsbeingusedinCanadaandtheUnitedStates.Fromassessmentoftheseindicatorsandanalysisofcurrentworkonavarietyofsetsofindicatorsbeingusedinnational,regionalandglobalenvironmentalreporting,theauthordrawslessonsabouthowtobeginabilateralindicatorsinitiativeandsuggestswaystoover-comekeychallenges.

Unlessspecifiedotherwise,inthisreporta“region”referstoagroupofcontiguouscoun-tries,suchasCanadaandtheUnitedStates,ratherthanagroupofstates,provinces,orecosystemswithinnationalborders.Environ-mentalindicatorsarefrequentlypartofbroaderindicatorinitiativesthataimtomeasureprog-ressinachievingsustainabilityonallfronts,includingeconomic,social,andinstitutional.Thisstudylooksspecificallyatenvironmentalindicators.

Thereportaimstoanswerthefollowingquestions:

•Whatareenvironmentalindicatorsandwhatroledotheyserve?Whatisthebestprocesstoselectanddevelopidealindicators?

•Whichorganizationsareusingordevelop-ingnational-levelenvironmentalindica-torsforCanadaandtheUnitedStatesand

whichindicatorstoshowenvironmentalconditionsandtrendsatthenationalscaleareincurrentuseinthesetwocountries?

•Whatparallelsandinconsistenciesaretherebetweenthenational-levelindicatorsusedbythetwocountries,andaretherecom-monissuesandindicators?

•Whatorganizationsareworkingoncoor-dinatedregional(CanadaandtheUnitedStates)oreco-regionaleffortstotrackthestatusofecosystemssharedbythetwocountries,andwhatindicatorsarebeingusedordevelopedbythem?

•Whatorganizationshaveexperienceinde-velopingenvironmentalindicatorstoenablemultilateralassessments,andwhatindica-torsorsetsofindicatorsarebeingusedordevelopedbythem?Whatcommonissuesdotheyaddressandwhatindicatorsdotheyuse?

•HowcanthelessonsaboutindicatorslearnedfromthenationalandmultilateralreportinginitiativesbeappliedtoanefforttoreportonthestateoftheenvironmentintheNorthAmericanregion?

•Whatindicatorscouldformasetof“fea-sible”indicators—indicatorsthathavealreadybeendevelopedformultilateralreporting,orthatcouldeasilyrepresenttheregioninanintegratedfashion?

Preface

�x

•Cansomeofthesefeasibleindicatorsal-readybeusedasexamplestotellusaboutchangestakingplaceintheregion’senvi-ronmentand,ifso,whatdotheyshow?

•Whatarethemajorsourcesofdatathatcouldbeusedtodesignandcomputethenumericalvalueofcommonenviron-mentalindicatorsforCanadaandtheUnitedStates?

Thereport’schaptersarearrangedtorespondtothequestionsoutlinedabove.Thefirstchaptermaybeconsideredabriefmanualabouthowtodevelopanduseindicators1.Itprovidesanintroductiontoenvironmentalindicators,includingexamplesofavarietyofindicatortypesandsectionsontheroleofindicatorsandtheirlimitations.ChapterTwodescribesfourenvironmentalindicatorre-portspublishedsince2002andlooksatthreerecentbilateralecosystemreportinginitiativesinNorthAmerica.ChapterThreedescribesanumberofinternationalenvironmentalindicatorreports.LessonslearnedfromthesurveyaresetforthinChapterFour.Usingaselectnumberoffeasibleindicators,ChapterFivedemonstrateshowthesecanbeusedtoprovideasnapshotofhowenvironmentalconditionsareimproving,deteriorating,orremainingthesameandtorankthetwocoun-triesagainstothernationsinthestateoftheirenvironmentalassetsandprogresstowardsprotectingthem.

Awordofcautionaboutthisreport’slimi-tations:thisisnotacomprehensivestate-of-the-environment(SOE)report.ItassumesthereaderhassomeknowledgeofenvironmentalissuesinNorthAmerica,sodoesnotexplainthemindetail.Itdoesnotdefine,discuss,oranalyzetheenvironmentalissuesmanyoftheillustrativeindicatorsrepresent—manyfiguresinthereportareusedprimarilyasexamplesofthetypesofindicatorsthatcanbeusedinenvironmentalreporting.ItsurveysaselectnumberofindicatorinitiativestogleansomelessonsbutisnotanexhaustivesurveyofmultilateralindicatorandSOEprojects.Assuch,itdoesnottouchonanumberofthem,suchasthoseundertakenbytheEU,AustraliaandNewZealand,theMediterranean,andtheBalticregion,amongmanyothers,althoughlessonscouldbelearnedfromtheseinitiativesaswell.

ThefundamentalgoalistoensurethattheresultsofthisreporthelpSOEprofessionalsinNorthAmericatoinformdecision-makersthroughtheuseofenvironmentalindicators.TheresultshouldbeacontinualimprovementofpoliciesandassessmentmethodstoprotecttheecosystemgoodsandservicesthatformthebackboneofNorthAmerica’seconomicprosperityandhumanwelfare.

1SeeDenisovandothers1998,foramanualabouthowtoproduceanSOEreportfortheInternet;CSIRO1999,foraguidebooktoenvironmentalindicators;andSegnestam2002,fortheoriesrelatedtosustainabilityindicators.

Gyde LundAsuburbstreetinVirginia,USA.

x Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca

They say that figures rule the world. I do not know if this is true, but I do know that figures tell us if it is well or poorly ruled. —Goethe 1814, cited in UN Habitat 2001, 114

UNEP/ISS/NASA

�

The State of SOe reportingTheenvironmentisall-encompassing.Itis“thetotalityofsurroundingconditions”(Roget1995).Tryingtodescribethestateoftheenvironmentisamonumentaltask.Evenassessingthehealthofasmallpartofit—acertainlakethathasbecomepolluted,orairqualityoveraparticularcity—isfraughtwithdifficulties.Thisisbecauseanypartoftheenvironmentisasubsetofalargerareaanditsstateisnotstablebutinconstantflux.Fur-thermore,westilllackacompletepictureofhowecosystemswork.Finally,thetaskiscomplicatedbytheblurreddistinctionbetweenourselvesandtheenvironment.Itisnotsimply“outthere”wherewecangetagoodlookatitfromadistantanddispas-sionatevantagepoint.Humansareanintegralpartoftheenvironment.Toreportonitscondition,wehavetoobserveandinterpretacomplex,dynamicsystemofwhichweareaninteractingcomponent(Dubos1994).

In1972,theUnitedNationsConferenceontheHumanEnvironmenturgedtheinternationalcom-munitytoprepareperiodicinternational,regional,andsub-regionalreportson“thestateof,andoutlookfor,theenvironment”(UNEP1972).Inresponse,anumberofgovernments,non-govern-mentalorganizations(NGOs),andinternationalorganizationsbegantoproducereportstotrackenvironmentalproblemsandsupplyneededdataformeasuringchangesinthequalityandquantityofthewaters,air,andlandsthatwereclearlyshow-ingsignsofpollutionandunsustainableuse.Thefirstreportstypicallyfocussedondescribingcurrentenvironmentalconditionsandrecenttrendsinenvironmentalmedia(air,freshwater,land,ma-rineresources,forests,andsoon)andwereaimedprimarilyatraisingawareness(Rump1996).Giventhesheersizeofthetask,thereportswereoftenencyclopaedictomes.Muchofthedatarequiredtonotetrendswasonlystartingtobegathered,measureswereoftenqualitativeandanecdotal,andtheseparationoftheenvironmentintodiscretemediaobscuredthelinksamongthemandbetweenhumanactivityandenvironmentalchange.

Canadaplayedakeyroleinhelpingtoadvancethefieldofstate-of-the-environment(SOE)report-ing.Inthelate1970s,StatisticsCanadadevelopedan“ecosystem”approachthatintegratedeconomic

andecologicalaspects.Thisconceptualframe-workevolvedintothenowwidely-adoptedpres-sure-state-response(PSR)modelanditsoffshoots(describedinmoredetailfurtheron),whichhelptoorganizethevastamountofinformationrequiredtoportrayenvironmentalchangeandtoattempttoreflectthedynamicrelationshipsamonghuman,physical,andbiologicalpropertiesandprocesses(NIRO2003a).Inadditiontoportrayingenviron-mentalissuesbypoliticaloradministrativeunits(countries,states,municipalities,andsoon),somestate-of-the-environment(SOE)reportsbegantopresentinformationbasedonavarietyofdiffer-entunits,suchaswatershedsandothertypesofecosystems,orenvironmentalcomponents(soilorvegetationtype,forexample)andtousedifferentframeworkstoorganizetheinformation,suchasfocusingonpriorityissues(habitatlossorwaterpollution,forexample)oroneconomicsectorsandtheirimpacts(suchasagricultureorfisheries)(Rump1996;USGAO2004).

Toofrequently,however,traditionalSOEreportswerebasedonideasofwhattheirproduc-ersthoughtwereimportantinsteadofontheneedsofusers,andthecomprehensivenatureoftheproductsmadethemcumbersome.Theygener-allycontainedalargeamountofinformationthatwasdifficulttodigest.Furthermore,theydidnotappeartohavemuchinfluenceondecision-makers(Keating2001).

Today,SOEreportingincreasinglyattemptstoservetheneedsofortoinfluencespecificusers,especiallydecision-makers.Thetrendistowardstheuseofaselectnumberofindicatorstoaddressafewissues.Indicatorshelptranslatecomplexdataintocomprehensibleinformation,canbeaggregatedintoindices,andcanhelpshowprogresstowards

1 environmental IndicatorsChapter 1

The environment is the sum of the abiotic (physical), biotic (living), and cultural (social) factors and conditions directly or indirectly affecting the development, life, and activities of organisms and populations, in the short and long term (Dubos 1994, 208).

� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca

atarget.SOEreportinghasalsobroadenedtherangeofoutputsandcommunicationtools,whichmaynowencompass,forexample,abackgroundreport,awebversion,aneducationalpackage,aCD-ROM,andbrief,conciseindicatorsummaries,generallyissuedonafrequentandregularbasis(Box1)(CGER2000;EEA2000a;Keating2001;NIRO2003a).

State-of-the-environmentreportinginitiativesincreasinglyattempttomeasureprogresstowardssustainabilityandsustainabledevelopment.Thisconceptrestsonthethreepillarsofenvironmental,social,andeconomicsustainabilityandwasclearlyarticulatedin1987bytheWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopmentinOur Common Future (WCED1987).Subsequently,boththe1989G7EconomicSummitinParisandthe1992EarthSummitinRiodeJaneirodrewattentiontotheneedforindicatorstogaugeprogresstowardssustainabledevelopment(SD).Sincethen,thecon-structionanduseofSDindicatorshasproceededapace(NIRO2003a;SCOPE2003)2.

Today,organizationsofalltypesandsizesarebeginningtoconsiderthelong-termsustainabilityoftheiractionsandtomeasuresocial,economic,environmental,aswellasinstitutionalviability.SeattleisleadingthewayinthedevelopmentanduseofSDindicatorsatamunicipallevel,forexample,whiletheindependentGlobalReport-ingInitiative(GRI)isprovidingorganizationsandbusinesseswithsustainability-reportingguidelinestoanalyzetheeconomic,environmental,andsocialdimensionsoftheiractivities,products,andser-vices(GRI2002;USGAO2004).Inrecognitionoftherelativesizeofthepublicsectorandaneedforharmonizationofreportingpracticestoensurecomparabilityandconsistencyamongstpublicsec-tororganizationsaswellasprivatesectorgroups,theGRIrecentlylaunchedaprocesstoenablethepublicsectortoapplyitsreportingframeworktomeasuringprogresstowardssustainability(GRI2004).Eachoftheseinitiativeshasdevelopedenvi-ronmentalindicatorsaspartofasetofindicatorstoassessprogresstowardssustainabledevelopment.

Finally,SOEreportingisincreasinglydevel-opingandusingsetsofindicatorsoraggregatedindicestomeasureprogresstowardsenvironmen-talgoalstocomplementwell-knownindicesthatportrayeconomicdevelopment,suchasGDP,andsocialwell-being,suchastheHumanDevelopmentIndex.Examplesofsuchefforts,includingthosedevelopedtogaugeprogresstowardsallaspectsofsustainability,are:theEcologicalFootprint(see

The dominant trend in SOE reporting has been a shift away from comprehensive re-ports towards more focused indicator reports for different audiences (NIRO 2003a, 27).

State-of-the-environmentreportingismovingtowards:

•showingtheinterconnectionsamongenvi-ronmental,economic,social,andinstitu-tionalissues;

•producingshorter,morefocussedreportsbasedonindicatorsandaddressingspecificaudiences;

•reducingcomprehensivelistsofindicatorsintocoresetsforbettercommunication,andusingindicesaggregatingseveralindica-torsintoamoreconcisepictureofcomplexsystems;

•measuringprogresstowardsachievingtar-getsandobjectives;

•buildingenvironmentalreportingintogov-ernmentdecision-making,andbusinessandindustryplans;

•developingasuiteofreportingproductsderivedfromthesamedatatocommunicateresultsinavarietyofways;

•incorporatingrisk-basedfuturescenarios;

•usingmultiple-effectsmodelsratherthansimplecausalchains;

•providingsolutionsalongwithtrends;

•consultingwiththepublicinamulti-stake-holderapproachduringthedesignandpreparationofindicatorsandreports;and

•adoptingnewtechnologies,especiallygeo-graphicinformationsystems(GISs)andtheInternet,enablingaccesstoawideraudienceandallowingforinteractivereporting.

Source: Comp�led by author from Keat�ng �00�; NIRO �003a.

Box 1: Trends in SOe reporting

2SeeHardiandBarg1997forareviewofpracticesrelatedtosustainabledevelopmentindicators.

3

Venetoulis,Chazan,andGaudet2004);theEnvi-ronmentalSustainabilityIndex(seeCIESIN2002;CIESIN2005);theBarometerofSustainability(seePrescott-Allen1997);theDashboardofSustain-ability(seeIISD2002);theDaly-CobbIndexofSustainableEconomicWelfare(seeDalyandCobb

1989),andtheLivingPlanetIndex(seeWWF2002;WWF2004).

Thefollowingpagesofthissectiontakeacloserlookatthevarioustypesofenvironmentalindicatorsandtheirroleinstate-of-the-environ-mentreporting,andprovideareviewofthelitera-tureabouthowtoselectanddevelopenvironmentalindicators.

What are environmental Indicators?Types and presentation of environmental indicators

Tosimplifyandrendermessagesaboutenviron-mentalconditionsclearandconcise,thetrendin

SOEreportinginitiativesistofocusondevelopingenvironmentalindicatorsandindices.Environmen-talindicatorscondenseinformationaboutcondi-tionsandtrendsinattributesofthenaturalworld.

Indicatorsaregenerallyunderstoodtobe“signs”thatpointout,orstandfor,something.Theyprovidecluesabouttheconditionorviabilityofasystemorthestateofitshealth.Forexample,bloodpressureandbodytemperatureare“representa-tive”indicatorsthathelpadoctorassessapatient’shealth.Thepresenceorabsenceofaparticularspeciesinanecosystemcanserveasarepresenta-tiveindicationofthepresenceorabsenceofcertainenvironmentalconditionsassociatedwithhealthyecosystems.The“indicatorspecies”isaclassicrep-resentativeindicatorfrequentlyreliedoninecology(Box2)(Gallopín1997).

SOE reporting and indicator development are now internationally endorsed and promoted as key components to effective environmental policy and sustainable development strategies (NIRO 2003a, 15).

Indicator: A parameter, or a value derived from parameters, which points to, provides information about, describes the state of a phenomenon/environment/area, with a significance extending beyond that directly associated with a parameter value (OECD 2001, 133).

Thegreatblueheron(Ardea herod�as),thelarg-estheroninNorthAmerica,iswidelydistrib-utedoverCanadaandthenorthernUS.ThesubspeciesArdea herod�as fann�n�isanideallong-termindicatorforthesurroundingecosys-temduetoitsnon-migratorybehaviour.Withavarieddietincludingyoungfish,contaminantsfromitsfoodbuildupinthebird’ssystempro-vidingcluesaboutthelevelofpollutantsintheecosystemofwhichitisapart.Since1977,theCanadianWildlifeServicehasroutinelyexam-inedthechemicalcontentofheroneggsfoundneartheStraitofGeorgia,whichrevealthepres-enceoforganochlorinepesticidesandindustrialorganochlorines(EC2004a).

Box 2: an indicator species

AgreatblueheronwaitsforhisdinneronMaryland’sEasternShore.T�m McCabe/UNEP/NRCS


Environmentalindicatorscanbequalitativeand/orquantitative,basedonphysical,chemical,biological,oreco-nomicmeasures,andtheycanportraytheparametersthroughavarietyofvi-sualmeans,includinggraphs,piecharts,tables,datadiamonds,maps,andre-motesensingfromsatellitesandaircraft.Quantitativerepresentativeindicatorscanprovideasnapshotofconditionsatagiventime,asinFigure1,whichmapsthepercentageofcrownclosuretocon-veyorrepresentforestcoverinCanadain1998.Datarepresentingthe“state”orconditionofasystemarealsocalled“descriptive”indicators.

Representativeindicatorsusingquantitativeparameterscanalsorevealtrendsovertime.Agraphoftime-seriesdataoffertilizeruseintheUStellsonepartofthestoryofchemicalsinthelandscape(Figure2).Thus,assymbolsrepresentingthestateofanissueorasystem,indicatorshaveasignificancethatextendsbeyondtheactualvalueoftheparametersthemselves(Hammondandothers1995).

Representativeindicatorscanbeusedtoshowhistoricaltrends,asinFigure2,buttheymayalsoattempttopredictfuturetrends,eitherasprojectionsofhistoricaltrends,asinFigure3,orbyusingdatafrommodelsofpotentialfuturescenarios(Rump1996).

Indicatorscanalsomeasureperfor-mancebygaugingprogresstowardsabenchmarkortarget.Inperformanceindicators,themessageportrayedisdeterminedbythemeaningassignedtothevariable(Gallopín1997).

“Benchmarks”arescientificallydeter-minedthresholds,suchasthemaximumlevelofapollutant’sconcentrationintheairorwaterdeemedtolerableforhu-manandenvironmentalhealth(CSIRO1999).Figure4givesanindicatoroftrendsinoneaspectofurbanairquality,showingthepercentageofmonitoringstationsrecordingexceedancesoftheUSthresholdforaverageozoneconcentra-tionsoveraneight-hourperiod.

Targets,ontheotherhand,arenormativepolicy-orientedgoalsorend-pointsbasedonhumanvaluesassignedtothem.Nationalandregionalindica-torscanusetargetsassociatedwithinter-

Source:NTREE2003,29

Figure 1: Map of percentage crown closure representing forest cover in Canada

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromDaberkow,Taylor,andWen-yuanHuang2000.

Figure 2: a representative indicator showing historical trends

Source:ModifiedfromCEC2001,80.

Figure 3: a predictive indicator showing future trends

CanadaMexicoUnited States

North America

600

500

400

300

200

100

Milli

ons

0

1950

2000

2050

Projected Population Growth in North America, by Country, 1950-2050

Use of fertilizer, 1960-199825

20

15

10

5

0

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

Milli

ons

of n

utrie

nt to

ns

TotalNitrogenPhospatePotash

�

nationalcommitmentsoraccordsorwithnationalpolicygoals.ThereferencepointfortheindicatorinFigure5,forexample,istheinternationaltargetforthepercentoflandtobesetasideasprotectedarea.

Box3providesexamplesofavarietyofcriteriathatareusedinperformanceindicators.

Whenindicatorsuseonlyoneparametertoportrayorrepresentthestateofanissueorsystem,

otherimportantfactorsassociatedwiththatissueareabsent,soitoftentakesmanyindicatorstoconstructaprofileofaparticularissueofconcern(seeBox4).

Theuseofindicesisanotherwaytoovercometheinadequaciesofindicatorsbasedonasinglepa-rameterorwhentheuseofmultipleindicatorsrisksoverwhelmingthetargetaudiencewithtoomuchdetailedorcomplexinformation.Thisisdonebycombiningseveralparametersandcondensingandrefiningthedataintoanindex.Anindexisascalarformedbytheaggregationfromtwoormorevalues(MFE1996;Gallopín1997).Aggregatedindiceshavetheadvantageofgivinganoverallpictureofasystem’sperformanceinasimplebutcompel-lingwayandareoftenthemeansofchoiceinSOEreportingtoinformdecision-makers.Inadditiontocomputingaggregatevalues,anindexcanincludeaweightingschemetoevenouttherelationshipsamongthedisparateindicatorsandtheirdepen-denceonsubjectiveinterpretation(Rump1996;UNESCO2003).Indicesneedtobebasedonatransparentandunbiasedchoiceofindividualin-dicators,aclearlydefinedapproachtothemethodofaggregationandweighting,androbustdataandanalysis.

TheLivingPlanetIndex,publishedbyWWF–WorldWideFundforNature,providesatrendlineofthestateoftheworld’snaturalecosystemsbyaveragingthreesub-indicesmeasuringchangesinabundanceofterrestrial,freshwater,andmarinespecies.Eachindexissetat1.00in1970andgivenanequalweighting(seeFigure6)(WWF2004).

Performancecanalsobeassessedbytheuseofcomparativeindices.TheEnvironmentalSustain-abilityIndex(ESI),forexample,isanaggregatedindexthatmeasuresenvironmentalsustainability

Box 3: Criteria for performance indicators

Type of cr�ter�a Example

Benchmark Highestpercentageofhouseholdsconnectedtosewage systeminacomparableentityinthesamejurisdiction

Threshold Maximumsustainableyieldofafishery

Principle Policyshouldcontributetotheincreaseof environmentalliteracy

Standard Waterqualitystandardsforavarietyofuses

Policy-specific target Officialdevelopmentassistanceshallbe0.4percentofgross nationalproduct(GNP)

Targets specified in legal agreement Percentreductioningreenhousegasemissionsbytargetdate

Source:AdaptedfromPinterandSwanson2004b,slide43.

Source:AdaptedfromEC2003a,2withthepermissionoftheMinisterofPublicWorksandGovernmentServices,2005

Source:AdaptedfromHeinzCenter2003,188.

Figure 4: a performance indicator based on a scientific benchmark

Figure 5: a performance indicator based on a policy target

% o

f All

Urb

an a

nd S

ubur

ban

Air M

onito

ring

Stat

ions

Exceedances of 8-hour Ozone Threshold (0.08 ppm)

1990

908070605040302010

0

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

At Least 25 Days per YearAt least 10 Days per YearAt least 4 Days per YearAt Least 1 Day per Year

to 19

0019

0519

1019

1519

2019

2519

3019

3519

4019

4519

5019

5519

6019

6519

7019

7519

8019

8519

9019

9520

00Total and Strictly Protected Land in Canada

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

perc

enta

ge

years % of strictly protected% of total area protected

International target, all classes of protected areas


through22indicatorstotracktherelativesuccessof146countries.Figure7providesanexample.Itshowstheindicatorforenvironmentalsystems(airquality,biodiversity,land,waterquality,andwaterquantity)forCanadaandtheUnitedStates,com-paringtheirachievementsagainsttheaveragevalueofthecountry’speergroup(CIESIN2005).Read-ersshouldbeawareofthedefinitionsandmethodsusedtoarriveatsuchindices,however,sincethere

arenumerousdifficultiesassociatedwithcondens-ingmanyissuesintoasinglemeasure,asexplainedinmoredetailfurtheron.

Inadditiontogivingabsolutescores,perfor-manceindicescanalsomeasureprogresswithrankingschemesthatcomparenationsorissuesonthesamescale,usingsimilarmeasuresandcriteria.Thevalueofrankingliesinitsabilitytospuractiononthepartofpoorperformerstoimprovetheirposition(YeungandMathieson1998).Examplesofsuchindicesforaspectsofsocialwell-beingincludetheUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme’sHumanDevelopmentIndex,TransparencyInter-national’sCorruptionIndex,andtheWorldHealthOrganization’sDisabilityAdjustedLifeExpectancyIndex.The2002EnvironmentalSustainabilityIndex(ESI)includestablesthatrank142countriesaccordingtofivecomponentsandtwentyindica-tors.Figure8showsthefirst30countriesrankedforthesustainabilityofenvironmentalsystemsac-cordingtothisscheme.Thecomponentscoresarepresentedasstandard,normalpercentiles,rangingfromatheoreticallowof0toatheoreticalhighof100.Accordingtothissystem,CanadaranksfirstandtheUnitedStatesthirtieth(CIESIN2002).

Box 4: a set of indicators creates a profile

Possibleindicatorsforaprofileofgreenhousegas(GHG)emissions:

•Time-seriesofvaluesshowingtheoverall(total)trendinGHGemissions

•TrendsinpercapitaGHGemissions

•Time-seriesofvaluesshowingtheoveralltrendinconcentrationsofCO2

•IntensityofGHGemissions(perunitGDP)

•GHGemissionsbypollutantcategory(CO2,N2O,CH4andfluorinatedgases)

•PercentageofGHGemissionsbysectoroftheeconomy

•TrendsintotalGHGemissionsbyindividualsector

•Comparisonofemissiontrendswithtargets(suchastheKyotoProtocol)

•ProjectionsofGHGemissions(accordingtovariousscenarios)

•Countrycomparisons

Source: Adapted from EEA �003.

Source:AdaptedfromCIESIN2005,AppendixB:129,245

Figure 7: a comparative index for environmental systems

Note:Stateoftheworld’snaturalecosystemsbyaveragingthreesub-indicesmeasuringchangesinabundanceofterres-trial,freshwater,andmarinespecies,eachsetat1.0andgivenequalweighing.Source:WWF2004,1http://www.panda.org/downloads/general/lpr2004.pdf

Figure 6: an index based on equal weights

Inde

x (1

970

= 1.

0)

1970-20001.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

01960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Air qualityWater

QuantityWater

QualtityBiodiversity

Land

Canada

1.9Indicator Value

Reference (average value per group)

Indicator Value

Reference (average value per group)

Air qualityWater

QuantityWater

QualtityBiodiversity

Land

United States

�

The2005EnvironmentalSustainabilityIndex(ESI)mentionedinrelationtoFigure7,ranks146countriesaccordingto21equally-weightedindicatorsofenvironmentalsustainability,includ-ingnaturalresourceendowments,pastandpres-entpollutionlevels,environmentalmanagementefforts,contributionstoprotectionoftheglobalcommons,andasociety’scapacitytoimproveits

environmentalperformanceovertime.ThisindexshowsCanadaranking6thandtheUnitedStates45th(CIESIN2005).

Anotherenvironmentalrankingscheme,usedbytheWorldWildlifeFundintheLivingPlanetIndex,producesverydifferentresultsfromtheESI,however.Itranks73countrieswithpopulationsover1millionbasedonthe“ecologicalfootprint”

Figure 8: a ranking scheme based on the “state” of ecosystems

Rank Country Percent�le Rank Country Percent�le1 Canada 90.4 16 Peru 69.32 Gabon 81.2 17 CentralAfricanRep. 68.63 Finland 78.7 18 PapuaNewGuinea 66.94 Norway 77.6 19 Brazil 66.35 Venezuela 77.2 20 Australia 66.16 Botswana 77.2 21 Uruguay 65.47 Congo 75.8 22 Ecuador 65.38 Namibia 75 23 Austria 64.69 Iceland 73.1 24 Paraguay 63.810 Argentina 72.4 25 Latvia 62.911 Russia 72.2 26 Angola 62.612 Sweden 72.1 27 Albania 62.213 Bolivia 71.1 28 Mali 60.514 Mongolia 70.5 29 Nicaragua 60.515 Colombia 69.8 30 UnitedStates 60.1

Source:AdaptedfromCIESIN2002,Annex4:58.

Gracey St�nson/UNEP/MorgueF�leThebusycity,Toronto,Canada.


perperson.Thismeasurerepresentspressuresontheenvironmentintermsofnaturalresourceconsumption,ratherthanthestateofeachnation’secosystemsasinthepreviousexample.Acountry’sfootprintisthetotalarearequiredtoproducethefoodandfibreitconsumes,absorbthewastefromitsenergyconsumption,andprovidespaceforitsinfrastructure.Figure9showsthe36countrieswiththepoorestrankingoutofthe73countrieswithpopulationsover1million.Inthisrankingscheme,CanadaandtheUnitedStatesareatthebottomofthescale,atpositionsnumber66and72respec-tively(WWF2004).

So,asmadeclearbytheseexamplesofrankingsystems,caremustbetakenindesigningcompara-tiveperformanceindicessothatthestandardization

ofvariousmeasurementsanddefinitionsisfairandtransparentanditisclearwhatisbeingmeasured(Segnestam2002).

Aggregatedperformanceindicesandcompositeindicatorsoftenemployimaginativevisualmeans,withbarometers,meters,dashboards,dials,andevenhappy/sadfacesportrayinghowwellorbadlyanationoranissueisfaring—whetheritisimprov-ing,remainingstable,ordeteriorating.Box5showsthe“smileyface”schemeusedbytheEuropeanEn-vironmentAgencyinitsassessments(EEA2003).

Morethanoneparametercanbepresentedinthesamefigurewhencomparisonshelptogetamessageacrosstothereaderorwhenillustratingthelinksbetweenonesystemandanother.Oneattemptatshowingthelinksbetweentheenviron-mentandtheeconomyisthroughtheuseofaperformanceindextomeasurechangesinthein-tensityofnaturalresourceuseoremissionsoutput.Performancecanbemeasuredbyplottingtrendstoindicatethelevelof“decoupling”ofenvironmentalharmrelativetoeconomicgrowth,suchaspollut-ingemissionsorwastegenerationperunitofgrossdomesticproduct(GDP).Simultaneously,perfor-manceiscomparedtoanearliertimeperiodbyshowingtheintensityofnaturalresourceuseovertime,startingatabase-linelevel(OECD2003).

Figure10givesanexampleofaperformancein-dexshowingtheintensityofsulphurdioxideemis-sionsinCanadaandtheUnitedStatesandhowtheyaredecouplingfromGDP.Italsocontainstargetsintheformofnationalandinternationalobjectivesandshowstheprogressthetwocountries

Source:WWF2004,10http://www.panda.org/downloads/general/lpr2004.pdf

Figure 9: a ranking scheme based on “pressures” on nations

Source:EEA2003,13

Box 5: eea’s smiley-face scheme Thesmileyfacesintheboxesnexttokeyindicatorsaimtogiveaconciseassessmentoftheindicator:

Positivetrend,movingtowardqualitativeobjectivesorquantifiedtargets;

somepositivedevelopment,buteitherinsufficienttoreachqualitativeobjectivesorquantifiedtargets,ormixedtrendswithintheindicator;

unfavourabletrend.

�

Source:ModifiedfromOECD2001,28

Figure 10: a performance index comparing trends

havemadeinmovingtowardsthemsincethebase-lineyearof1980.

Theperformanceindicatorabovecanalsobetermedan“intensity”or“efficiency”indicator.Energyisoftenmeasuredintermsofintensityofuse.Energyintensityistheratioofenergycon-sumptiontosomemeasureofdemandforenergyservices.Energyusecanbemeasuredagainstunitsofproductionorservicedelivery,forexample,toshowprogresstowardsmoreefficientoperations,oragainstaneconomicmeasuresuchasGDP,asinFigure11,whichshowsCanada’senergyconsump-tioncomparedtotrendsinGDP.Inthetranspor-tationsector,intensityindicatorscouldmeasuregallonsperpassengermileorgallonspervehiclemile(EIA1995).

Thus,thereisaplethoraoftypesofindicatorstochoosefromtogiveasnapshotofanenviron-mentalissue,fromsimplerepresentativeindica-tors,tocompositeindicesandothermorecomplexperformanceindicators.Thechoicewilldependontheauthor’spurposeorgoal.Thefollowingsectionlooksattheroleofenvironmentalindicators.

The role of environmental IndicatorsFirstusedprimarilytoactasthe“canaryinthecoalmine”,providingearlywarningsignalsforemerg-ingenvironmentalproblems,indicatorsareincreas-inglybeingrecognizedandusedfortheirkeyroleinimprovingdecisionmaking(EC2001;PinterandSwanson2004a).

Figure 11: an intensity or efficiency indicator comparing trends

Note:Theenergyunitsareexajoules(EJ).Anexajouleis1018joules.GDPisexpressedas1000millionof1992Canadiandollars.Source:AdaptedfromEC2004bhttp://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicators/Issues/Energy/Tables/ectb01_e.cfm

Canada200

150

100

50

0

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Helsinki protocol Oslo protocol National objectives Gothenburg protocol

200

150

100

50

0

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

USA

Trends in SOx emissions, Index 1980 = 100

SOx emissions Fossil fuel supply (FFS) GDP

�0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca

Environmentalindicatorsarenotanendinthemselves;rather,theyshouldformpartofanit-erativepolicycycle,whichincludespolicyplanningandapplication,theevaluationoftheimpactsofpolicies,andsubsequentadjustmentofthepolicytofurtherprogresstowardsthedesiredgoal.Theroleofindicatorsistoincorporateenvironmentalknowledgeintodecisionmakingattheevaluationandanalysisphase(Figure12).

Thisphasecomprisesdesigningandimplement-ingsystemsformonitoringandfordatacollection,andastate-of-the-environment(SOE)programmethatincludesindicatorsandtheirdissemination.Indicatorshelptooutlinepolicygoalsinspecificterms.Theyalsoprovidefeedbacktomanagersandthepublicaboutoutcomes.Ifandwhenthereisastraightforwardconnectionbetweenspecificpoli-ciesandoutcomes,indicatorscanplayakeyroleinthecontinuouscycleofpolicylearningandadapta-tion(PinterandSwanson2004a).Ideally,indica-torsshouldinformdecisionmakingbyhelpingto

Source:CSIRO1999http://www.csiro.au/csiro/envind/code/pages/07.htm

Figure 13: The environment management cycle

Indicators function inside the governance process; they are not exogenous factors parachuted in, which can act like a magic bullet causing decision-making to become instantly objective and scientific (Pastille Consortium 2002, 90).

Source:AdaptedandmodifiedfromPinter,Zahedi,andCressman2000,79

Figure 12: The role of indicators in the policy cycle

Evaluation and analysis

Adjustment

Policy Implementation

Policy Implementation

��

clarifyissuesandbydisclosingtherelationshipsbetweentheissuesandpolicydecisions.

Monitoringprogrammesarealsopartofacycleofenvironmentalmanagementinwhichpolicyisinformedbythemessagesprovidedbyindica-tors.Inturn,indicatorsrelyonmonitoringanddatagatheringtoprovidethenecessaryinputs(seeFigure13)3.Thelackofclearcausalrelationshipsbetweenactionstakeninamanagementcycleandresultingenvironmentalchange,theinfluenceofotherunrelatedfactors,aswellasdelaysbetweenmanagementactionsandresultsaresomeofthesignificantchallengesinherentinthiscycle(GAO2004).

Predictive,performance,andcomparativeindi-catorsarethemosteffectiveindrawingtheatten-tionofdecision-makerstotheurgencyofaddress-ingenvironmentalchange.Figure14illustratesapredictiveindicatorwiththepotentialtoinfluencepolicydecisions.Canada,assignatorytotheKyotoProtocol,adoptedtime-boundtargetstoreducegreenhousegasemissionsbetween2008and2012

3SeeCSIRO1999foradescriptionofeachstageofthismanagementcycle

The best indicators trigger human action, or have the potential to do so (CSIRO 1999 http://www.csiro.au/csiro/envind/code/pag-es/14.htm).

W�ll�am Campbell/UNEP/USFWS

A59kg(130lb)wolfwatchesbiologistsinYellowstoneNationalPark,USA,afterbeingcapturedandfittedwitharadiocollaron9January2003.

Source:UNEPGRIDA2001http://www.grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/canada.htm,http://www.grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/usa.htm

Figure 14: an indicator designed to influence decision making. actual and projected emissions of GhG compared to Kyoto targets, 1990–2010

��


bysixpercentbelow1990emissionlevels.Box6isanexampleofdifferentlevelsofdecisionsthatcouldbetriggeredbythisindicator.

Performanceandcomparativeindicatorsareparticularlyeffectivemeanswithwhichtopromptactionbydecision-makers.Ifanationcanbeshowntobelaggingbehindothersandnotmakingprogressinenvironmentalprotection,itshumilia-tioncanbeapotentimpetustoimprove.Asmen-tionedabove,thisispartoftherationaleforusingahighlyaggregatedindexthatcouldrollmanyaspectsaboutthestateofanation’senvironmentintooneeasily-understoodperformancemeasurethatwouldallowcomparingandrankingnations.

Inadditiontoservingpolicyends,indicatorsalsohavearoleininformingthepublic.Whendesignedandcommunicatedineffectiveways,indicatorsareusefulastoolstoillustrateconceptsandscientificinformation,helpingtochangeorilluminatetheunderstandingofanissueanddraw-ingattentiontoimportantenvironmentalproblems(Hezri2003;NIRO2003a).ThepublicincludesenvironmentalNGOs,someofwhichmayusetheinformationinindicatorreportstocreateanddisseminatetheirownproductsthathelpthempressuregovernmentstoact.

Limitations of indicatorsTherearelimitationsontheuseofindicators,how-ever,thefirstbeingtheriskofoversimplification.Thecomplexitiesofecosystemsandtheirfunctionsandhowwelltheyarebeingmanagedcannotbereducedtoasetofindicatorsorindices,letaloneasinglerepresentativeindicator(Turnhout2003).Oneofthekeyproblemsisthattraditionalindica-

torsfailtoprovideinformationaboutthecapac-ityofecosystemstosustaintheirsupplyofgoodsandservices(MFE2000).Andindicatorsmustbedecipheredbythereader,openingthemuptofalseinterpretation,especiallywhenlinksbetweencauseandeffectareextrapolated.Forexample,abundantfishharvesttrendsdonotnecessarilysignifyabun-dantfishstocks,nordotheysayanythingaboutthehealthofthefishery.Infact,historyhasshownthecollapseofoverfishedstocksallovertheworldafteraperiodofplentifulharvests(UNDPandothers2000).Correlativeconclusionsmaybedrawnfromindicatorsratherthanascientificallycausalrela-tionshipbetweenatrendandapressure,orindeed,betweenspecificpoliciesandprogrammesandchangesinthestateoftheenvironment.

Asintimatedearlier,thedesignofindicesisfraughtwithdifficulties.Aggregationwillbecoun-terproductiveiftheindexbecomestooabstractorifithidesdefectsinthecondensingofmanyfeaturesofanissueintoasinglemeasure(Lealess2002).Anindexthataggregates“applesandoranges”orissuesthatcannotbemeasuredinthesameunitshasmoreseriouslimitationsthatshouldbemadeexplicitandtransparentforthereader.Evenprofilesthatuseavarietyofindicatorsinanattempttocoverallaspectsofanissuecanhavegaps(Bossel1999).

Whenindicatorsareestablishedbutnoactionfollows,theirdevelopmentprocessandtweak-ingmayactuallybeservingasacamouflageforinaction,adelayingtactic,oranexcusenottoactuntilthescienceis“right”.Anulteriormotiveforintroducingindicatorsinapolicy-makingprocesscanincludecreatingindicatorsthatsupportapre-determinedposition(Hezri2003).Setsofindica-

Box 6: Use of indicators to influence the climate change policy cycle

Goals and targets:Anationalgovernmentinstitutesaclimatechangepolicytosupportinternationaleffortstocurbthehumaninfluencesonglobalwarming.Itsetsgoalsandtargetsforreducinggreenhousegasemissionsandmonitorsprogresswiththeuseofasetofindicators.

Strateg�es and �nstruments:Itinitiatesfinancialincentives,suchasenergytaxes;legalinstruments,suchaslimitsonemissions;andotherstrategies,suchasbudgetarysupportforpublictransporta-tion,thatareintendedtohelpachievethegoalsandtargets.

Pol�cy �mplementat�on:National,regional,andlocalgovernmentsmightimplementthepoliciesbymonitoringandenforcingemissionlimitsinindustry,forexample,andimprovingandincreasingbus,subwayandtrainservices,aswellascyclinglanesandpaths,amongothermeasures.

Impact evaluat�on:Indicatorsareusedtomeasuretheeffectivenessofthepolicychange.Forexam-ple,indicatorswouldhelpevaluatethepolicy’sperformancebycomparingdataaboutgreenhousegasemissionsbeforeandafterthepolicychangeandcomparingtherateofprogresstothedesiredgoal.Theindicatorsshouldservetoinformdecisionmakinginacycleofadaptivelearning.Source: Adapted from P�nter and Swanson �00�b, sl�de ��.

�3

torsorindicesmayalsoreflectthespecificexpertiseandinterestsoftheorganizationthatdevelopsandpublishesthemratherthantheneedsofitsaudi-ence(Segnestam2002).

Ontheirown,indicatorscannotassesspolicyperformance,whichinvolvesproducingandcom-municatinginformationaboutthekeyinteractionsbetweenthenaturalenvironmentandsociety.Policyeffectiveness—weighingtheactualpolicyimpactagainstthegoalordesiredperformanceofasinglepolicy—canbeachievedbyintegrateden-vironmentalassessment,whichisdoneinthetextofanSOEreportbyanalyzingthelinksbetweenkeydrivingforcesandpoliciesandthestatusoftheenvironment(PinterandSwanson2004a).

Thus,indicatorscannotstandalone,norcantheydiscloseallaspectsunderlyingthestatesorchangesinstatestheyreveal:toperformtheroleofprovidinginformationfordecisionmaking,indica-torsneedtobeinterpreted(Segnestam2002).In-terpretationisneededtohelpclarifytheirmeaningandprovidecontext,butisalsousefulbecausethereisnouniversallyacceptedsetofindicatorsandeachreportingagencyemploysdifferentmethodsanddefinitions.

Indicatorsalonedonottriggeraction,either.Howtoeffectivelyensurethemessagestheycontainarecapturedbydecision-makersandactuallykick-startpolicychangetoaddresstheproblemstheyrevealisachallenge.Theeffectiveimplementa-tionofawell-designedcommunicationplanisanimportantpartofSOEreportingprojects.

Finally,withtheemergenceofnewenviron-mentalproblemsorinresponsetoenvironmentalchange,itisimportantthatindicatorsareflex-ibleandcanberevised(Bossel1999).Thefieldofenvironmentalindicatorsisstillevolvingandasknowledgeandexperienceaccumulates,sothe

indicatorsthemselveswillbetransformedtobetterreflectenvironmentalconditionsandtrendsandtobeofmoreutilitytousers.

Organizational and Conceptual FrameworksAnorganizationalframeworkhelpstostructureindicatorselectionanddevelopment,systemizetheanalysisandinterpretation,identifygaps,andsim-plifyandmakeexplicitthereportingprocessforthetargetaudience(Rump1996;CEC2003).Asmen-tionedearlier,indicatorscanbeorganizedbyjuris-dictionalorecosystemboundaries,environmentalmediumorcomponent,economicsector,specialtheme,emergingorpriorityissue,orsocioeco-nomicsector,amongotherorganizingframeworks.SOEandenvironmentalindicatorreportsthatareorientedtowardssectors,issues,andenvironmentalmedia,generallyalsoorganizereportingonthesethemesaroundanappliedconceptualoranalyticalframework.AvarietyofframeworksisusedinSOEreporting,frequentlyincombination(NIRO2003a).

The PSR frameworkThemostcommonlyusedframeworkisthepres-sure-state-response(PSR)model.Itorganizestheindicatorsaccordingtohowtheyanswerthefollow-ingquestions:“whatishappeningtotheenviron-ment?whyisithappening?andwhatarewedoingaboutit?”(Box7).

Stateindicators,asrepresentedinthismodel,describethequantityofresourceassetsandtheconditionsandtrendsintheenvironmentalmediaortheircomponents.Thisincludesindicatorsofthephysicalsize,shape,andlocationofecosystems.Pressureindicatorscanportraybothnaturaland

Box 7: Questions addressed by the PSr approach

Quest�on to answer Type of �nd�cators What �nd�cators show

Whatishappeningtothestate Indicatorsofstate Changesortrendsintheoftheenvironmentandof physicalorbiologicalstateofthenaturalresources? naturalworld

Whyisithappening? Indicatorsofpressure Stressesorpressuresfromhuman activitiesthatcauseenvironmental change

Whatarewedoingaboutit? Indicatorsofresponse Actionsadoptedinresponseto environmentalproblems andconcernsSource: Adapted from MAP ��, �.


anthropogenicpressures,andrangefromdriversandunderlyingagentsofchange,suchassocioeco-nomicandpoliticalconditions,todirectpressures,suchaspollutingemissionsandresourceextraction.

Responseindicatorsillustratethosepolicesandac-tionstakenbygovernmentsandcivilsocietytomit-igateorredressenvironmentalproblems(UNDPandothers2000;PinterandSwanson2004b).

Source:EEA2000a,12http://reports.eea.eu.int/ENVISSUENo12/en/term2000.pdf

Figure 16: The DPSIr framework, illustrating the issue of transport

Figure 15: example of the PSr framework, illustrating the issue of stratospheric ozone

Source:AdaptedandmodifiedfromANZECC2000,10

Pressure State Response

Links to climate

Cloud cover

Ultraviolet radiation level at the surface

Stratospheric ozoneconcentration

Concentration of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere

Use of ozone- depleting substances

Phasing out and destruction of ozone-depleting substances

��

Figure15illustratesasimpleindicatorprofileusingthePSRframework.

ThePSRapproachisadynamicandcompre-hensivemodelthatismeanttofacilitatetheevalua-tionofpolicyresponsestoenvironmentalissues.Itisflexibleandcanbeadjustedtoallowforgreaterdetailorspecificfeaturesanditsadvantageshavere-sultedinitswideadoptionandfurtherelaboration.

The DPSIR frameworkThePSRframeworkhasbeenmodifiedovertheyearstoencompassadditionalcategoriesofindica-tors,includingdrivingforcesandimpacts.Drivingforceindicatorsdepictunderlyingsocioeconomic

pressuressuchaspopulationgrowthandconsump-tion.Impactindicatorsanswerthequestion,“Whyaretheenvironmentalconditionsandchangessignificant?”Forexample,whatimpactdothepressureshaveonecosystems,economicandsocialwell-being,andhumanhealth?(NIRO2003a).Box8describesthesecategoriesofindicatorsandFigure16portraysthedrivingforce-pressure-state-impact-response(DPSIR)frameworkbyillustratingpoten-tialindicatorsusedtoreportontheenvironmentalimplicationsoftransport4.

Limitations of the PSR frameworkDespitethevaluesandpopularityofthePSRframeworkanditsoffshoots,ithasbeencriticized

Box 8: DPSIr indicators

Dr�v�ng force Underlyingpressuresrelatedtosocioeconomicandpoliticalagentsofchange, suchaspopulationgrowth,GDP,andconsumption.

Pressure Indicatorsdescribingvariablesthatdirectlyaffectthequalityandquantity ofenvironmentalgoodsandservices,suchastoxicemissions,pesticide applications,harvestingratesoffishortimber,andgenerationof municipalwaste.

State Indicatorsofthebiological,chemical,andphysicalstateorcondition(quantity orquality)ofanenvironmentalmedia,ecosystem,orcomponentatagiven pointintime,orasatrendovertime.Examplesincludetheareaand distributionofforestcover,ambientlevelsofgroundlevelozone,numberand diversityofspecies.

Impact Indicatorsofdirecteffectsofenvironmentalpressuresonhumans,economies, andecosystems,suchasthepercentageofbeachesaffectedbyadvisoriesor closings,concentrationofleadinchildren’sblood,theeconomiccostsof eliminatinganinvasivespecies,andthenumberofyearlyoutbreaksattributed towaterbornedisease-causingorganisms.

Response Indicatorsofsocietalreactiontoenvironmentalproblemsandtheircausessuch aslegislation,regulation,economicinstruments,education,voluntaryaction, andbudgetaryallocation.Examplesincludetheareasetasideasprotected parks,andtrendsinrecycling.Source: Comp�led by author from Mortensen ��; MAP ��; EEA �003; P�nter and Swanson �00�a.

4SeeEEA2000bforDPSIRprofileflowchartsfor14keyenvironmentalissues.

Gary Kramer/UNEP/NRCSThishillsideinnorthernCaliforniaiscoveredbywildlfowers.

��


forbeingoverlysimplisticintheintuitiveassump-tionofdirectcause-and-effectmechanisms:drivingforcesandpressuresareseenascausingstatesandimpacts,andresponsesareinterpretedasactingasafeedbackregulatorfortheissueorprofileinquestion.Theseassumptionsdonotreflectthecomplexsystemicrelationshipsamongtheele-mentsandthefactthattheyareembeddedinalargersystem.Forexample,usingthePSRmodeltoshowtherelationshipsamongafewindicatorsinaclimatechangeprofilecouldmaskthefactthathumansareresponsibleforonlypartofCO

2

concentrations,thatCO2emissionsarenotthe

onlyinfluenceonglobaltemperature,thatacarbontaxmaybeintroducedforavarietyofreasons,andthatsuchataxhasnumerousother(economicandsocial)consequencesapartfromaffectingCO

2

emissions(Bossel1999).Infact,moststatesaretheresultofmultipledrivingforcesandpressures,withpressuresalsoresultinginmorethanonestate(Gallopín1997;Bossel1999;vonSchirnd-ing2002;NIRO2003a).Similarly,somefactorscanbebothpressuresandimpacts.Forexample,soilerosionisapressureonstreams,sinceitcausessedimentation,butitisalsoanimpactindicatorof

theeffectsofovergrazingordeforestation(CGER2000).Naturalprocessesandphenomenaalsoactaspressuresontheenvironment,anditcanbediffi-culttoseparatetheeffectsofnaturalprocessesfromhumanimpacts(BergerandHodge1998).

CaremustbetakenininterpretingaprofileofindicatorsarrangedaccordingtothePSRframe-workanditsderivativessothatinvalidinferencesarenotdrawn,especiallysincethiscouldleadtoerroneouspolicyrecommendations.Inshort,thePSRframeworkshouldbeseenasausefulsystemfororganizingindicatorswithoutassuminganyunderlyingfunctionalcausality(Gallopín1997).

Natural capital flows and accounting approachesAnotherconceptualandorganizationalapproachtoreportingonthestateoftheenvironmentisthesystemsframework,whichanalyzessysteminflows,stocks,andoutputsofanissueandthendefinesindicatorstomeasurethem.Ithasbeenusedtodevelopsustainabilityindicators,buildingsetsofthemforhumansystems,supportsystems,andnaturalsystems(Bossel1999;UNESCO2003).Inmeasuringtheflowsofnaturalresources,indicatorsareconstructedtocalculatetheflowofrawmateri-alsinphysicalunitsthroughtheeconomy“fromcradletograve”,includingextraction,production,manufacture,use,recycling,anddisposal.Natu-ralcapitalindicatorsare“descriptive”indicators,measuringquantitiesofresourceuseasawayofmeasuringtheirenvironmentalimpact.Twogoalsofthisapproacharetoassessprogresstowardsreducingmaterialthroughputinproportiontoeconomicoutput,andtheadoptionofeffective

Source:Wagner2002,4http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2002/c1221/c1221-508.pdf

Figure 17: Material flows indicator: US flow of raw materials by weight, 1900–2000

Looking at the flow of materials from the perspective of a whole system enables the sum of potential consequences to be envi-sioned, priorities to be set, and methods to combat negative impacts of material flows to be developed (Wagner 2002, 1).

U.S

. RAW

MAT

ERIA

LS F

LOW

, IN

MIL

LIO

NS

OF

MET

RIC

TO

NS

YEAR

3500

4000

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

01900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

��

policiestoadvancedematerialization(WRI1997).Figure17givesanexampleofamaterialflowsindicator.ItshowsmaterialinputsbyweightoftheprincipalrawmaterialsintheUnitedStatesbetween1900and2000.

Thephysicalflowsofnaturalresources,goods,pollutants,andwastesengenderedbyanindustrialeconomycanalsobemeasuredineconomictermsinthesamewaythateconomicflowsaremeasuredindollars.Naturalresourceaccountingattemptstoputacostonthedeteriorationofnaturalcapital(naturalresources,land,andecosystemservices).Byputtingamonetaryvalueontheroleoftheenviron-mentasaproducerofgoodsandservicesandontheimpactsofeconomicgrowthonitsabilitytosustainthem,thisapproachhelpstolinkenvironmentalandeconomicdataandtodemonstratethatharm-ingtheenvironmenthaseconomicrepercussions(Hecht2000).

Figure18givesanexampleofanaturalresourceaccountingindicator.ItshowsthevalueofCanada’snaturalresourcesstocks—timber,energy,andmin-erals—andthecontributionoftheseresourcestonationalwealthbetween1978and1997.Trackingwealththiswaycaninformnationsastowhether

thecurrentlevelofnationalincomecanbesus-tained(StatisticsCanada2000a).

Therearemultiplechallengestothesesystemsofenvironmentalaccounting,however,includingtheenormousdifficultiesinattachingeconomicvaluestomanyimportantenvironmentalfactors.Thereismuchcontroversyaboutthemeritandviabilityofassigningmarket-likevaluestoenvironmentalassets

Paul Fusco/UNEP/NRCS

ConnecticutRivertidelandhabitatintheUSAundergoinginvasiveplantcontrol(lightcoloredareas)andnativeplantcommunityrestoration.

Source:ModifiedfromStatisticsCanada2000a,2

National WealthManufactured assetsAgricultural and developed land

Figure 18: natural resource accounting indicator (in Canadian Dollars)

Natural Resource Assets and National Wealth, 1978-1997

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

1 000 million dollars

Natural resource assets

78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96


andprocesses(Repetto1994).Ontheotherhand,unlikephysicalmeasurement,monetaryvaluationenablescomparisonandaggregationacrossformsofcapitalbecauseitusesmarketvalueastheonly“weight”(Smith,Simard,andSharpe2001).

Biogeophysical approachThisapproachisbasedontheideathat,toreportonthestateoftheenvironment,abetterscientificunderstandingofecosystemsandthewayorgan-ismsandtheirphysicalenvironmentco-existandco-evolveisneeded.Theunderlyingconceptisthatsustainingthegloballife-supportsystemisaprereq-uisiteforsustaininghumansocieties.Theorganiz-ingframeworkisbasedona“systems”approach.Theindicatorssummarizeindividualmeasurementsfordifferentecosystemcharacteristics(HardiandBarg1997).Biogeophysicalmeasurementsreflectthestateofknowledgeaboutspecificecosystempropertiestorevealchangesinthechemical,bio-logical,andphysicalqualitiesoftheatmosphere,soils,waters,wildlife,andvegetationthatcomprise“theenvironment”(Murcott1997).Biogeophysi-calindicatorsportraythestateofenvironmentalmediaandtendtomakeupthemajorityofindica-torsinmostSOEreports.Astrictbiogeophysicialapproachdoesnotuseindicatorstoreflectdriv-ers,pressures,andresponsesbutrathershowsthecondition,changes,andtrendsinthequalityandquantityofecosystemgoodsandservices.

Insum,environmentalindicatorinitiativesrelyonavarietyofframeworkstoorganizethevastamountofinformationnecessarytoportraythechangingstateoftheenvironment.Theaboveis

notacomprehensiveaccountofframeworksforenvironmentalindicators5.MostSOEreportsdonotuseonlyoneoranotheroftheseframeworksbutmaycombineanumberofthem,dependingonthegoalandtheaudience.

Themostwidelyusedmodelisthepressure-state-responseapproachanditsderivatives.Thisframeworkcontinuestobefavoredandeffortsareunderwaytoimproveitsoitcanhelpexpressthelinkagesamongsectorsandamongdrivingforces,pressures,states,impacts,andresponses.

Theseeffortsareinrecognitionoftheneedforaframeworkthatbetteraccountsfortheinterac-tionbetweenhumanandecologicalsystemsandtheconsequencesforhumanwell-being(Singh,Moldan,andLoveland2002).SOEprofessionalsareseekingwaystoimproveindicatorsandorga-nizationalandanalyticalframeworkssotheycanbeusedmoreeffectivelytoassesstheviabilityandsustainabilityofbothnaturalandsocialsystemsandtheirinteractionsandhowtousethisinfor-mationtoimprovethosesystemsatalllevelsoforganization(Bossel1999).Forexample,aframe-workdevelopedbytheWorldHealthOrganiza-tionhelpstoselectandstructureindicatorslinkinghealthandtheenvironment.TheDPSEEA(driv-ingforce,pressure,state,exposure,effect,action)frameworkrecognizesthatmanyfactorsdetermineexposureandeffects.Themodelhasbeencriticizedasbeingtoolinear,however,neglectingthecom-plexityofmultipleassociationsbetweenexposuretoenvironmentalpressuresandimpactsonhealth.TheMEME(multipleexposures–multipleeffects)model,developedespeciallyforchildren’senviron-

Box 9: Steps in a generic indicator development process

1.Identifythemesandissuesrelatedtotheoverarchingvisionandgoal.

2.Proposeaninitialsetofcandidateindicators.

3.Selectananalyticalframeworkthatlinksgoalstoindicators.

4.Developalistofcriteriaforindicatorselection.

5.Evaluateindicatorsaccordingtocriteria.

6.Defineacoresetand/orasuiteofindicatorsetsfordifferentusers.

7.Identifydatasourcesanddatagaps.

8.Gatherdataandpopulatetheindicators;standardizemeasurementwhereverpossible.

9.Compareindicatorvaluestotargets,thresholds,andpolicygoals,asappropriate.

10.Disseminateresults.

11.Assessstrengthsandweaknessesofindicatorset.

12.Continuedevelopmentofsuperiorindicators.

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromRump1996;HardiandZdan1997;CEC2003.

5SeeMurcott1997,foradetailedlistofframeworks;seealsoSingh,Moldan,andLoveland2002;HardiandBarg1997;Bossel1999;andOECD1999.

��

mentalhealth,ismoresuccessfulinrevealingthesecomplexrelationships,sinceitshowshowexposurecanleadtomanydifferentoutcomes(CEC2003).Thus,frameworksarecontinuallyevolvingtoincorporatethecomplexityofhumanenviron-mentrelationships.

Methods for Selecting IndicatorsTheselectionanddevelopmentofindicatorsusu-allyfollowsoneoftwomethods.First,thebottom-upapproachstartswiththeavailabledata,thencreatestheparameters,andfinallyaggregatesthedataintoindicatorsalonganumberofhierarchi-callevels,usingintuitiveandmathematicalap-proaches.Usuallyusedindata-richsituations,thisapproachgenerallyfailstoadheretomanyagreed-uponcriteriaforindicatorselection(discussedfurtheron),canmasktheinterrelationsamongresourcesandprocesses,andemploysdatathatmayfailtohavesignificancebeyondtheirmeasuredquantity(UNESCO2003).

Second,top-downapproachesstartwithavisionthatleadstopolicygoalsforareal-worldoutcome,andthentoasetofobjectivelyverifi-ableindicators,followedbyactions.Indicatorsaredevelopedforalllevels,fromthegoaldowntoactivities.Thelowerthelevelintheframework,thelessimportancethereisforunanimityintheuni-

versalityoftheindicators(UNESCO2003).Thisapproachisappropriateforstate-of-the-environ-mentreportinginitiativesbygovernmentsatanyleveltotrackperformancetowardspolicies,laws,andtargetsforenvironmentalquality.

Thetop-downapproachisthepreferredmeth-od,sinceitspurposeistolinkindicatorstopolicydecisions.Asurveyofindicatorinitiativesshowsthatthereareavarietyofstepsinthetop-downindicatordevelopmentprocess(Box9).

Generally,thefirststepistoidentifythethemesandpriorityenvironmentalissuestobeaddressed.Foranationalormultilateralinitiative,theselec-tionwillstronglyrelatetoimportantenvironmentalvaluesandvisionsheldbysocietyandarticulatedinnationalpolicies,suchasthegoalofenvironmentalsustainability.Atoolinthisstepistorankissuesbypriority,whichcanbefacilitatedbytheuseofaweightedschemesuchasthatsuggestedinBox10.

Box 10: Potential criteria for environmental issue ranking

Criteria Possible Weighting

1 2 3

Reversibility Lessthan1year Lessthan25years Morethan25years

SpatialScale Global Transboundary National

RiskMagnitude Moderate Significant Serious

ScientificUncertainty Low Moderate High

PublicConcern Low Moderate High

Source:AdaptedfromRump1996,45.

The dependence of indicator development on data can lead to the situation in which data availability drives the selection of indicators, which, in turn, reinforces the collection of the same data (UNES-CO 2003, 57).

UNEP/MorgueF�leCastleMountaininBanffNationalPark,Canada.

��


Thenextstepistoidentifyassociatedindica-tors.Often,thisstepisaccomplishedwiththeaidofbrainstormingexercisesbyexperts,todevelopaninitiallistofcandidateindicators;suchalistwouldcontainallsuggestedindicatorsregardlessofwhetherornotcorrespondingindicatorsanddataexist(Pidot2003).Thismaybeachievedbylistingindicatorsthatcorrespondtopoliciesormanage-mentplans,ortoachosenanalyticalframeworksuchasDPSIR,orbyrephrasinggoalsasquestions,thencreatingcandidateindicatorstoanswerthem.Box11givesanexampleofthetypesofquestionsaskedtoelicitindicatorsforairqualityusedbytheUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Thefirstquestioncorrespondstothestateofairquality,thesecondtopressures,andthethirdandfourthtoimpacts.

Criteria for selecting indicatorsCriteriamaythenbeproposedwithwhichtoevalu-ateandnarrowdownthelistandaframeworkisdecideduponthatcorrespondstotheinitiative’smissionandthathelpsorganizethereporting.

Agenciesinvolvedindevelopingenvironmentalandsustainabilityindicatorsrecognizetheneedtovalidatetheprocessofindicatorselectionandde-velopment.Theliteratureshowsthatthereisagreatdealofconsensusonthekeycriteriaforidentifyingpotentialindicators.Oneofthemaincriteria,asstressedabove,ispolicyrelevance.Foruseinpolicymaking,indicatorsmustprovideinformationaboutenvironmentalissuesofconcern,beeasytoun-derstand,andbelinkedtopolicygoalsortargets.

Criteria for selecting indicators

Ind�cators must be TRUE

T:Timely,targeted,andthreshold-sensitive

r:Reliable,relevant,resonant,andresponsive

U:Usefultothepublic,policy-makers,andprogrammeadministrators

e:Easilyaccessibleperiodicallyfromreputablesources

Source:AdaptedfromSCERP2002,1–2.

Box 11: Questions to elicit the identification of potential indicators

Quest�on Ind�cator Name

What is the quality of outdoor air NumberandpercentageofdaysthatMetropolitanin the United States? StatisticalAreashaveAirQualityIndex(AQI)values greaterthan100

Numberofpeoplelivinginareaswithairquality levelsabovetheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandards (NAAQS)forozone(8-hour)andParticulateMatter (PM

2.5)

Ambientconcentrationsofozone,8-hour

Ambientconcentrationsofparticulatematter(PM2.5

) Visibility

Deposition:wetsulfateandwetnitrogen

Ambientconcentrationsofselectedairtoxics

What contributes to outdoor air pollution? Emissionsofparticulatematter,sulfurdioxide,nitrogen oxides,andvolatileorganiccompounds

Leademissions

Airtoxicsemissions

Emissions(utility):sulfurdioxideandnitrogenoxides

What human health effects are associated Noindicatoridentifiedwith outdoor air pollution?

What ecological effects are associated with outdoor air pollution? Noindicatoridentified

Source:AdaptedfromUSEPA2003,A-2.

��

Theirselectionandtherulesforcalculationmustbemadeinatransparentandobjectivemanner.Theyshouldbebasedonrobustdataandprovideacost-effectivewaytomeasureenvironmentalcondi-tionsandprogresstowardsenvironmentalsustainability.Box12liststhesecriteria.ManyreflecttheconclusionsdrawnupintheBellagioPrinciples,whichwereendorsedbyaninterna-tionalgroupofpractitionersandresearchersfromfivecontinentsin1996.Theprinciplessynthesizeinsightsfrompracticalongoingeffortsinassessing

performanceinprotectingtheenvironment(seeHardiandZdan1997).Ofcourse,nosinglesetofcriteriawillapplytoallsituationsorneedssincetheenvironmentsandpoliciestheindicatorsaremeanttomeasurediffer,asdoprioritiesfordatacollectionandanalysis(vonSchirnding2002).

OnecriterionemergingfromtheliteratureandrecommendedaspartofthesecondandseventhcriteriainBox12suggeststheimportanceoflimit-ingindicatorsetstoasmallnumberofindicators.Iftheyaretoservetheimportantfunctionofre-

Box 12: Criteria for selecting environmental indicators

Significant/salient: Will anyone care?Providerelevantinformationrespondingtoconcernsaboutchangeinimportantecologicalandbiogeo-chemicalprocessesandenvironmentalchangethataffectswideareasandthehealthandwell-beingofpeopleandnaturalresources.Conveyinformationbroaderthantheparametersmeasuredandhelptomaintainafocusonthismessage.

Clear and easy to interpret: Will people understand them? Setforthalimitednumberofindicatorsorsetsofindicators,whicharepresentedinaclear,straightfor-wardandappealingmanner,andaresimpleandintuitivetointerpretwhilemaintaininganappropriatelevelofdetailandscientificaccuracy.

Policy relevant: Will they lead to action? Measureprogressagainstpolicygoalsbycomparingindicatorvaluestotargets.Arepartofaniterativeandadaptivepolicyandmanagementcycle,answeringpertinentquestions,provokingpolicydebateandac-tion.Areflexible,sonewinformationcanleadtoadjustmentsingoals,frameworks,andindicators.

reliable/credible: are they scientifically valid? Aremeasurableandanalyticallyvalid.Arebasedoncurrentlysoundandinternationallyacceptedtheoreti-cal,conceptual,technical,andscientificstandardsandprinciples.Datacollectionisbasedonstatisticalintegrity;dataarefromreliablesourcesonarecurringbasis,areclearlydefined,verifiableandrobusttochangesinmeasurementtechnology;andindicatorsallowforconsistentinterpretationandvalidanalysesandconclusions.

neutral and legitimate: Can they be trusted?Arepoliticallylegitimate,withunbiasedandtransparentselection,analysis,andpresentation.

Comparable: are they compatible with other sets of indicators?Arestandardizedwhereverpossibletoallowforcomparison,especiallyatthenationallevelofreporting.Thismayrequireconsensusrelatedtointernationalcommitmentsandtargets.

Cost-effective: are they affordable?Arelimitedinnumber,useexistingorreadilyavailabledatawheneverpossible,andaresimpletomonitor.Explicitlinkstopolicyensureefficientmonitoringanddatacollection(whichareexpensive).Financial,human,andtechnicalcapacitiesareavailabletodevelopandusetheindicators.

Participatory: Were they selected and developed in a transparent manner?Aredevelopedwiththeparticipationofabroadrangeofstakeholders,includingdecision-makersandoth-ersinthemanagementcycletoensuretheindicatorsorindicatorsetsaretiedtopolicygoalsandmoni-toringprograms,aswellasincludingNGOs,professionals,theprivatesector,andothermembersofthepublictoensuretheyencompasscommunityvisionsandvaluesandtopromote“ownership”.Source:CompiledbyauthorfromMFE1996;Rump1996;Gallopín1997;HardiandZdan1997;Mortensen1997;Bossel1999;CSIRO1999;CGER2000;MFE2000;DaleandBeyeler2001;GRI2002;PastilleConsortium2002;Singh,Moldan,andLoveland2002;EC2003a;EEA2003;OECD2003;O’Malley,Cavender-Bares,andClark2004;USGAO2004;TERIn.d..


ducingthenumberofmeasurementsandparame-tersthatareusuallyrequiredtodescribeasituationorsystemexactly,thesizeofanindicatorsetandthelevelofdetailitcontainsneedtobelimited.Indicatorsaremeanttoprovideanoverview,soasetwithalargenumberofindicatorswilltendtoclutterit(OECD2003).

Amongthecriteriaforindicatorselectionistherequirementfortransparency;ideally,abroadrangeofstakeholders,includingdecision-makersandothersinthemanagementcycle,shouldbe

includedintheselectionprocess.Theparticipantschosenwilldependonthepurposeoftheindica-torinitiative,itsscope,andthetargetedaudience(Segnestam2002).

Organizing indicators into setsState-of-the-environmentprogrammesmaychoosetodevelopmorethanonesetofindicatorstorep-resentvariouslevelsofscopeandscale,dependingonthepurposeoftheprogrammeandthetargetedaudience(Lealess2002).Theinitial

Box 13: various indicator sets

Candidate indicators Anyandallsuggestedindicators—resultingfrombrainstormingamong experts—thatanswerquestionsabouttheenvironment

Feasible indicators Candidateindicatorsthatcanactuallybedevelopedbecausedata areavailable

Core set Indicatorsselectedfromthefeasiblecandidates,basedonalistofcriteria

Supplemental/ Indicatorsdevelopedforspecificusersand/ortoshowmoredetailaboutcomplementary sets specificissuesorplaces

headline or key indicators Asmallsetofindicatorsselectedfromthecoresettobestrepresent eachissue

Indices Aggregatedandcompositeindicatorstogiveasnapshotfordecision-makers

alarm indicators Indicatorstobeconstantlymonitoredsoastoenabletimelywarning aboutadversechangesthreateningtoexceedsetthresholds

Diagnostic indicators Indicatorsdevelopedtoprovideanin-depthanalysisoftheissues highlightedbythealarmindicators

Source:AdaptedfromSegnestam2002,14.

UNEP/MorgueF�leSaintLawrenceRiver-Montreal,Canada.

�3

brainstormingmayresultinalistofcandidateindi-cators.Fromthese,indicatorsareselectedaccordingtoagivenlistofcriteriatoformanorganization’scoreset.Differentcombinationsofindicatorscanbeselectedfromthecoresetdependingontheneed.Asetofheadlineindicatorsmayberequired,madeupofoneortwoindicatorsthatbestrep-resentseachissue.ItisawayofhighlightingthemostsalientfindingsinaSOEreportandoftenformsthebasisofanexecutivesummary,providingreaders,especiallydecision-makers,withaquicksnapshotofissuesandtrends.Indicesmayalsobedevelopedtoaggregatearangeofindicatorsintoonemeasure(Lealess2002).

Anotherapproachistodeveloponesetofalarmindicatorstogiveearlyenoughwarningaboutad-verseenvironmentaleffects,andasetofdiagnosticindicatorsthatprovidegreaterdetailsofapriorityissueorplace(Segnestam2002).Box13givessomeexamplesofindicatorsets.

Thefinalstepsrelatetopopulatingtheselectedindicatorswithdata,notinggaps,disseminatingtheresults,andassessingandimprovingtheindicatorset.Duringthedissemination,theindicatorswillneedtobedescribedandinterpretedforboththepublicanddecision-makers.Avarietyofoutreachresourcescanbeusedtodisseminatetheresults,includingwebsites,CD-ROMs,full-lengthandsummaryreports,andlessformalmeans,which

wouldincludeposters,brochures,andflyers.Someprojectsmaywishtoincludethepublicationoftechnicalnotesandtrainingmaterials(Segnestam2002).

Ideally,thedisseminationprocessshouldresultinthetriggeringofaction.Theindicatorprocessdoesnotusuallyincludedesigningactions,suchaspreventiveandmitigatingmeasures,andfollowingthroughwiththeirimplementation.Butthisistheultimategoalofanindicatorproject.Ifarangeofstakeholdersisinvolvedintheprocess,includingdecision-makers,indicatorprofessionals,anddata-gatherers,andifthereareresourcesandpoliticalwillingness,actionsshouldfollowdissemination(Segnestam2002).

Thisreportrepresentsoneoftheearlieststepsinanindicatorinitiative:theidentificationofcan-didateandfeasibleindicatorstoformthebasisforstakeholderdiscussions.ThenextchapterusesthebackgroundinformationpresentedabovetolookinsomedetailatfourindicatorreportsreleasedbyCanadaandtheUnitedStatessince2002.Thegoalistoexplorethecommonalitiesinapproachesandindicators,learnsomelessonsapplicabletomulti-lateralindicatorinitiatives,andassessthepotentialfordevelopinganintegratedandcohesivesetofindicatorswithwhichtoreportonbothcountriesasaregion.

UNEP/MorgueF�leChicago(USA)fromtheNavyPier.

�3


What gets measured, gets managed. What gets communicated, gets understood. —cited in Keating 2001, 1

ppd�g�tal/UNEP/MorgueF�le

��

Thischapterdescribesfourenvironmentalorsustainabledevelopmentindicatorreports—twoforeachcountry—thatformthebasisforafirstattempttoidentifynational-levelenvironmentalindicatorsthatcouldfeasiblybepartofasetofcandidateindicatorsforNorthAmerica.Oneofthekeyexercisesforthisreportwastolisttheindica-torsandparametersusedineachofthereportsinaspreadsheet,organizingthelistbytheDPSIRframework,andidentifyingthecommonlyusedindicators.TheresultsofthisexerciseareshowninAppendix1:Table2(seepage122).Toprovidecontextforthelist,thefollowingsectionoutlinesthehistoryofSOEreportingineachcountryanddescribesthereportsaccordingtotheconceptsandapproachesoutlinedintheSOEliteraturedescribedinChapter1.

SOe reporting and Indicator Development in CanadaCanadahasbeenapioneerinstate-of-the-environ-mentreportingandindicatordevelopment.Asmentionedearlier,StatisticsCanada,incollabora-tionwiththeUNStatisticalOffice,helpeddevelopageneralframeworkforenvironmentalstatisticsinthemid-1970s.ThisworkledtothebirthofthePSRframeworkthathasbeensowidelyadoptedinSOEreportingworldwide(BergerandHodge1998).EnvironmentCanadaandStatisticsCanadaestablishedanongoingSOEreportingprogrammeinDecember1986andcollaboratedonthefirstcomprehensivenationalSOEreport.Releasedthesameyear,thereportwasatwo-volumedocumentorientedmainlytoascientificaudience.Twoyearslater,the1988CanadianEnvironmentalProtec-tionAct(CEPA)requiredthattheGovernmentofCanada“provideinformationtothepeopleofCanadaonthestateoftheCanadianenvironment.”SubsequentcomprehensiveSOEreportsin1991and1996wereintendedforawider,moregeneralreadership.The1991reporthad27chapterscover-inghumanactivities,environmentalcomponents,regionalcasestudies,andpriorityissues.The1996issuewasalsovoluminous.Itreportedonthestateofecozones,putstrongemphasisonsustainability,andalsocoveredawiderangeofissues(Keating2001;NIRO2003b).

Duringthistime,EnvironmentCanadacontin-uedtobeseenasaworldleaderinSOEreportingandwasgainingexpertiseindevelopingenviron-mentalindicators.Canada’s1990GreenPlanhadcommittedthegovernmenttoproducingapre-liminarynationalsetofenvironmentalindicators.EnvironmentCanadaestablishedanIndicatorsTaskForcetoidentifycriteriaandaframeworkforselectinganddevelopingnational-levelindicators,tosurveykeyopinionleadersandpotentialusers,andtodefinequalitieswithwhichtoselectindica-tors.Surveyresultsshowedtheneedforclearlycommunicated,flexibleindicatorsthatrevealissuesofimportanceandthattriggeraction.TheTaskForcedevelopedanintegratedindicatorssystemforCanadaandin1991publishedA Report on Cana-da’s Progress Towards a Nat�onal Set of Env�ronmental Ind�cators,whichpresented43preliminaryindica-torsin18issueareas.Theseformedthebasisforongoingmulti-stakeholderindicatordevelopment,andoverthefollowing10years,EnvironmentCan-adafurtherdevelopedandupdatedthemandbegantheperiodicreleaseofaseriesofshortsummaryindicatorreports(Keating2001;Lealess2002;EC2003a;UNDESA2003a;NIRO2003b).

Anotherattempttodevelopanational-levelsetofindicatorswasinitiatedbytheCanadianCoun-cilofMinistersoftheEnvironment(CCME).In1990,itestablishedaStateoftheEnvironment(SOE)ReportingTaskGroup.Amongitsproj-ectswerethedevelopmentofguidelinesforSOEreportingandacommonsetofenvironmentalindicators,butneitherwasadoptedandtheTaskGroupdisbandedinearly1997(NIRO2003a).

In1996,theSOEDirectorateclosed.AsmallIndicatorsandAssessmentOfficewasretained,whichcontinuedtoproduceregular,conciseindicatorbulletinsandreportsonspecificissuesratherthanthetraditionallargeandcomprehensivereportspublishedatfive-yearintervals(Keating2001;NIRO2003b).RegularreportingthroughtheNationalEnvironmentalIndicatorSerieshasbeenongoingsince1992.Inaddition,during1998–2002,sevenfederalSOEreportsfeaturedthefederalSOEreportingsymbol(seeBox14)andwereplacedontheonlineSOEInfobase(http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/default.cfm).

2 national Indicator Initiatives in Canada and the United States

Chapter 2


Theseincludeashort2001reporttitledTrack�ng Key Env�ronmental Issues,illustratingthestateofenvironmentalknowledgeinCanadaaswellasthestateoftheenvironment(EC2001).

In1997,Canadaadoptedavisionforfederalstate-of-the-environmentreporting(calledthe5NRVision),whichwasdevelopedbyCanada’sfivenaturalresourcedepartments(responsibleforEnvi-ronment,AgricultureandAgri-Food,FisheriesandOceans,Health,andNaturalResources).Itstipu-latesthateachfederalleadagencyisresponsibleforpreparingandproducingitsownSOEreports.The5NRVisionpromotestheuseofSOEreportingcriteriaindesigningpolicy-driven,science-basedassessments(Box14).Themaincomponentsofthe5NRVisionareenvironmentalmonitoring,environmentalindicatorsusingaPSRframework,science-basedassessments,reportingoncriticalandemergingissues,anSOEInfobase,andanInternetwebsiteforfederalSOEreports(NIRO2003b).

StatisticsCanadahasalsoplayedaleadingroleinSOEreportingsincethelate1970s,produc-ingtheHuman Act�v�ty and the Env�ronmentseriesabouteveryfiveyears.Today,itisasmallerpublica-tion,releasedannually.Throughthepresentationandanalysisofrelevantstatistics,itexplorestherelationshipsbetweenpopulation,socioeconomicactivities,andthecountry’snaturalsystems(air,water,soil,plants,andanimals).TheagencyalsoproducedEconnect�ons(nowdiscontinued),whichadoptedanatural-capitalapproachusingindicatorsthatlinktheenvironmentandtheeconomyandtrackprogresstowardsenvironmentalsustainability.Itorganizedsetsofindicatorsalongthethemesofnaturalresourcestocks,useoflandresources,con-sumptionofmaterialsandenergy,wasteproduc-

tion,andenvironmentalprotectionexpenditures(Keating2001;NIRO2003a;NIRO2003b).

Developingandreportingonanationalsetofenvironmentalindicatorsisconductedunderthestate-of-the-environmentreportingprogramoftheNationalIndicatorsandReportingOffice,ofEnvi-ronmentCanada’sKnowledgeIntegrationDirec-torate.ApartfromtheindicatorworkbynationalSOEinitiatives,environmentalindicatorsarebeingdevelopedandusedatmanyotherlevelsofgovern-ment,fromprovincialtomunicipal,aswellasbyotherbodiesinterestedinimprovingtheirenviron-mentalperformance.Thus,theprocessofidentify-inganddevelopingindicatorsinandforCanadahasbeenevolvingeversincethelate-1980s.

InSeptember2004,theConferenceBoardofCanada,anot-for-profit,non-governmentalorgani-zation,paidparticularattentiontotheenvironmentinitsannualpublication,Performance and Potent�al.ThepublicationbenchmarksCanada’sperformanceagainstthatof23otherOECDcountries,using24environmentalindicatorsorganizedaccordingtothePSRmodel.Inpreviousyears,theConfer-enceBoard’sanalysisfocussedmainlyonpresentactionsandgavebriefconsiderationtopastdamageorfutureactionsthatmaylessenhumanimpactontheenvironment.UseofthePSRframeworkinthe2004reportimprovedCanada’srelativeranking(ConferenceBoardofCanada2004).

EnvironmentCanadaisnowdevelopingastrat-egytoprovidemorecohesioninitsownSOEworkandtoaddressthechallengeofbringingtogethermanyoftheseindicatorinitiativestocontributetoanintegratedpictureofthestateofthenation’senvironment(NIRO2003a).ThestrategywillrespondtoOECD’s2004recommendationthat

Box 14: Criteria for Canadian SOe reports

Thissymbolmaybedisplayedonreportsmeet-ingspecificcriteriaforCanada’s5NRVision,whicharethusconsideredpartofthefederalSOEReportingProgram.ReportsthatdisplaytheSOEreportingsymbol:

•arerecognizedaspartofacollectionoffederalpublicationsthatmeettheSOEreportingcriteriaandusethewidelyunderstoodSOEreportingapproach;

•reachadiverseaudienceofpeopleinterestedinthestatusofkeyenvironmentalissues—de-cision-makers,educatorsandstudents,andthegeneralpublic;

•areaccessiblethroughlinksat“TheStateofCanada’sEnvironmentInfobase”(www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/english/default.cfm),whichprovidesanup-to-datelistingoffederalSOEre-portsandscienceassessments;and

•areincludedinthepromotionoffederalSOEreporting.

Source:EC1997.

��

Canadaexpanditsinformationeffortsintheareaofenvironmentalindicators(OECD2004a).Toassistthestrategyandinanefforttofillagapininformationaboutwhatindicatorshavebeendevel-opedbydifferentindicatorinitiatives,theNationalIndicatorsandReportingOfficeispreparinganen-vironmentalindicatorsdatabase(EID).Itcontainsinformationonexisting,preliminary,andproposedenvironmentalindicators,organizingthemintothefollowingfields:category,organization,initiative,scope,issue,sub-issue,stageofdevelopment,nameofindicator,andmessage(NIRO2003b).

Two National Indicator Reports for Canada

Env�ronment Canada’s Env�ronmental S�gnals ser�esOn2April2003,EnvironmentCanadareleasedEnv�ronmental S�gnals: Canada’s Nat�onal Env�-ronmental Ind�cators Ser�esreport,presentingitscurrentnationalsetofenvironmentalindicators.Itprovidesapictureofthestateofthenation’senvi-ronmentandmeasuresitsperformanceinimprov-ingenvironmentalconditions.

Conceptual and organ�zat�onal framework

IndicatordevelopmentatEnvironmentCanada’sIndicatorsandReportingOfficeandintheEnvi-ronmentalSignalsreportisorganizedunderfour

themes.Thefirstthreerepresentprincipalgoalsforenvironmentalsustainability:assuringecosystemintegrity,humanhealthandwell-being,andnaturalresourcesustainability.Thefourththemerepre-sentsdrivingforces—termed“pervasiveinfluencingfactors”—identifiedaspopulation,lifestyle,andconsumptionpatterns.Issuesaregroupedunderthesefourthemes.Indicatordevelopmentandreportingisbasedona“stress-condition-response”modelsimilartothePSRapproach.Eachissuesec-tioncontainsameteredindicator,reflectingatrendovertimefortheindicatorthatbestsummarizestheissue.Themetershowswhethertheissuerepre-sentedbytheindicatorisdeteriorating,remainingstable,orimproving,andtowhatextent.Therefer-encesectionprovidesthemethodforcalculatingthemeter,whichisexplainedinmoredetailinthetechnicalsupplements.Themetercalculationsaregenerallybasedonpercentagechangeoverthepastdecade.Figure19showsanexample(EC2003a).

Select�on process

Thecurrentkeyenvironmentalissueswereselectedbasedonaseriesofconsultationswithspecialistsandotherstakeholders;analysisofenvironmentalstoriesinjournals,themedia,andopinionpolls;andassessmentofglobalandnationalconcerns,Canada’sGreenPlanpriorities,andDepartmentoftheEnvironmentpriorities.Theissueswereselectedaccordingtocriteriathatincludethefollowing:sensitivetochange;supportedbyreliable,readilyavailabledata;understoodandacceptedbyintend-edusers;andoflong-standingimportance(EC2004c).

Products and contents

Env�ronmental S�gnalsisa78-pagedocument,withfourmajorchapters,organizedaccordingtothethemesdescribedabove.Itincludesasummaryatthebeginningthathighlightsthesalientindicatorsshowingimprovementordecline.Thereportcovers55environmentalindicatorsfor13keyenviron-mentalissues(Box15).Withineachtheme,thereportisorganizedunderfiveheadings:the“Con-text”sectionisadiscussionaboutwhatishappen-ingandwhyitisimportant;an“Indicators”partpresentsthemainmessageasillustratedbythein-dicators;“Actions”discusseswhattheGovernmentofCanadaisdoingtoaddresstheissue;“Linkages”

Box 15: Indicator profiles in Environmental Signals

•Biodiversityandprotectedareas•Toxicsubstances•Acidrain•Climatechange•Stratosphericozone•Municipalwateruse•Municipalwastewatertreatment•Urbanairquality•Forestry•Agriculturalsoils•Energyconsumption•Passengertransportation•Municipalsolidwaste

Source:AdaptedfromEC2003a.

Figure 19: environment Canada’s meter

Source:EC2003a

Meter CalCulation

Percent change ingreenhouse gas

emissions between 1990and 2000


pointstootherindicatorsrelevanttothetheme;and“Challenges”underscoresongoingdifficulties.

Abriefsectionlooksatnationalandinterna-tionalactionsdealingwitheachissueandafinalsectionsuggestsindividualactionsformoresustain-ablelivingandoutlinesfutureworktowardsindica-tordevelopmentinCanada.Atechnicalsupple-mentpresentsprofilesofeachindicator,whichinclude:purposeandrationale,methodology,caveatsandlimitations,targetsand/orbenchmarks,geographiccoverage,unitsofmeasure,terminol-ogy/glossary,andwebsitesand/orreferences,aswellasdownloadabledatatablesincludingsourcesandmetadata(EC2003a;NIRO2003a).

ThemainreportwasaccompaniedbyEnv�-ronmental S�gnals: Headl�ne Ind�cators,asuccinctoverviewforamoregeneralaudience.Itcontainsasetof12keyindicatorsthatprovideaseriesofsnapshotswiththegoalofraisingpublicawarenessaboutprogresstowardsenvironmentalsustain-abilityratherthanprovidingacomprehensiveviewofthestateofCanada’senvironment.Thereportsareavailableatthefollowingwebsite:http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicator_series/default.cfm.

Ongo�ng work

ThedevelopmentandpresentationofEnviron-mentCanada’sindicatorsisanevolvingprocess.Inadditiontodevelopingindicatorsthattracktrendsinenvironmentalissues,EnvironmentCanadaisincreasinglyworkingonshowingthelinksamongenvironmental,economic,andsocialchange.Eco-logicalmonitoringeffortswilleventuallyprovideindicatorsonthestateofecosystemsinadditiontotheircomponentparts.Thenationalsetwillincorporatetheresultingecosystemindicators(EC2004c).

EnvironmentCanadahasalsoproposedthede-velopmentofacoresetofindicators—asingle,rec-ognizablesetusingthesoundestapproachesfromalljurisdictions.Theseriessupportsandcomple-mentstheworkofCanada’sNationalRoundTableontheEnvironmentandtheEconomy(NRTEE),whichisalsodevelopingacoresetofnationalindi-cators,asdescribedbelow(NIRO2003a).

The Nat�onal Round Table on the Env�ronment and the Economy’s Env�ronment and Susta�nable Development Ind�cators for CanadaInitsfederalbudgetofFebruary2000,theGovern-mentofCanadarequestedthattheNationalRoundTableontheEnvironmentandtheEconomy(NRTEE)preparearecommendationforasmallsetofindicatorslinkingtheeconomyandtheenvi-

ronment.NRTEEwasestablishedtoidentifyandexploreissuesthathavebothenvironmentalandeconomicimplicationsandtoproposeactionsthatwillhelpbalanceeconomicprosperitywithenvi-ronmentalpreservation.Theindicatorsaremeanttosupplementandprovidecontextformacroeco-nomicindicatorssuchastheGDP.NRTEEworkedcloselywithEnvironmentCanadaandStatisticsCanadatodeveloprealisticanduseableenviron-mentandsustainabledevelopmentindicatorsandreleaseditsreportinMay2003.ThereportincludestherecommendationthatCanadauseanexpandedSystemofNationalAccountsandthatthegovernmentsupporttheimplementationofaninformationsystemfortheenvironmenttosupply“comprehensive,coherent,currentandauthorita-tivedata”.NRTEEdoesnotrecommendpolicyissuesorientedtoimprovingenvironmentalperfor-manceasaresultofneedsrevealedbytheindicators(NRTEE2003).

Conceptual and organ�zat�onal frameworksNRTEEadoptedthecapitalmodelasthebasisfordevelopingasetofnationalindicatorsofeconomicsustainability.ItfocusesontrackingtrendsrelatedtoCanada’skeycapitalstocks(produced,natural,andhuman),whichrequiresexpandingthenotionofcapitaltoincludebasicecosystemservicessuchastheprovisionofcleanair,water,andastableclimate.Accordingtoitsmandate,NRTEE’sfocusisonthelong-termsustainabilityofCanada’sde-velopment,soalthoughtheindicatorsdealmainlywiththeenvironment,theyalsoattempttotrackstocksofproduced,social,andhumancapital.

Select�on processNRTEEsetuptheEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopmentIndicators(ESDI)Initiative,whichconductedathree-yearmulti-stakeholderprocesstodevelopasmallcoresetofcredibleandunderstand-ableindicatorsthatcouldmeasuretheenvironmen-talandsocialsustainabilityofeconomicactivity.

Box 16: nrTee’s proposed environmental indicators

•Airquality:populationexposuretoground-levelozone

•Freshwaterquality:proportionofwaterbodies,classifiedaccordingtomajorobjectives

•Greenhousegasemissions:trendsinaggregateemissions

•Extentofforests:mapofforestcrownclosure

•Extentofwetlands:trendsintotalarea

Source:AdaptedfromNRTEE2003.

��

Itwasguidedbyasteeringcommitteecomprisingrepresentativesfromotherindicatorinitiatives,especiallyfromEnvironmentCanadaandStatisticsCanada,andfromthebusiness,labour,govern-ment,community,NGO,academic,andresearchsectorsofsociety.Criteriaforselectionincludedtheneedforclear,transparent,unambiguous,andsci-entificallycredibleindicators.Theselectionprocessincludedtheparticipationofpotentialaudiencesandusers.


Thefirstpartofthe76-pagereportdescribesthecontextforNRTEE’srecommendationsanddescribesthecapitalmodel.Itthenpresentsfiveindicatorslinkedtodifferenttypesofenvironmen-talcapitalassetsthatprovideimportantecosystemservices:airquality,freshwaterquality,greenhousegasemissions,forestcover,andtheextentofwet-lands(Box16).Asixthindicatorrelatestohumancapitalandreportsoneducationalattainment.Thefollowingsectionofthereportprovidestheratio-naleforthedevelopmentofeachoftheproposedindicators,describesthem,and,whereandtotheextentpossible,calculatesandpresentstheindica-tor.NotallofNRTEE’sproposedindicatorsarefullydevelopedyet.Italsooutlinesfutureeffortsinproducingandimprovingeachindicator(NRTEE2003).Thereportisavailableatthefollowingwebsite:http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/programs/Cur-

rent_Programs/SDIndicators/ESDI-Report/ESDI-Report_IntroPage_E.htm.

Ongo�ng work

Fiveofthesixrecommendedindicatorswerecalculatedforthefirstreport.ManyarestillinapreliminaryformandNRTEEacknowledgesthatitwillrequireyearsofefforttocomprehensivelyextendtheSNAandprovidearobustsetofdataforalltypesofcapital.Additionalindicatorswillemergeovertime.Theintentionisalsotodevelopanaggregatemeasureofcapitalthatcanbefeasiblyconvertedtomonetaryvalues.Intheshortterm,StatisticsCanadaandEnvironmentCanadawillcollaborateonreportingtheair,water,andclimatechangeindicators.Thefederalgovernmenthasdeclaredthatitwouldbegintoincorporatekeyindicatorsoncleanwaterandairandonemissionsreductionsintoitsdecision-making(NRTEE2003;SRP2004).

SOe reporting and Indicator Development in the United StatesUntilrecently,theUnitedStateshadnotproducedcomprehensiveSOEorindicatorreportsonthestateofthenation’senvironment.TheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1969,however,mandatedthePresidenttodeliveranannual

Paul Fusco/UNEP/NRCSTypicaldeciduousforestlandhabitat.

��

30 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca

EnvironmentalQualityReporttoCongressontheeffectsoffederalactivitiesontheenvironment.TheCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality(CEQ)wasestablishedandreportingbeganin1970;itcon-tinueduntil1997(USCEQ1997;Parris2000).Thesereportsprovidedinformationthroughindi-catorsanddescriptivetextonenvironmentalmedia,ecosystemsandbiodiversity,energyandtranspor-tation,andpollutionprevention,amongotherthemes.Theyincludedextensiveappendicesofdatatablesonenvironmentaltrends.DespitethelackofformalSOEreports,theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)hasalwaysmadedataeasilyavailableandaccessibleforuseandinterpretationbyusers.AnumberofenvironmentalNGOsusethesedatatosupportenvironmentalindicatorstheyhavedevel-opedtoinformthepublicaboutspecificissues.Forexample,usingpubliclyavailabledata,theNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil(NRDC)publishesanannualreportonthewaterqualityofthenation’svacationbeaches(Dorfman2004).

Overtheyears,EPAbegantodevelopenvi-ronmentalindicators,asdidvariousotherfederalagenciessuchastheDepartmentofAgriculture,theFishandWildlifeService,andtheNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration.Morerecently,someprivatecompaniesandcorporationshavebeentryingtomeasureandimprovetheirenvironmentalperformancewithindicatorsandtoputfortha“greener”image(CGER2000).Forexample,agrowingnumberofUScorporationsareusingtheGlobalReportingInitiativeguidelinesfordevelopingannualreportsabouttheireffortstowardsachievingenvironmentalaswellassocialandeconomicsustainability.AsinCanada,otherlevelsofgovernment,fromstatestomunicipalities,alsoreportonthestateoftheenvironmentintheirjurisdictions(ISIN2002;USGAO2004).

TheInteragencyWorkingGrouponSustain-ableDevelopmentIndicators(SDIGroup)isarecentinitiativethatdevelopedasetofnationalsustainabledevelopmentindicators,includingenvironmentalindicators.Itwassetupinre-sponsetorecommendationsbythePresident’sCouncilonSustainableDevelopment(PCSD)in

a1996documentcalledSusta�nable Amer�ca: A New Consensus for Prosper�ty, Opportun�ty, and a Healthy Env�ronment for the Future (PCSD1996).ItcalledforacollaborativeeffortamongthefederalgovernmentandtheNGOandprivatesectorstodevelopnationalindicatorsandreportregularlytothepublic(IISD2004a).TheSDIGroupincludesrepresentativesfromthedepartmentsofInterior,Agriculture,andCommerce,andfromtheEPA.Itcompleteditsreport,Susta�nable Development �n the Un�ted States, an Exper�mental Set of Ind�cators,inDecember1998(USIWG2001).Thiswasastudyofover40experimentalsocial,economic,andenvironmentalindicatorstoguidethedevelopmentofnationalsustainabledevelopmentpoliciesandtostructurealong-termframeworktowardsthatgoalbypresentingmeasuresofwhethereconomic,en-vironmental,andsocialendowmentsarediminish-ingorimproving.In2001,theSDIGrouprevisedandupdatedthefirstreportinpreparationfortheWorldSummitonSustainableDevelopmentinSeptember2002(ISIN2002;UNDESA2002).

Attheendof2002,theCouncilonEnviron-mentalQuality(CEQ)begananewinitiativetoenhancecoordinationamongfederalagenciesandtodeveloppolicyguidelinesforfutureenviron-mentalandsustainabledevelopmentindicators.Inpart,theneworientationrespondstoaconsensusontheneedtogaugethesuccessofenvironmentalpolicybyoutcomesratherthanbytheamountofmoneyornumberoflawsandregulationsde-votedtoenvironmentalissues(USGAO2004).TheinitiativeresultedintheestablishmentoftheInteragencyWorkingGrouponIndicatorCoordi-nation.Thegoalistoproduceinterlockingsetsofenvironmentalandhumanhealthindicatorswithwhichtoinformdecisionsatalllevelsofgovern-ment.TheCouncilplanstocatalyzeagreementonasetofnational-levelenvironmentalindicatorsthatcanbelinkedtoregionalandlocalconditionsandtobetterorganizestatisticalreportinganddatacollection.TheWorkingGroup,however,hadnoexplicitresponsibilityorauthoritytocatalyzeinvolvementandresourcesfromotherfederalagen-cies.Inlate2004,theUnitedStatesGovernmentAccountabilityOffice(GAO)stressedtheneedfor

T�m McCabe/UNEP/NRCSRunofffromthislivestockyardmayenteranearbystreamanddegradethewaterquality.

3�

theCEQtoworkonamoreconcerted,systematic,andstableapproachtothedevelopment,coordina-tion,andintegrationofenvironmentalindicatorsets(GAO2004).TheCEQwillworkinconcertwiththeEPAonalong-termstrategyforenviron-mentalindicators.ThestrategywillbuildonEPA’sDraft Report on the Env�ronment,releasedin2003astheresultofitstwo-yearprocessofidentifyinganddevelopingnationalenvironmentalindicators.Theworkbeganin2001,withtheestablishmentofEPA’sEnvironmentalIndicatorsInitiative,man-agedbyEPA’sOfficeofInformationandOfficeofResearchandDevelopment(GAO2004).In2003,TheHeinzCenter,aprivateresearchbody,pub-lishedacomprehensivereportonecologicalindica-torsforthenation.Thesetworeportsaredescribedbelow.

Two National Indicator Reports for the United States

The US Env�ronmental Protect�on Agency’s Draft Report on the Env�ronment

InNovember2001,theEPAlauncheditsEnvi-ronmentalIndicatorsInitiative,withthegoalofdevelopingindicatorsthatwouldenabletheUnitedStatestomeasureandtrackthestateofthenation’senvironmentandsupportimprovedenvironmen-taldecisionmaking.TheIndicatorsInitiativealsoidentifieswhereadditionalresearch,dataqualityimprovements,andinformationareneeded.TheinitiativeaimstobeconsistentwiththeEPASci-enceAdvisoryBoard,NationalResearchCouncil,andtheHeinzCenterindicatorefforts.TheDraft Report on the Env�ronment �003andtheaccom-panyingtechnicaldocumentwerereleasedinJune2003(USEPA2003).


Thereport’stwokeypurposesaretodescribeEPA’sstateofknowledgeaboutthecurrentandchangingstateoftheenvironmentatanationallevel,andto

identifyandimprovemeasurestotrackenviron-mentalconditionsandtrends.ItusesamodifiedPSRframework,comprisinga“hierarchyofindica-tors”.Itreportsonthoseindicatorsthatillustratechangesinthequantityofpressuresorstressors;ambientconditions;exposureorbodyburdenoruptake;andtheultimateimpactsreflectedbychangesinhumanhealthorecologicalcondition.Theframeworkdoesnotincludedrivingforcesorresponses,withtheindicatorsfocusingonout-comesratherthanactionstaken.

Select�on process

AsteeringcommitteecomprisedofEPAofficialsguidedtheprocess,andotherfederalagenciesandtribalandstategovernmentsassistedinreviewingdrafts.EPAheldaseriesofthematicworkshopsatwhichaseriesofquestionsaboutthestateofenvi-ronmentalresourcesandserviceswasformulated,focusingonoutcomes.Amulti-stakeholderprocessledtoasetofrecommendedindicatorsrespond-ingtothequestions,andthencorrespondingdatasourcesfrommanyfederalagenciesweredocu-mented.Expertreviewersevaluatedtheindicatorsguidedbycriteriarelatedtodataquality,scientificreliability,utility,andlimitations(USEPA2003).


EPA’sDraft Report on the Env�ronment �003(ROE),intendedforgeneralconsumption,isac-companiedbyatechnicaldocument.Themainreporthasanexecutivesummary.Thefirstthreeofthereport’sfivechaptersdealwiththecurrentstateofair,water,andlandandthepressuresthataffectthem.Thelasttwochapterspresentindicatorsonhumanhealthandecologicalconditions(Box17).Eachchapteraddressestheissuesthroughaseriesofquestionsandanswersaboutwhatishappen-ing,whyitishappening,andwhattheeffectsare.Theycorrespondtotheframeworkoutlinedabove(whatarethepressuresorstressors,ambient

•Outdoorairquality

•Indoorairquality

•Watersandwatersheds

•Drinkingwater

•Recreationinandonthewater

•Consumptionoffishandshellfish

•Landuse

•Chemicalsinthelandscape

•Wasteandcontaminatedlands

•Environmentalpollutionanddisease

•Exposuretoenvironmentalpollution

•Landscapeconditions

•Bioticcondition

•Chemicalandphysicalcharacteristics

•Ecologicalprocesses

•Hydrologyandgeomorphology

•Naturaldisturbanceregimes

Box 17: Indicator profiles in the ePa draft report

Source:AdaptedfromUSEPA2003.

3� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca

conditions,exposureorbodyburdenoruptake,andtheultimateimpacts?)Eachchapterincludesasectionontheindicators’limitations.DatafromtheworkoftheHeinzCentercontributedtosomeoftheindicatorsinthisreport.TheDraft Techn�cal Documentdiscussesthelimitationsofthecurrentlyavailableindicatorsanddata,aswellasthegapsandchallengesthatmustbeovercometoprovidebetteranswersinthefuture.Italsospecifiesthattherearetwocategoriesofindicators,accordingtothelevelofadherencetoanumberofcriteria,anditprovidesadditionalindicatorstoillustratemanyofthetrendsnotedinthetextofthedraftreport(USEPA2003).Thereportsareavailableatthefollow-ingwebsite:http://www.epa.gov/indicators.

Ongo�ng work

Inthereport,EPAsolicitssuggestionsandfeed-backfromreadersaboutthedraft,futuredirec-tionsforitsEnvironmentalIndicatorsInitiative,howtomeasureresults,andhowtocommunicateeffectively.Thereportrepresentsthefirststepinalonger-termprojecttocreateastrategyfordevel-opinganintegratedsystemofindicatorsatlocal,regional,andnationallevels.Thelong-termgoalistoimprovetheindicatorsanddatathatguideEPA’sstrategicplans,priorities,performancereports,anddecisionmaking(USEPA2003).Thenextreportisscheduledforreleaseinthesummerof2006.Itwillincludeasetofregionalindicators,andworkisunderwaytolinkthenewreporttotheagency’sstrategicplanningeffort(USGAO2004).

The He�nz Center’s The State of the Nat�on’s Eco-systems: Measur�ng the Lands, Waters, and L�v�ng Resources of the Un�ted StatesIn1995,theWhiteHouseOfficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicyaskedtheH.JohnHeinzIIICenterforScience,Economics,andtheEnviron-menttocompileexistingdatatohelpassessthehealthofthenation’secosystems.TheHeinzCenterisanon-governmentalorganizationestablishedinDecember1995asanonprofit,nonpartisaninsti-tutiondedicatedtoimprovingthescientificandeconomicfoundationsforenvironmentalpolicythroughmultisectoralcollaboration.The State of the Nat�on’s Ecosystems: Measur�ng the Lands, Waters, and L�v�ng Resources of the Un�ted States waspub-lishedin2002(HeinzCenter2002).Itwaspreced-edbyapreliminarystudyin1999entitledDes�gn-�ng a Report on the State of the Nat�on’s Ecosystems: Selected Measures for Farmlands, Forests, and Coasts and Oceans (Clark,Jorling,andothers1999).Thereportprovidespolicy-makersandthepublicwithasetofkeyindicatorsontheconditionanduseofecosystemsintheUnitedStates,withthegoalthattheindicatorsserveasacatalystfordebateaboutthenation’senvironmentalpolicy(Dudley2003;O’Malley,Cavender-Bares,andClark2004).


Thereportusesthebiogeophysicalapproachandfocusesonsixmajorecosystemtypesratherthanonthewholegamutofenvironmentalsystemsandonthestateofthoseecosystems,leavingasidethepressureandresponsecategoriesusedinthePSR

Gary Kramer/UNEP/NRCSPawneeButtesonPawneeGrasslands,USA.

33

framework.Italsoidentifiescorenationalindica-torsthatprovideahighlyaggregatedviewofoverallconditions.Measuresofecosystempropertiesandecosystemserviceshelptoevaluateeachecosystemtypeandthecountryasawhole.Tenmajorchar-acteristicsofecosystemconditionareused:extent;fragmentationandlandscapepattern;nutrients/carbon/oxygen;chemicalcontaminants;physicalconditions;plantsandanimals;biologicalcom-munities;ecologicalproductivity;food/fibre/water;andrecreationandotherservices.Theapproachpresentsbase-linespatialorproductivityindicatorsandindicesandusesabout15indicatorsofspecificecosystemconditionsforeachmajorecosystemtype.Itidentifiescriticalgapsindataandmonitor-ingprogrammesandindicatorsthathaveyettobedeveloped,ratherthanonlyusingindicatorsforwhichdataarealreadyavailable.Itpresentstheseindicatorsintheissueprofiles,withaviewtofillinginthedataastheybecomeavailable.Figure20pro-videsanexampleofanindicatorforwhichthedataarestillinadequatefornationalreportingandan

indicatorthathasnotyetbeendeveloped(HeinzCenter2002;Dudley2003;O’Malley,Cavender-Bares,andClark2004).

Select�on process

Theindicatorswereselectedthroughconsultationsanddiscussionsamongalargenumber(nearly150)andvarietyofexpertsandstakeholderswhowerepartofseveralcommitteesandworkinggroups.Participantsrepresentedthebusiness,environ-mental,academic,andgovernmentsectors.Indi-catorselectionwasbasedonthreekeystandards:policyrelevance,technicalcredibility,andpoliti-callegitimacy(nonpartisan).Threecriteriawereusedtoreviewthedatafortheselectedindicators:scientificcredibility;adequategeographiccoveragetorepresentthenation;andcollectedthroughanestablishedanddurablemonitoringprogramme.Thereport’scontentwassteeredbyanumberofotherguidelines:thereportshouldbestrategic,notencyclopaedic,with18orfewerindicatorsperecosystem;itshouldfirstdeterminewhatshouldbereported,regardlessoftheavailabilityofdata;itshouldbeunderstandabletonon-specialists;itshouldincludeinformationonboththecondi-tionofecosystemsandthegoodsandservicesthatpeoplederivefromthem;anditshouldfocussolelyontheecosystem’sstateandcondition(O’Malley,Cavender-Bares,andClark2004;USGAO2004).


Bothafull270-pagereportandashort,24-pagesummaryandhighlightseditionwerepublishedin2002.Thefirstpartofthemainreportsetsouttheintent,structure,andoverallfocus.Part2sum-marizesthefindingsthroughtheuseoftencorena-tionalindicatorsthatcutacrosssixecosystems(Box18).Thefollowingchapterspresenttheindicatorsthatdescribethestateofeachecosystem:coastsandoceans,farmlands,forests,freshwaters,grasslandsandshrublands,andurbanandsuburbanareas.Foreachofthe103indicators,thetextanswersthequestions:Whatisthisindicatorandwhyisit

Source:HeinzCenter2002,102and54.

Figure 20: Indicators showing critical gaps

Box 18: The heinz Center’s core national indicators

•Ecosystemextent

•Fragmentationandlandscapepattern

•Movementofnitrogen

•Chemicalcontaminants

•At-risknativespecies

•Conditionofplantandanimalcommunities

•Plantgrowthindex

•Productionoffoodandfiberandwaterwithdrawals

•Outdoorrecreation

•NaturalecosystemservicesSource:AdaptedfromHeinzCenter2002.


important?Whatdothedatashow?andWhycan’tthisentireindicatorbereportedatthistime?Part3isanappendix.Itoutlinesdataavailabilityandgapsandthecriteriausedtoselecttheindicatorforinclusion.Italsocontainsatechnicalnotessectionthatprovidesdefinitions,metadata,andreferences.Thefirstannualupdatewasreleasedontheorgani-zation’swebsitein2003.Itincludesnewdatafor26indicatorsandfirst-timedataforoneindicatorforwhichnodatawerepreviouslyavailable(HeinzCenter2002;HeinzCenter2003;O’Malley,Cavender-Bares,andClark2004).Thereportsareavailableatthefollowingwebsite:http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/intro/updates.shtml.

Ongo�ng workTheHeinzCenterisactivelysolicitingfeedbackandtechnicalcommentsonthecurrentversion.Anupdated,revisededitionofthereportisexpectedtobepublishedeveryfiveyears,withthenextissueplannedfor2007.Intheinterim,thedataandindicatorsareupdatedannuallyontheCenter’swebsite.OneoftheresultsofthepublicationoftheindicatorsetisitsusetoinformthedesignoftheecologicalportionoftheinternationalGlobalOceanObservingSystem(USGAO2004).

a Comparison of Canadian and US national Indicators

Allfouragenciesdevelopedtheindicatorsthroughatransparent,multi-stakeholderprocess,andadoptedasetofcriteriaforindicatorapproval.Thereportseachincludeasuccinctsummaryandarefullyaccessibleonline,andtheorganizationsallcontinuetoimproveupontheindicatorsforbetterreportinginthefuture.Thetechnicalsupplementsorappendicesthataccompanythereportsprovideextensivedetailabouttherationale,methodology,anddataforeachindicator.Eachagencyemployedaconceptualframework:theEPAandEnviron-mentCanadachosemodifiedPSRapproaches;NRTEEadoptedanaturalcapitalmodel;andtheHeinzCenterrestrictedreportingtotheconditionanduseofecosystems,usingbiogeophysicalindicators.

TheEPAapproachedindicatorselectionbyidentifyingthosethatcouldansweraseriesofquestionsposedbyexpertsduringmulti-stake-holderworkshops.TheHeinzCenterwishedtodevelopindicatorstoaccuratelyreflectecosystemconditions,whetherornotindicators,monitoringprogrammes,anddataalreadyexisted.Itidentifiedcriticalgapsintheseareasbyidentifyingidealindi-catorsandbyunderscoringwheretheyneedfurtherdevelopmentandmore-adequatedata.NRTEEalsoselectedasetofidealindicators,someofwhicharestillunderdevelopment.Unliketheotheragencies,

EnvironmentCanadachosetoprovideaperfor-mancemeterforeachindicatorprofile.

Theapproaches,frameworks,choiceofindica-tors,andtypesofproductsreflectthevisionsandgoalsoftheircreators.Allfourreportsareclearandunderstandable,makingthemaccessibletodeci-sion-makersandthepublic.Theypresent,describe,andinterprettheindicatorsbutarenotprescrip-tive,leavingpolicydecisionstopoliticiansandotherdecision-makers.TheHeinzCenter,whichisnotagovernmentagency,isexplicitlyorientedtobeingpoliticallylegitimateornonpartisan(O’Malley,Cavender-Bares,andClark2004),whiletheNRTEE’sreportmakesrecommendationstothefederalgovernmentaboutexpandingthesystemofnationalaccountstoincludenaturalandsocialcapital.

TheEPAandEnvironmentCanadareportsarethemostcomprehensive,addressingawideaudienceandattemptingtocovermostaspectsofeachnation’senvironmentalgoodsandservices.Theissuestheyincludeandtheassociatedindica-torsresembleeachothermost.NRTEEexplicitlyreportsonaverysmallsetofindicatorsthatlinktheenvironmentandtheeconomyanditfocusesonthelong-termsustainabilityofCanada’sdevel-opment,notexclusivelyontheenvironment.ThefocusonbiologicalandchemicalpropertiesintheHeinzCenter’sreportreflectsitsgoaltoexclusivelyreportontheconditionanduseofUSecosystems.TheHeinzCentermakesauniquecontributionbyidentifyingidealindicatorsandbyunderscoringwheretheyneedfurtherdevelopmentandmoreadequatedata.NRTEEsupportsEnvironmentCanada’sindicatorwork,justastheHeinzCentersupportsthatoftheEPA.ThereisthusagreatdealofcorrespondencebetweenthetwoCanadianandthetwoUSsetsofissuesandindicators.

Common issues

Table1presentsalistoftheissueareasaddressedbyeachcountryintheirrespectivereportsandhighlightsinbluethe11issuescoveredbybothcountries(eveniftheissuewasfoundinonlyoneofthetworeportssurveyedforeachnation).Thesecommonissuesarethefollowing:driversofchange,theozonelayer,aciddeposition,airquality,toxicsubstances,waste,freshwater,wetlands,forests,agriculturalland,andbiodiversity.

NotincludedintheCanadianreportsareindicatorsfortheissuesofcoastalandmarineecosystems,indoorairquality,nationallanduse,fisheries,grasslandsandshrublands,urbanareas,andtheimpactofenvironmentalchangeonhumanhealth.TheUSreportsdonotincludeindicatorsforclimatechange,protectedareas,energy,and

3�

transportation.Mostgapsinissueselectionreflectthedifferentmandatesandfocioftheauthors.Theabsenceofindicatorsrepresentingcertainissuesdoesnotmeanthenationsdonotmonitorandgatherdataabouttheseissuesorreportontheminotherways;itmaybethatthedataarenotadequatefornationalreporting,forexample.Therearemanyotherchallengestodevelopingsuitableindicators,apartfromtheimportantissueofdata,however,asdiscussedfurtherinChapter4.

Common indicators: Notes on Table 2

Table2(seeAppendix1,pages122-148)isachartthatprovidesdetailsontheindicatorsineachofthereports,allowingforcomparisonandcontrastamongthemandfortheidentificationofcommonindicators.Ingeneral,thetableprovidesalistofnational-levelindicators.Insomeplaces,however,italsoincludesecosystemandsub-regional-levelindicatorstoillustrateenvironmentaltrendsorconditionswherenationaldataorindicatorswereabsentorinadequate.Indicatorsreflectingsocial,institutional,andeconomicconditionsandtrendsthatwerenotexplicitlylinkedtoenvironmentalissues(suchasanumberofthehealthindicators

intheEPAreport)werenotincluded.Anumberoftheuniqueaggregatedindicesormeters,suchasEnvironmentCanada’smetersandsomeindicesusedbytheHeinzCenter,werealsonotincluded.Someotherindicatorswereomittediftheywerenotdeemedrelevanttothisstudy,suchasthoserepresentingglobaltrends,comparingtrendsorconditionswithinthecountry,orfocusingonil-lustrativecasestudies.

Thetableliststheindicatorsaswellasthedataandtime-coverage,eventhoughsomeindicatorsarestillbeingdevelopedandsomedatarepresentwhatisavailableatpresentpendingbetterandmorecompletenationalcoverage.Thus,indicatorsthatarenotyetfullydeveloped(suchasanumberofthosesuggestedbytheHeinzCenter)arealsolist-ed.AlthoughthePSRandDPSIRframeworkshavedrawbacksrelatedtoanalysis,thelatterisusedtoorganizetheindicatorsforeasiercross-referencingamongthetablespresentedinthisreport.Cross-referencingisalsofacilitatedbyreservingeachrowinTable2forsimilaror“generic”indicators.

Thelastcolumnlistsonlythegenericindicatorsusedbybothcountries,regardlessofthemethodol-ogyanddatausedtodevelopthem.Thesesimilar

Table 1: Comparative table of Canadian and US environmental issue areas

Canada United States

Issues nrTee eC ePa heinz Center

Drivers(population,GDP,consumption) X X

Climatechange X X

Ozonelayer X X

Airquality X X X X

Aciddeposition X X

Indoorair X

Toxicsubstances X X X

Waste X X

Landuse X X

Freshwater X X X X

Wetlands X X X

Coastalandmarine X X

Fisheries X X

Forests X X X X

Agriculturalland X X X

Grasslandsandshrublands X X

Biodiversity X X X

Protectedareas X

Urbanareas X X

Energyandtransportation X

Humanhealth&environment X X

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromEC2003a;NRTEE2003;USEPA2003;HeinzCenter2002.


indicatorsarethemostcomparableandthosemostlikelytobeeasilyintegrated.Assuch,theyarecan-didatesasregionalindicatorsforNorthAmerica.InChapter4,thesecommonindicatorswillbecomplementedbyothersdrawnfromthereportsexaminedinthisstudy,toformalistoffeasibleenvironmentalindicatorsforNorthAmerica.

Analysis

MostoftheindicatorsinTable2representstatesandimpacts,withfewerindicatorsexpressingpres-suresandveryfewthatareindicativeofresponses.BothCanadaandtheUnitedStatesacknowledgethreeoveralldrivers(population,GDP,andenergyuse),withCanadashowingthepercentchangesince1990andtheUnitedStatesreportingonchangessince1970(Figures21and22).Thereportsdonotpresentindicatorsofdriversspecifictoeachissue.

TheCanadianreportscontainarestrictednumberofindicatorsand,wherepossibleandrelevant,usedinternationallystandardmeasures(suchasIUCNcategoriesforprotectedareasandUNFCCCmethodsforgreenhousegasemissions).TheUSreportscontainlargenumbersofindicatorsand,forthemostpart,usemethodsorparametersandstandardsestablishednationally.

Table2showsthatatotalof20similarindica-torsareusedbybothcountriesandthattheissuesofairqualityandforestsarerepresentedbythemostindicators,whichtogetherformsmallPSIRprofiles.Withafewexceptions,eachcountryhasadopteddifferentmethodsforcalculatingandpresentingthedata,andindicatorsrefertodiffer-enttimeperiodsanddefinitions.Forexample,bothcountriesreportontimberharvests,butCanadausesareaharvestedtoportraytheamountproducedwhiletheUnitedStatesreportsonthevolumeharvested.ChapterFourexploressuchinconsisten-ciesfurther.

Theseconclusionsarebasedonasurveyofonlyfourreports,however,andthesmallnumberofcommonindicatorsandtheirvariationsdoesnotsuggesttheimpossibilityoffindingawayforaccomplishingintegratedbilateralreportingwithstandardindicators.Appendix2,whichprovidesdatasourcesforpotentialindicatorsforNorthAmerica,revealsthatcomparabledataareavail-ableformanygenericindicatorsnotrepresentedinthesereports.

Thetwocountriesarealreadyinvolvedineffortstoharmonizeenvironmentalindicatorsinordertoenablereportingonthestateofseveralsharedeco-systems.Tolearnmorelessonsaboutpotentialenvi-ronmentalindicatorsforNorthAmerica,thenextsectionlooksatanumberofCanada-USbinationalSOEreportinginitiativesandtheindicatorstheyaredeveloping.

Source:EC2003a,vi.MetadatafromStatisticsCanada

Figure 21: environment Canada’s index of drivers of environmental change

Source:USEPA2003,1–2.

Figure 22: ePa’s index of drivers of environmental change

3�

Canada-US Bilateral environmental and ecosys-tem Indicator Initiatives

CanadaandtheUnitedStatescooperateininter-nationalandregionalSOEreportingandindica-torsprogrammesinrecognitionthatecosystems,air-andwatersheds,andmigratoryspeciestraversepoliticalboundariesandthatbothcountriesoftensharethedrivingforcesandpressuresthataffectthem.Forexample,CanadaandtheUnitedStatesparticipateintheCircumpolarCouncil,whichsponsorsanArcticstate-of-the-environmentreport.Thefirstsuchreport,whichfocussedonpollution,wasreleasedin1997.Twosubsequenteditionslookedathumanhealthandpersistentorganicpollutants(AMAP2003;AMAP2004;NIRO2003b).CanadaandtheUnitedStatesalsocooper-atetomanageandproduceenvironmentalindica-torreportsontheGreatLakes,theGulfofMaine,andtheGeorgiaBasin–PugetSoundregion.Thesethreeinitiativesarehighlightedascasestudiesinthissection.

TheBorderXXIProgram(1996–2000),setuptoaddressenvironmentalissuesattheUS-Mexicoborder,hasproducedasetofenvironmentalindica-torsfortheborderregion(US-MexicoBorderXXIProgram1997).Basedonthiswork,theten-yearBorder2012Program,launchedin2002,isnow

developingenvironmentandhealthindicatorstomeasureprogresstowardsitssustainabilitygoals(USEPA2000a).

Atthetrilaterallevel,theCommissionforEnvironmentalCooperation(CEC)ofNorthAmerica,setuptooverseetheNAFTAenviron-mentalaccord,ismandatedtoproduceperiodicstate-of-the-environmentreportsfortheNAFTAregion.In2002,itpublisheditsfirstSOEreport,The North Amer�can Mosa�c.TheCECanticipatesthatthenextSOEreportwillintroduceasetofenvironmentalindicatorsthatwillinformfutureNorthAmericanregionalenvironmentalassess-ments(CEC2001).TheCECalsopublishedareportonavailableindicatorsofchildren’shealthandtheNorthAmericanenvironmentin2006(CEC2006).Inaddition,theCEC’sPollutantReleaseandTransferRegister(PRTR)projecttracks,analyzes,andpublishesavailabledataaboutthesource,release,andtransferoftoxicpollutantsfromindustrialactivityinCanadaandtheUnitedStates.TheCEC’sannualreportTak�ng Stock willintegrateMexico’sdatafor2004,creatingaNorthAmericanperspectiveofpollutantreleasesforthefirsttime.Thisprojectenhancesthecomparabilityamongtheseparatenationalreportingsystemsandprovidesauniqueregionalpicturebywayofpollut-antindicatorsanddata(CEC2004a).

Dav�d P. Shorthouser/UNEP/Forestry ImagesLoggingtrucktransportinglogstomill,NorthwesternAlberta,Canada.


TheCECisaforumformanyotherprojectsthatbringscientistsandexpertstogetherininter-nationalworkinggroupstocooperateonprotectingtheNorthAmericanenvironment;manyoftheseeffortsprovidelessonsabouthowtoachievecon-sensusamongdifferentstakeholdersfromthethreecountriesintakingacommonregion-wideecologi-calperspectiveandadoptingacommonlanguageforclassificationsystems.OneexampleistheNorthAmericaneco-regionmappinginitiative,whichsucceededinproducingacontinent-widedefinitionandmapsofthreelevelsofnestedeco-regions(seeCEC1997).

Anothertrinational-leveleffortrelatedtoproducingcomparableenvironmentaldataistheNorthAmericanTransportationStatisticsInter-change(NATS).Underthisinitiative,atrilateralgroupworksontheproductionoftransportation,energy,andenvironmentindicators(TEEI).Can-ada,theUnitedStates,andMexicocooperatetoadoptacommonlistofindicatorsandareworkingtocompilethestatisticaldataaccordingtoacom-monTEEIframework.Theyarealsoworkingontheopportunitiesandlimitationsoftheelaboratedindicatorsintermsoftheirconsistency,harmoniza-tion,updating,andcomparability.

Governments,NGOs,andotherstakeholdersinCanadianprovincesandterritoriesandUSstatesarealsoworkingtogethertodevelopanduseenvi-ronmentalindicatorstoassessthestateofanumberofsharedecosystems.

The State of the Great Lakes

TheGreatLakesliewithineightUSstatesandtheCanadianprovinceofOntario(Figure23).Halfthetradebetweenthetwocountriescrossestheregion,

andthecountriessharethelakes’abundantresourc-esandservicesaswellasthepollutionanddisrup-tiontheecosystemisexperiencing(UNEP2002a).In1972,CanadaandtheUnitedStatessignedtheGreatLakesWaterQualityAgreement(GLWQA),committingthetwocountriestocontrollingandcleaninguppollutionintheGreatLakesandreportingontheirprogress.Theamendedagree-mentincludesthegoaltodevelopasetofcompre-hensiveindicatorsonthehealthoftheGreatLakes.ToperiodicallyassesstheconditionoftheLakesandtodiscussfurtheraction,theUSEnvironmen-

Source:GLIN2004http://www.great-lakes.net/gis/maps/.

Figure 23: The Great Lakes

The Parties to the Great Lakes Water Qual-ity Agreement (GLWQA) want to establish a consistent, easily understood suite of indica-tors that will objectively represent the state of major ecosystem components across all Great Lakes basins... . This suite of indicators will also be used to assess the Parties’ prog-ress towards achievement of the purpose and general objectives of the GLWQA (Bertram and Stadler-Salt 2000, 4).

3�

talProtectionAgencyandEnvironmentCanadabeganhostingthebiennialStateoftheLakesEco-systemConference(SOLEC).Followingthesecondconferencein1996,itwasdecidedtodevelopacomprehensive,basin-widesetofindicatorstoenablereportinginapredictable,compatible,andstandardformat(BertramandStadler-Salt2000;USGAO2004).

Atthe1998SOLEC,asuiteofeasilyunder-stoodindicatorsthatobjectivelyrepresentthecon-ditionoftheGreatLakesecosystem’scomponentswasproposed.ThissuiteisusedateachconferencetoinformthepublicandreportonprogressinachievingGLWQAgoals,whileworkcontinuestobroadenthesuiteandpopulatetheindicatorswithreliabledata(BertramandStadler-Salt2000).


SOLECadoptedthestate-pressure-humanactivi-tiesmodel,basedonthePSRframework.Theindi-catorsnominatedfortheSOLEClistwereextract-edprimarilyfromexistingGreatLakesdocuments(BertramandStadler-Salt2000).TheindicatorswerescreenedusingabroadsetofSOLECcriteriathatfellundertheheadingsofNecessary,Sufficient,andFeasible.TheSOLECindicatorframeworkconsistsofthreenestedlevels.Thefirstiscom-prisedofgeographiczones,issues,andcross-cuttingelements;thesecondrepresentssevencoregroups(near-shoreandopenwaters;coastalwetlands;near-shoreterrestrial;landuse;humanhealth;soci-etal;andunbounded);andthethirdlevelpresentsthePSRindicators(NIRO2003b).

Select�on process

Thefirststepoftheselectionprocess,takenpriortothe1998Conference,wastoidentifyasetofindicatorsthatreflectsthestateofallmajorGreatLakesecosystemcomponents.Itwasguidedbyamulti-stakeholderSOLECindicatorsadvisorgroupthatcoordinatedsevencoresetadvisorgroups.Eachofthesegroupsidentifiedasetandashortlistofindicatorsforitsdomain.Theystrovetorecom-

mendindicatorsthatcouldbeapplicablebasin-wide.Theshortlistwaspeer-reviewedandrevisedandecosystemcomponentsneedingadditionalindicatordevelopmentwereidentified(BertramandStadler-Salt2000).TheseindicatorsformthebasisforreportingintheStateoftheGreatLakesreports,witheachsuccessivereportbuildingontheformerasdatabecomeavailable,allowingtheuseofevermoreindicatorsfromtheset.Presently,thereare79indicatorsintheSOLEClist.Together,theyhelptoassessthehealthoftheGreatLakes’majorecosystemcomponents.Manyoftheindicatorsarestillbeingdeveloped,however,anduntilmorere-searchisconductedanddatacollected,theycannotbeused(BertramandStadler-Salt2000).


The2000SOLECreportSelect�on of Ind�cators for Great Lakes Bas�n Ecosystem Health: Vers�on � providesarevisedlistoftheindicatorsproposedin1998(BertramandStadler-Salt2000).Difficul-tiesincomparabilitybetweenthetwocountriesareidentifiedintheshortdescriptionsofeachoftheindicators.Theseincludeinformationabouteachindicator’spurpose,ecosystemobjective,endpoint,features,illustration,limitations,andinterpreta-tion.TheState of the Great Lakes �00�(ECandUSEPA2001)isa92-pagereportcontaininganassessmentoftheconditionofeachoftheGreatLakesandoftheregionasawhole.Thesectiondevotedtoindicatorsisorganizedbyhabitattypeandkindofhumanimpact.Itincludesasectiontitled“ImplicationsforManagers”showinghowmanagerscanbothuseandcontributetoindica-tor-basedassessment(Pidot2003).ItisthefirstSOLECreporttousetheindicator-basedformatanditreportson33oftheindicatorsthatmakeuptheentireset.Subsequentreportsarebasedonthesuiteofecosystemhealthindicatorsdevelopedbyparticipantsinthe2002StateoftheLakesEcosys-temConference(SOLEC).

TheState of the Great Lakes �003 isthefifthbi-ennialreportissuedbythegovernmentsofCanadaandtheUnitedStates.Itisa102-pagereport,

UNEP/USACE1000ft.LakerapproachingtheBlueWaterBridgeatthemouthoftheSt.ClairRiver,MichiganUSA.

3�


whichincludessummariesofseparateindicatorre-portsandastatusreportoneachoftheGreatLakesandconnectingchannels(ECandUSEPA2003).Itprovidesassessmentsof43oftheindicatorsproposedbytheParties.Theseparticularindicatorswereincludedbecausedatawereavailable.TheyarepresentedinthereportundertheheadingsofState,Pressure,andResponseindicators(ECandUSEPA2003).

Implement�ng Ind�cators �003isatechnicalreportthatcompilesalltheindicatorreportsthatwerecirculatedforreviewatSOLEC2002andprovidesfullreferencesfortheinformationpre-sentedineachindicatorreport.Insomecases,theindicatorsrepresenttheentirebasin,whileinotherstheyhighlightcertaingeographiclocations.Thecompilationofadatabasecurrentlycomprisingover800indicatorsisanongoingpartofthework.ThefollowingtwofigurespresentexamplesofindicatorsfromtheStateoftheGreatLakes2003report.Figure24isanattempttoshowGreatLakebeachadvisoriesandclosuresinbothcountriesinacomparableway.Figure25presentsanecosystem-levelindicatorshowingthecumulativenumberofintroducedspeciesintheGreatLakes.The2003reportisavailablefromthefollowingwebsite:http://binational.net/sogl2003/sogl03eng.pdf

Ongo�ng work

ThesuiteofGreatLakesindicatorsisconstantlyevolvingasmodificationsandrefinementsaremadetoreflectagreaterunderstandingoftheecosystemandhumaninteractionswithandwithinit,andtoensurethattheinformationisaccessibleanduseful.Progressivelymoreindicatorsarereportedonateachyearlyconference,aprocessthatwillcontinueuntilthewholesuiteisincluded(BertramandStadler-Salt2000;ECandUSEPA2003).ThetwogovernmentsareplanningtointegratemonitoringandreportingintoexistingGreatLakesactivitiesatalllevelsofgovernmentaswellaswithinindustry.TheSOLECindicatorsethelpedtoinfluencetheUnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService’sdecisiontofocusondevelopinganecosystem/watershedapproachtotheenvironmentalmanagementoftheGreatLakes(USGAO2004).

Georgia Basin–Puget Sound

TheGeorgiaBay–PugetSoundregion(Figure26)comprisesthedenselypopulatedpartsofthestateofWashingtonandtheprovinceofBritishColum-biasurroundinganarmofthePacificOceanthatflowsbetweenVancouverIslandandthemainland.

In2000,nearlysevenmillionpeoplelivedinthisregion,with57percentintheUnitedStatesand43percentinCanada.Theareaisexperiencingrapidpopulationgrowth:by2020,thetwocoreurbanareasofSeattleandVancouveraretogetherexpectedtocountaboutamillionadditionalpeople.Pressuresontheecosystemhaveresultedin

Source:ECandUSEPA2003,76.

Figure 25: Cumulative number of introduced species in the Great Lakes since the 1830s

An initial attempt to provide a sense of the current state and trends in this ecosystem in an integrated way across the Canada–United States boundary (GBPSEI 2002, 1).

Source:AdaptedfromECandUSEPA2003,82.

Figure 24: Beach advisories in US and Canadian Great Lakes beaches

��

aneedtoaddresstheenvironmental,social,andeconomicimplicationsofthatgrowth(GB-PSEI2002).

Governmentofficials,scientists,andotherstakeholdersfrombothcountriesincreasinglyworkcloselytofindcooperativesolutionstosharedenvironmentalissuesintheregion.Forexample,EnvironmentCanadaandtheUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyrecentlyissuedajointreportonthecharacterizationoftheGeorgiaBasin/PugetSoundairshed.Thetwocountrieshavebeenworkingtogethertodevelopregionalindicatorssince2000.TheCanada–UnitedStatesWorkingGrouponEnvironmentalIndicatorswasformedwiththeviewofdevelopingandusingasuiteofindicatorstoreportonsustainabilityintheregion.ItgrewoutoftheBritishColumbia–WashingtonEnvironmentalCooperationCouncil,whichbeganin1992,andtheJointStatementofCoopera-tionbyEnvironmentCanadaandtheUSEPAin2000.Thelattercommitsthetwocountriestoworktogetheratthefederallevelontransboundaryissues.TheWorkingGroupisalsoimprovingthetransferofknowledgeandbestpractices,develop-ingsharedgoalsandstrategies,andimplementingjointactionprogrammes(GBPSEI2002).In2002,theWorkingGroupreleaseditsGeorg�a Bay–Puget Sound Ecosystem Ind�cators Report(GBPSEI2002),

whichusessixindicatorstolookatseveralaspectsofthestateoftheenvironmentinthetransbound-aryregion.


ThereportdoesnotexplicitlyrefertothePSRoranyotherframework.Eachindicatorispresentedintermsofwhatishappening,whyitishappening,whyitisimportant,howitcompareswithotherregionsorlocations,andwhatisbeingdonetoad-dresstheissuesofconcern.

Select�on process

Workbeganin1999toidentifykeyindicatorsforwhichdatawereavailableonbothsidesoftheboundary.Dataspecialistsstartedbycompilingallapplicablemonitoringdatacollectedintheregiontoidentifythebestandmostreadilyavailableandcomparabledatawithwhichtodevelopasuiteofindicatorsfortheregion(Pidot2003).Onlysixindicatorswereinitiallyselected,sincedifferencesinpurpose,definition,measurement,andclassifica-tionofdatafromdifferentjurisdictions,aswellasdifferencesinthevarietyofregulatoryandadminis-trativeframeworkspresentedchallengestodevelop-ingharmonizedindicatorsandanintegratedbasin-widepicture.Thebilateralindicatorforassessing

Source:GBPSEI2002.

Figure 26: Georgia Basin–Puget Sound

ScenicviewfromPortTownsend,Washington USA.Gary W�lson /UNEP/NRCS


theconservationstatusofspecieswasmadepossiblebecauseofastandardizedmethoddevelopedbytheAssociationforBiodiversityInformation,whichin-cludesanetworkofconservationdatacentresacrossNorthAmerica(Figure27).Exceptforthepopula-tionindicatorsandamapshowingthepercentageofprotectedland,issuesoneachsideoftheborderareportrayedwithdifferentindicators(GBPSEI2002).


Thereportpresentssixindicators:population,airquality,solidwaste,persistentorganicpollutants(POPs),speciesatrisk,andprotectedareas.Asthekeypressureonthesharedecosystem,thepopu-lationindicatoristhefirstinthereport.Italsoportrayspopulationdistributionacrosstheregionthroughaseriesofmaps.Technicalbackgroundersareprovidedfortheindicators,whichincludedata,datasources,methodology,references,contacts,andsupplementaryinformation.Theorganizationandpresentationofthetechnicalinformationisnotconsistentacrossthetworeportingjurisdictions.Thereportsareavailableonlineat:hhttp://www.env.gov.bc.ca/spd/gbpsei/index.html.

Ongo�ng work

Theinitiativeisongoing,withnewindicatorsbeingdevelopedandtheoriginalindicatorsmodifiedasnewdatabecomeavailable.Forexample,thePM

10

indicatormaybemodifiedorreplacedinthefuturebyanindicatorshowingtrendsinPM

2.5concentra-

tion(GBPSEI2002).

Gulf of Maine

TheGulfofMaineisborderedbythestatesofMassachusetts,NewHampshire,andMaineandbytwoprovinces,NewBrunswickandNovaScotia(Figure28).Thissharedecosystemisconsideredtobeamongthemostbiologicallyproductivemarinesystemsintheworld:itswatersandshorelinehabi-tatshostsome2,000speciesofplantsandanimals.

Abilateraleffortisunderwaytomaintainanden-hanceenvironmentalqualityintheGulfofMaine.ItisledbyTheGulfofMaineCouncilontheMa-rineEnvironment,aUS-Canadianpartnershipofgovernmentalandnon-governmentalorganizations.TheCouncilstressestheimportanceofviewingtheGulfofMaineasasingleecosystemandpromotingcross-boundarycollaborationtohelpmanagetheregion’sresourcesandaddressenvironmentalcon-cerns.Oneofitslong-termaimsistoidentifyandtrackasetofregionalenvironmentalindicatorsandproducea“StateoftheGulf”report(GM-CME2004a).

DiscussionaboutpotentialindicatorsbeganinDecember2002attheAtlanticNortheastCoastalMonitoringSummit,whichalsoexploredthepotentialforintegratedregionalmonitoring.ItwasfollowedinJanuary2004bytheNortheastCoastalIndicatorsWorkshop,wheretheinitialselectionprocessforregionalindicatorsbegan(GMCME2002;GMCME2004b).Finally,theGulfofMaineSummitwasheldinOctober2004,bringingtogetherandintegratingtheworkofthemanyagencies,organizations,andinstitutionsintheGulf.TheSummitwasorganizedbytheGulfofMaineCouncilontheMarineEnvironmentand

The Gulf of Maine is shared by Canada and the United States and is considered among the most biologically productive marine systems in the world.

Source:GMCME2004dhttp://gulfofmaine.org/knowledgebase/aboutthegulf/.MapcreatedbyRichardD.Kelly,Jr.,MaineStatePlanningOffice,fortheGulfofMaineCouncilontheMarineEnvironment.

Figure 28: The Gulf of MaineFigure 27: Species at risk, using a standardized assessment method

Source:AdaptedfromGBPSEI2002,14.

�3

theGlobalProgrammeofActionCoalitionfortheGulfofMaine(GPAC).Thelatterisabi-national,multi-stakeholderworkinggroupdedicatedtotheimplementationoftheUnitedNationsGlobalPro-grammeofAction(GPA)fortheProtectionoftheMarineEnvironmentfromLand-basedActivities(GulfofMaineSummit2004a;GPACn.d.).JustpriortotheSummit,pre-summitdraftsofReg�onal Ecosystem Ind�cators for the Gulf of Ma�ne(GulfofMaineSummit2004b)andT�des of Change Across the Gulf: An Env�ronmental Report on the Gulf of Ma�ne and Bay of Fundy(PeschandWells2004)werereleasedtoinformparticipantsofproposedindicatorsandtocatalyzediscussion.


In2003,theOfficeofOceanandCoastalResourceManagement,oftheNationalOceanicandAtmo-sphericAdministration(NOAA),producedasetofnutrientindicatorsasacontributiontothe“StateoftheGulf”report.TheindicatorsareorganizedaroundamodifiedPSRframeworkandincludethefollowingcategories:environmentalindica-tors,contextindicators,stressorindicators,impactindicators,andmanagementresponseindicators(Mills2003).T�des of Changepresentsindicatorsinchaptersthatrespondtoquestionsaboutcurrentconditionsandtrends,causesofthoseconditions,andactionstoreversethem—similartoaPSRap-proach(PeschandWells2004).

Select�on process

Asteeringcommitteefirstdraftedstrawconceptualmodels,keyquestions,andindicatorsfordiscus-sionattheJanuary2004workshop.Feedbackonthemwassoughtthroughanindicatorswebsurvey.Thekeygoalistoachieveconsensusonalistofkeyindicatorsfocusingonsixmajorissues:fisheries,eutrophication,contaminants,coastaldevelopment,aquatichabitat,andclimatechange.RegionalworkgroupsstrivedtocrystallizecoreindicatorsforpresentationattheSummit(GM-CME2004b).Regionalwatershedforumswereorganizedandconvenedbylocalgroupsovertwoyears,usingaconsistentbutflexibleformat.Toidentifypriorityissues,theyeachusedaconsistentreportingmechanismthatevolvedintotheGPACindicatormatrix,adaptedfromthatofEPA.Eachforumused“trafficlight”colourstosignifyitslevelofconcernwithanissue,basedonitsknowledgeandperceptionsoflocalproblems.Thecoloursinthekeycorrespondtoaspectrum,from“definiteproblem”to“noproblem”.Matricesweredrawnupforthefollowing:changesinlanduseandintegrityofwaterandriparianzones;contaminantissues;changesinspecies;changesinresourceuse;andpresenceofcriticalhabitatsandnaturalareasrelat-edtofisheries.T�des of Changesummarizesresultsfromthewatershedforumsandprovidesin-depthchaptersonseveralkeyissuesfacingtheGulf:landuse;contaminantsandpathogens;andfisheriesandaquaculture(PeschandWells2004).

W�ll�am B. Folsomr/UNEP/NMFSLobsterboattiedupattheLobstermen’sCo-op.,BoothbayHarbor,MaineUSA.



The State of the Gulf Report: Nutr�ent Ind�catorswaspublishedin2003,providinginformationonpotentialnutrientindicatorsforinclusionintheGulfofMaineCouncil’s“StateoftheGulfofMaine”report.ItsurveysnutrientindicatorsusedinexistingreportsfromorganizationswithintheUSandinternationallyandprovidesalistofthemostprevalentonesused.Itthensuggestspotentialindicatorsinthecategorieslistedaboveandout-linessomegeneralprinciplestoguidetheprocessofselectinganddevelopingasuiteofnutrientindicatorsfortheGulfofMaine(Mills2003).TheReg�onal Ecosystem Ind�cators for the Gulf of Ma�ne: Pre-Summ�t Draft(GulfofMaineSummit2004b)presents12fisheryindicators,8coastaldevelop-mentindicators,and12contaminantindicators.Eachindicatorisaccompaniedbytechnicalnotesthatdescribethefollowing:purpose,ecosystemobjective,measure,outcome,illustration,fea-tures,limitations,interpretation,comments,andreferences.Inaddition,draftindicatorsrelatedtoaquatichabitats,nutrients(seeabove),andclimate

changewerealsoprepared.T�des of Changeex-amineshowenvironmental,economic,andsocialtrendsareinfluencinglanduse,contaminants(in-cludingsewage,nutrients,pathogensandmercury),andfisheriesandaquaculture.Indicatorsforthesetrendsprovidehistoricalcontext,revealcurrentconditions,andtrackprogress.Bilateralorregionalindicatorsincludeindicatorsofhistoricalchangeinpopulationdensityandrural/urbanmixintheregion;speciesatrisk;beacheswithclosures;aver-agemercuryconcentrations;landingofallspecies;finfishaquaculture;andcommunitycompositionoffish.Thereportincludesanoverviewofrecentsuc-cessesinaddressingregionalenvironmentalissues,andareportsummary(PeschandWells2004).Thereportscanbeviewedonlineat:http://www.gulfofmainesummit.org/docs/index.html.

Ongo�ng work

ThegoaloftheGulfofMaineSummitistosetthestageforthepreparationofa“StateoftheGulfofMaine”report.Theaimsofthereportaretoprovidestructureforanintegratedmonitoring

Capta�n Albert E. ThebergeUNEP/NOAARock,foam,andfog.

��

programme;identifyinformationgaps,problemareas,andresearchneeds;compileinformationonstandardprotocolsandqualityassurance;helpinformandengagethepubliconenvironmentalissues;andadvocateforenhancedscience,policy-makingandmanagement(Nedeau2003).Afterthe2004Summit,thesuggestedindicatorsweretogothroughaperiodofreviewandrefinement,followedbyworktointegratethemintoregionalstrategies(GMCME2004c).

Analysis

Thedevelopmentofbilateralindicatorsforecosys-temssharedbyCanadaandtheUnitedStatesisafairlyrecentundertaking.Severalinitiatives,suchastheCEC’sindicatordevelopmentworkforenviron-mentalreportinginNorthAmericaandtheGulfofMaineindicatorinitiative,arestillintheinitialstagesofdevelopment.Thethreecasestudiespre-sentedaboverepresentimportantecosystemssharedbyCanadaandtheUnitedStates.Allthreeindica-torinitiativesgrewoutofbilateralagreementsandpreviouscooperativeactiontoprotectthesharedecosystems,withoneofthemajorgoalsoftheStateoftheGreatLakesworkexplicitlyorientedtoreportingonprogressinachievingthepurposeandgeneralobjectivesoftheGLWQA.GiventhelargeextentoftheGreatLakesecosystemandthehighdegreeofpressuresuponit,itrequiresalargersetofindicators.Twoofthecasestudiesarefocussedonsharedwaterbodiesandtheimportantresourcesandecosystemservicestheyprovide,withthemajorityofindicatorsrepresentingtheirphysical,chemical,andbiologicalaspects.TheindicatorsforGeorgiaBasin–PugetSound,adenselypopulatedregion,representawidervarietyofissues.Theindi-

catorsetissmallandtheindicatorsaremorecloselyassociatedwiththeimportanthumanpopulationanditsimpacts(Box19).Thelatterinitiativereliedonindicatorsforwhichdatawereavailable,whiletheothertwosoughtindicatorsthatwouldanswerquestionsaboutthestateofthesharedwaterbodies.

Allthreeinitiativesarebasedonmulti-stake-holderparticipationfortheindicatorselection,attempttodevelopcompatibleandstandardizedindicators,andincludeongoingindicatorsreviewandrefinement.TheGreatLakesandtheGeorgiaBasin–PugetSoundreportsincludetechnicaldocu-mentsthatdescribeandexplaineachoftheindica-tors.TheGulfofMaineprojecthasnotreleaseditsfinalsetofindicatorsatthetimeofwriting.

Giventhefocusonspecificecosystemsandthefactthatmanyecosystem-levelindicatorsmaynoteasilyserveasnation-wideindicators,lessonslearnedfromthesebilateralinitiativeshavemoretodowiththeprocessofcollaboratingacrossborderstoconstructcompatibleenvironmentalindicatorsthantheactualcontentoftheindicatorsets.Moreinformationabouttheprocessofcross-bordercol-laborationcouldbegleanedfromamorein-depthstudyoftheseinitiativesthroughinterviewsandothermeans.

TodevelopamorecomprehensivelistofbasicindicatorsthatcouldhelpformthebasisforregionalreportingforNorthAmerica,thenextchapterlooksatindicatorsusedorprescribedbyinternationalagenciesthatreportonthestateoftheglobalenvironment.Insomecases,theseorganiza-tionshavealreadyharmonizedorstandardizeddataacrossnations.

Box 19: Issues selected by the bilateral indicator initiatives

Great Lakes Georgia Basin–Puget Sound Gulf of Maine

Near-shoreandopenwaters Population Fisheriesandaquaculture

Coastalwetlands Airquality Eutrophication

Near-shoreterrestrial Solidwaste Contaminants

Landuse Persistentorganicpollutants Coastaldevelopment

Humanhealth Speciesatrisk Aquatichabitat

Societal Protectedareas Climatechange

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromECandUSEPA2003;GBPSEI2002;GulfofMaineSummit2004b;PeschandWells2004.


K. G�ese/UNEP

��

In1987,theWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment(WCEDortheBrundtlandCommission)notedthe“limitedcapabilityfor...combiningbasicandcomparabledataneededforauthoritativeoverviewsofkeyenvironmentalissuesandtrends”andthatwithouttheseoverviews“theinformationneededtohelpsetprioritiesanddevel-opeffectivepolicieswillremainlimited”(WCED1987,321).Reportingeffortsonthestateoftheglobalenvironmentoronregionssharedbymorethanonenationfacenumerouschallenges.Theseincludethelackofconsistencyamongmonitoringprogrammes,reportingmethods,anddata,amongothers.Therearealsogapsincountrycapabilitiesforstudying,analyzing,andreportingonenviron-mentalissues(NIRO2003b).

TheUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme(UNEP)wasoneofthefirstagenciestotrytoovercometheseobstaclestoreportingonthestateoftheglobalenvironment.Itproducedanan-nualstate-of-the-environmentreportfrom1973through1992andthebiennialEnv�ronmental Data Report from1987–1988through1993–1994(Par-ris2000).UNEP’sworkinenvironmentalreport-ingcontinueswiththeGEOseriesdescribedbelow,andtodayitisjoinedbynumerousothereffortstoprovidebothdataandanalysesonthestateoftheenvironment,ataninternationallevel.Increasingly,theseinitiativesincludethedevelopmentanduseofenvironmentalindicators.

TheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs),whichcommittheinternationalcommunitytoworktowardsaworldfreeofpoverty,hunger,disease,andgenderinequity,alsoincludeasetofenvironmentalindicators:Theeightindicatorsinformtheseventhgoal,“Ensureenvironmentalsustainability”.Theyarepopulatedbydatafromharmonizedsources,soareconsistentandallowforcomparison,buttheyareverylimitedinscopeandaddressprimarilytheenvironmentsofdevelopingcountries(UN2004).

ThissectionlooksattheCommissionforSus-tainableDevelopment(CSD)andUNEP’senvi-ronmentalindicatorinitiatives,bothpromptedbythe1992EarthSummit’scallforbetterindicatorsforregularandreliableglobaloverviews,andattheOECD’senvironmentalindicatorsforitsmem-bercountries.

Un Commission for Sustainable Development

AgendaXXI,adoptedatthe1992EarthSummitinRiodeJaneiro,recommendstheharmonizeddevelopmentofnational,regional,andglobal-levelsustainabledevelopment(SD)indicators,andregularreportinganddataprovisionwithasuitablecommonsetofregularlyupdatedindicators(Box20).

3 International environmental Indicator Initiatives

Chapter 3

Box 20: The 1992 earth Summit called for harmonizing indicator efforts

TheUnitedNationsCommissiononSustainableDevelopment(CSD)wascreatedinDecember1992tomonitorandreportontheimplementa-tionoftheEarthSummitagreements.TheCSDrecognizedanurgentneedforglobalactiontocombinenationalandinternationalinformationeffortsandtopromotecomparability,accessibil-ity,andqualityofthatinformation(LuxemandBryld1997;UNDESA2003b).Itbeganaworkprogramme,withthegoalofprovidingnationaldecision-makerswithalistofindicatorstouseinnationalpoliciesandinreportstotheCSDandotherinternationalagencies.

Source:Shah2004,1.

“The United Nations Conference on En-

vironment and Development (The Earth

Summit) held in 1992 recognized the

important role that indicators can play

in helping countries to make informed

decisions concerning sustainable devel-

opment. Agenda 21 calls for the harmoni-

zation of efforts, including the incorpora-

tion of a suitable set of these indicators

in common, and regularly updated and

widely accessible reports and databases”.



TheCSDapproveditsfive-yearWorkProgrammeonIndicatorsofSustainableDevelopmentin1995.ItincludedstrategiesfordefiningSDindicators,makingthemaccessibletodecision-makersatthenationallevel,elucidatingtheirmethodologies,andprovidingtrainingandothercapacity-buildinginitiatives(Mortensen1997).CoordinatedbytheUNDepartmentforEconomicandSocialAffairs(DESA),DivisionforSustainableDevelopment,theProgrammeorganizedthechaptersofAgendaXXIunderfourmajorthemes—social,economic,environmental,andinstitutional(Shah2004).Apreliminaryworkinglistof134indicatorspub-lishedin1996usedthedrivingforce–state-response(DSR)frameworkandwassubjectedtovoluntarynationaltestingandexpert-groupconsultation.Theframeworkevolvedintoonefocusingonthemesandsub-themesofsustainabledevelopmentratherthanexclusivelyontheAgendaXXIchapters.Rea-sonsforthechangeincludethefactthattheDSRframeworkislesssuitedtosocialandeconomicindicatorsthantoenvironmentalonesandthatthethemeframeworkbetterassistsnationalpolicydecision-makingandperformancemeasurement(LuxemandBryld1997;Shah2004;UNDESA2004a).

Select�on process

TheProgrammeselectedindicatorsinaccordancewithanumberofcriteriathataresimilartothoseusedbyotherorganizations,differingonlyintheirparticularfocusontherelevancetoAgenda

XXIandallaspectsofsustainabledevelopment.Usingthesecriteria,theCSDanditsSecretariatworkedinclosecooperationwithalargenumberofinternationalgovernmentalandnon-governmentalorganizationsandnationalgovernmentstoselecttheindicators.Itwasguidedbythreeprinciples:thedevelopmentanduseofindicatorsatanationallevel;buildingonexistingnationalandinterna-tionalindicatorworkundertakenbyotherorgani-zationsandcountries;andthecooperationandcol-laborationofawiderangeofexperts.Methodologysheetsweredevelopedforeachindicatorthroughabroadinternationalconsultationprocess(Gallopín1997;LuxemandBryld1997).


Thefinalproduct,publishedin2001—Ind�cators of Susta�nable Development: Gu�del�nes and Method-olog�es—isadetaileddescriptionof15sustainabledevelopmentthemesand38sub-themes,afinalproposedframework,andacoresetof58indica-torswiththeirmethodologysheets.Nineteenofthe58areenvironmentalindicators.Themethodol-ogysheetsdescribepolicyrelevance,underlyingmethodology,dataavailability,andsourcesforeachindicator(UNDESA2001a).Governmentsbeganpreparingnationalreportsin1993andin1997theresultsofsubmissionsbetween1994and1996werepublishedinaseriesofcountryprofiles,ontheoc-casionofthefive-yearreviewoftheEarthSummit(Rio+5).Asecondseriesofcountryprofileswasreleasedforthe2002WorldSummitonSustainableDevelopmentinJohannesburg.This2002countryprofileseriesprovidesacomprehensiveoverviewofthestatusofnational-levelAgendaXXIimple-mentation(LuxemandBryld1997;Shah2004;UNDESA2003b;UNDESA2004a).Thisseriesreportisavailableat:http://www.un.org/esa/sust-dev/natlinfo/indicators/indisd/indisd-mg2001.pdf.

Countries are encouraged to adopt and use this set as a starting point for their national indicator programs

UNEP/MorgueF�le.comToronto,Canada.

��

Ongo�ng work

Theindicatorsarenotfinalordefinitive,butcanbeadjustedtofitnationalconditions,priorities,andcapabilities.Countriesareencouragedtoadoptandusethissetasastartingpointfortheirnationalindicatorprogrammes.Wideadoptionanduseofthecoresetismeanttohelpimproveinformationconsistencyattheinternationallevel.Box21showstheCSD’slistofissuesandassociatedenvironmen-talindicators.

United nations environment Programme: GeO Indicators

LiketheCSD’sindicatorinitiative,theUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme’sGlobal Env�-ronment Outlook (GEO)projectwasinitiatedinresponsetoAgendaXXI’senvironmentalreportingrequirements.ItalsorespondstoaUNEPGov-erningCouncildecisionin1995thatrequested

theproductionofacomprehensiveglobalstateoftheenvironmentreport.OneofGEO’sgoalsistopromoteconsensusonidentifyingtheglobalandregionalissuestheinternationalcommunityneedstoaddressandonprioritizingenvironmentalprob-lemsandaction.

UNEPhasbeenreportingonthestateoftheglobalenvironmentthroughtheGlobal Env�ron-ment Outlook(GEO)seriesofreportssince1997.TherearetwokeyelementsofGEO:acooperative,integratedenvironmentalassessmentprocess,andareportseries.TheformerinvolvesaparticipatoryprocessbetweenUNEPandaglobalnetworkofcollaboratingandassociatedcentres.Thereportsareissuedatregularintervalsinprintandelectronicformats.Thethreeglobalreportspublishedtodate—GEO-1(1997),GEO-2000,andGEO-3(2002)—havedescribedthestateoftheworld’sen-vironmentthroughthematic,qualitativeappraisalsofkeyenvironmentalissuesandtrends,analysisof

Box 21: CSD environmental indicators

Climatechange •Emissionsofgreenhousegases

Ozonelayerdepletion •Consumptionofozone-depletingsubstances

Airquality •Ambientconcentrationsofairpollutantsinurbanareas

Agriculturalland •Arableandpermanentcroplandarea

•Useoffertilizers

•Useofagriculturalpesticides

Desertification •Landaffectedbydesertification

Forests •Forestareaasapercentoflandarea

•Woodharvestingintensity

Urbanareas •Areaofformalandinformalsettlements

Oceansandmarine •Algaeconcentrationincoastalwaters

•Percentpopulationlivingincoastalareas

Fisheries •Annualcatchbymajorspecies

Freshwater •Annualwithdrawalofground-andsurfacewaterasa percentoftotalavailablewater

•BODinwaterbodies

•Concentrationoffaecalcoliforminfreshwater

•Percentpopulationw/adequatesewagedisposalfacilities

•Percentpopulationw/accesstosafedrinkingwater

Biodiversity •Areaofselectedkeyecosystems

•Protectedareaasapercentageoftotalarea

•Abundanceofselectedkeyspecies

Energyandconsumption •Percapitaannualenergyconsumption

•Materialuseintensity

Source:AdaptedfromUNDESA2004a.


relevantsocioeconomicdrivingforces,andassess-mentofpolicyresponsesinalltheworld’sregions.Theyalsoidentifyemergingissuesandlookatpotentialfuturescenarios.ThenextcomprehensiveGEOreport(GEO-4)isduein2007.

Untilrecently,theGEOreportsdidnotincludeastandardsetofindicators,althoughtheymadeuseofindicatorsasareportingtool.In2003,anewserieswaslaunchedwiththereleaseofayearbook,whichincludesasetofindicatorsthatwillbeusedintheannualpublication.Thiswillallowforthetrackingoftrendsintheseissuesovertime.ThefullcomprehensiveGEOreportswillnolongerbepub-lishedbienniallybutratheratfive-yearintervals.

Separatenationalandregionalorsub-regionalassessmentsarealsopublished,asaretechnicalandotherbackgroundreports.In2002,UNEPreleasedNorth Amer�ca’s Env�ronment: A Th�rty-Year State of the Env�ronment and Pol�cy Retrospect�ve,adata-richintegratedenvironmentalassessmentofNorthAmericaemphasizingthelinkagesbetweenpolicyandtheenvironment.Mostofthedatathatunder-pintheGEOreportsareavailableontheInternetthroughtheGEODataPortal.Some400differentvariables,asnational,sub-regional,regionalandglobalstatisticsorasgeospatialdatasets(maps),canbeaccessedanddownloaded(UNEP2002a;2002b).


GEOanalyzesenvironmentalissuesusingtheDPSIRframeworkandfocusesonintegratedreporting—thatis,revealingthelinksamong

socioeconomic,environmental,andpolicyissues,aswellasproducingandcommunicatingpolicy-relevantinformationonthosekeyinteractions.Thereportsalsoidentifyemergingissuesandattempttoenvisionfuturepolicyoptionsandpriorities,basedoncurrentandpastexperienceandusingascenarioapproachtoexaminearangeoffutureoutcomesrelatedtopossiblepolicydecisionstakentoday(Pinter,Zahedi,andCressman2000).IntheGEO Year Book,UNEPcontinuestorelyonthePSRmodel,withtheconvictionthatdespitethemodel’sdrawbacks,keytrendsinpressure,state,andresponsedynamicsformajorenvironmentalissuescanstillbecapturedsuccessfully.Itnotesthat,notsurprisingly,severaloftheindicatorsinthereportcoincidewiththoseselectedformonitoringinter-

nationallyagreed-uponenvironmentalgoalsandtargets,includingthoseintheMillenniumDeclara-tion(MillenniumDevelopmentGoals—MDGs)andtheWorldSummitonSustainableDevelop-ment(WSSD)PlanofImplementation(UNDESA2004b;UNEP2004a).

Box 22: GeO Year Book indicators (2003)

Climatechange •CO2emissions

•globalaverageglaciermassbalance

Ozonelayerdepletion •CFCconsumption

Forests •globalforestcover

Oceansandmarine •livingmarineresourcescatch

Freshwater •totalandpercapitawateruse

•populationwithaccesstoimprovedsanitation

•populationwithaccesstoimprovedwatersupply

Biodiversity •threatenedspecies

•protectedareas

Energyandconsumption •energyuse

Naturaldisasters •numberpeoplekilledandnumberaffectedbynaturaldisasters

Source:AdaptedfromUNEP2004a.

The GEO Indicators are a set of selected quantitative parameters which reflect head-line trends for the major global and regional environmental issues addressed under the GEO reporting process (UNEP 2004, 66).

��

Select�on process

GEOisproducedthroughaparticipatoryprocessineachregionoftheworld,involvingstakeholdersandexpertsindisciplinesrelatedtoenvironmentanddevelopmentissues,especiallypolicy-makers,regionalorganizations,andNGOs(Pinter,Zahedi,andCressman2000).Inkeepingwiththepartici-patoryorientationoftheGEOprocess,theselec-tionofthemesandindicatorsfortheGEOyearbooksarebaseduponacollaborative/comprehen-sivetrackingandstocktakingprocessestablishedwithmanypartners.


ThefirstGEO Year BookwasreleasedinMarch2003andthesecond(2004/5)atthebeginningof2005.Thisnewannualserieshighlightssignificantenvironmentaleventsandachievementsduringtheyear,withtheaimofraisingawarenessofemergingissuesfromscientificresearchandothersources.Itincludesaselectedsetoftrendindicators(Box22showstheindicatorsusedinthe2003edition),providingaconsistentandharmonizedoversightofmajorenvironmentalchangesonanannualbasis,whichmakesiteasytotrackmajorenviron-

mentalissuesovertheyears.TheGEOindicatorsaregroupedbyenvironmentalthematicareasandissues.Foreachissue,onlyoneortwoindicators,orafewatmost,arepresented.Theseareconsideredtobethemostsuitableandreliableindicatorscur-rentlyavailabletoillustratetheparticularissue.Theyearbooksincludeanoverviewsectionthatlooksatthemajorissues,asectiondevotedtoaspecialtheme,andonethatlooksatthefuture;the2003edition,forexample,containsashortsectiononkeyissuesfor“SmallIslandDevelopingStates”andincludesafeaturesectionfocusingonfreshwaterandoneonemergingchallengesandnewfindings.Thefeaturefocusofthe2004/5editionis“Gender,Poverty,andEnvironment”.Definitionsoftermsused,datasources,andtechnicalnotesareprovidedinanAnnex.Theindicatorsarepresentedattheglobal,regionaland,inafewcases,sub-regionallevel,basedontheregionalclassificationusedintheGEO-3report.AlldataanddocumentationwereextractedfromtheGEODataPortal(UNEP2002b;UNEP2004a).Theyearbookcanbeac-cessedat:http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/103.htm.

Dot Paul/UNEP/NRCSThiscypressbayisahavenformanydifferentspeciesofwildlife.


Ongo�ng workFutureannualstatementswillbereleasedatthebeginningofeveryyearinbetweenthecomprehen-siveGEOreports.

Organisation for economic Co-operation and DevelopmentTheOECD’sindicatorinitiativebeganin1991inresponsetoanOECDCouncilRecommenda-tiononEnvironmentalIndicatorsandInforma-tionrequestingitto“furtherdevelopcoresetsofreliable,readable,measurableandpolicy-relevantenvironmentalindicators”.Thisadvicewasreiter-atedin1998withanotherRecommendationto“furtherdevelopanduseindicatorstomeasureenvironmentalperformance”andagainwiththeOECD’senvironmentalstrategyforthefirstdecadeofthe21stcentury,whichlaidoutthegoalofmeasuringprogressthroughindicatorsandfur-therdevelopingandusingindicatorsandtargetstomeasureenvironmentalprogressatthenationallevel(NIRO2003b).EnvironmentalindicatorsworkattheOECDisconductedaspartofitsthree-yearprogramme,whichbeganinApril1998,tohelpmembercountriesmeasureprogresstowardssustainabledevelopment.

TheOECDhasdevelopedanumberofsetsofindicators,usingharmonizedconceptsanddefini-tionsthatrespondtodifferentneeds:Acoresetofenvironmentalindicatorsmeasuresprogressontheenvironmentalfrontandincludessome50indicatorsthatreflectthemainconcernsinOECDcountries.Anothersetofindicatorsfocusesonsectoraltrendsofenvironmentalsignificance,theirinteractionwiththeenvironment,andrelated

economicandpolicyconsiderations.Itisdesignedtohelpintegrateenvironmentalconcernsintosectoralpolicies,witheachsetfocusingonaspecificsector(transport,energy,householdconsumption,tourism,agriculture).AthirdsetisderivedfromtheOECDworkonnaturalresourceandenviron-mentalexpenditureaccountsandfocusesontheefficiencyandproductivityofmaterialresourceuse.Inaddition,asmallsetofkeyindicators—10to13ofthem—selectedfromthecoreset,ispublishedtohelpraisepublicawareness,compareenvironmentalperformanceacrossOECDnations,andfocusat-tentiononkeyissuesofcommonconcern(Lealess2002;OECD2003;OECD2004b).

DatalargelycomefromtheOECD Env�-ronmental Data—Compend�um,whichhasbeenpublishedeverytwoyearssince1985.Thesedataaretheresultofabiennialdatacollectionandtreat-mentprocessthatincludesadetailedquestionnairesenttomembercountries.DataareharmonizedthroughtheworkoftheOECDWorkingGrouponEnvironmentalInformationandOutlooks(OECD2004b).

OECDenvironmentalindicatorsareregularlypublishedandusedintheOECD’sworkinreview-ingcountries’environmentalperformanceandinmonitoringtheimplementationoftheOECDEnvironmentalStrategy.


OneoftheOECD’smajorcontributionstothefieldofenvironmentalindicatorsisitseffortstoharmonizeindividualmemberinitiativesbydevel-opingacommonapproachandconceptualframe-

Source:OECD2003,21http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/47/24993546.pdf

Figure 29: OeCD’s PSr framework

�3

work.Itfocusesmainlyonindicatorstobeusedinnational,international,andglobaldecisionmaking,butisalsoapplicabletothesub-nationalorecosys-temlevel.OECDhelpedtopioneertheuseofthePSRmodel(Figure29)duringthe1980sandearly1990sanditsworkonthisconceptualframeworkinfluencedsimilaractivitiesbyanumberofcoun-triesandinternationalorganizations(Linster1997).

OECD’svarioussetsofindicatorsweredevel-opedwithrecognitionthatthereisnouniquesetofindicators,thatindicatorsareonlyonetoolamongothers,andthattheyneedtobeinterpretedincon-text.AnotherOECDcontributionisitsworkonmonitoringprogresstowardssustainabledevelop-mentbyelaboratingindicatorsthatmeasurethede-couplingofenvironmentalpressurefromeconomicgrowth(OEDC2003;OECD2004b).

Select�on process

Thedevelopmentofharmonizedinternationalenvironmentalindicatorsisdoneinclosecoopera-tionwithOECDmembercountries,buildingonagreementamongthemtousethePSRmodelasacommonreferenceframeworkandtoidentifyindicatorsusingthreebasiccriteria:policyrelevance

andutilityforusers,analyticalsoundness,andmeasurability.MembercountriesagreetousetheOECDapproachatthenationallevelbyadaptingindicatorsetstosuitnationalcircumstancesandtointerpretthemincontexttoacquiretheirfullmeaning(OECD2003).

Products and contentsIn2001,theOECDidentifiedashortlistofenvi-ronmentalindicators,Key Env�ronmental Ind�cators, selectedfromtheOECDcoresetofenvironmentalindicatorsandcloselyrelatedtoitsotherenvi-ronmentalindicatorssets.Thekeyindicatorsareupdatedeveryyearandthelistisavailableforfree.Thesetconsistsoftenthemeareas,eachofwhichhasonemainindicatorforwhichdataareavail-ableforamajorityofOECDcountries,andhaspossiblyalsooneormoresupplementary“mediumterm”indicators,representingthosethatrequirefurtherdevelopmentrelatedtobasicdataavailabil-ity,underlyingconcepts,anddefinitions(Box23).Theindicatorsareinterpretedinthetext,withadescriptionofmainpolicychallenges,acomparisonofeachnation’sperformance,andhistoricaltrendsfortheOECDasawhole.Relatedindicatorsfromthecoresetarelistedforreference,pointingusers

Box 23: OeCD set of key environmental indicators*

Climatechange •CO2 emission intensities

•IndexofGHGemissions

Ozonelayer •Indices of apparent consumption of ODS

•OneindexofapparentconsumptionofODS

Airquality •SOx and nOx emission intensities

Waste •Municipal waste generation intensities

•Totalwastegenerationintensities

•Materialflows

Freshwater(quality) •Waste water treatment connection rates

•Pollutionloadstowaterbodies

Freshwater(resources) •Intensity of use of water resources

Forests •Intensity of use of forest resources

Fish •Intensity of use of fish resources

Energy •Intensity of energy use

•Energyefficiencyindex

Biodiversity •Threatened species

•Speciesandhabitatorecosystemdiversity

•Areaofkeyecosystems

*Ma�n �nd�cators �n bold.Source: Adapted from OECD �00�b.


tomoreampleanddetailedinformationifdesired(Lealess2002).Key Env�ronmental Ind�catorsisavailableonlineat:http://www.oecd.org/datao-ecd/32/20/31558547.pdf.

Aspecialdocumentcombinesindicatorsfromthefoursetsdescribedabovetoproduceasetofenvironmentalindicators.Thefirst Env�ronmental Ind�cators: Towards Susta�nable Developmentwaspublishedin1994,followedbytwootheredi-tions,in1998and2001(OECD2001).The2001editionoftheOECDEnvironmentalIndicatorsreportisanupdateofthe1998edition.Itincludes

indicatorsselectedfromtheOECDcoreset,somesocioeconomicandsectoralindicatorswithenvironmentalsignificance,andothersthatwereendorsedbyOECDenvironmentministersattheirmeetinginMay2001.Therearenineenvironmen-talthemesinonesection,andinanothersectionaresixsocio-economicthemesrelatedtoenviron-mentalissues,mostofwhichactaspressures.Eachthematicsub-sectionincludesastatementabouttheissueitcoversanditsimportance;anoverviewofrelatedOECDwork;howitfitsinthePSRframe-work;references;andasummaryofmajortrends.It

Box 24: OeCD environmental indicators

Drivers •GDP •populationgrowthanddensity

Climatechange •CO2emissionintensities •GHGconcentrations

Ozonelayerdepletion •ozone-depletingsubstances •stratosphericozone

Airquality •airemissionintensities •urbanairquality

Waste •wastegeneration •wasterecycling

Agriculturalland •intensityofuseofnitrogenandphosphatefertilizers •nitrogenbalances •livestockdensities •intensityofuseofpesticides

Forests •intensityofuseofforestresources •forestandwoodedland

Fisheries •fishcatchesandconsumption

Freshwater •riverquality •wastewatertreatment •intensityofuseofwaterresources •publicwatersupplyandprice

Biodiversity •threatenedspecies •protectedareas

Energyandconsumption •energyintensities •energymix •energyprices •privateconsumption •governmentconsumption

Transportation •roadtrafficandvehicleintensities •roadinfrastructuredensities •roadfuelpricesandtaxes

Nationalresponses(expenditures) •pollutionabatementandcontrolexpenditures •trendsinofficialdevelopmentassistanceas%GNPSource:AdaptedfromOECD2001.

��

alsopresentsthekeyindicators.Box24givesalistoftheindicatorsinthispublication.

Ongo�ng work

TheOECDcontinuestoreviewandimproveitsprogrammesandindicators.Itsindicatorsetsareregularlyrefinedtoevolveasscientificknowledge,policyconcerns,anddataavailabilitychangeandimprove.Thequalityofdata,dataconsistency,anddatagapsareofparticularconcern.Thesetofkeyindicatorsisexpectedtoeventuallyincludeissuessuchastoxiccontamination,landandsoilresourc-es,andurbanenvironmentalquality,forexample(OECD2003).Theorganizationisemployingstrategiestoidentifyareasinwhichcollaborationispossibletoimproveoverallqualityandcom-parabilityandtocreateamethodologyguidefordatamonitoring,collection,anddocumentation.Itisalsoconsideringhowmembercountriescanexchangeinformationandlearnaboutmetadatastandardsfromeachotherandhowtopromotetheexchangeofinformationwithnon-membersandotherinternationalorganizations(OECD2003;EC2004b).

Other initiatives

World Resources Inst�tute

WorldResourcesInstitute(WRI),anindepen-dentnonprofitorganization,isaworldleaderingeneratingharmonizedenvironmentaldataatthegloballevel.Everytwoyearssince1986,itpublishesalengthyandauthoritativeassess-mentofthehealthofglobalecosystems.Inrecentyears,WRI’sbiennialreporthasbeenproducedincollaborationwiththeUnitedNationsDevelop-mentProgramme(UNDP),theUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme(UNEP)andTheWorldBank(Keating2001).Thisisaglobalreportingseries,whichprovidestimelystatisticsandanalysisofenvironmentalissues.Thefrontsectionofeacheditionhighlightsamajortheme,whichisanalyzedwithdata-richprose.Thesecondsection,“GlobalConditionsandTrends”,isconsistentlypresentedineachedition.Thissectionisdevotedtoabroadcompilationofstandardizednational-levelenvi-ronmentalandsocialreferencedatacoveringtheissuesofbiodiversityandprotectedareas;forestsandgrasslands;coastal,marine,andinlandwaters;agricultureandfood;freshwater;atmosphereandclimate;energyandresourceuse;andsafewaterandsanitation.Thereport’sforewordisaforumforthecollaboratingagenciestopromotepolicyrecommendations.IncollaborationwithUNEP,UNDP,andTheWorldBank,theWorldResourcesInstitutewasoneoftheearliestorganizationstopublishsetsofnationaldataforaglobalperspective

onenvironmentalmedia(Parris2000;IISD1997;IISD2004a).Thereportdoesnotincludeasetofgraphicindicators.

In2000,WRIexpandeditsdataprovisionser-vicetoincludeanonline,searchabledatabasecalledEarthTrends,whichincludescountryprofiles,datatableswithcompletetimeseriesdata,detailedmetadatareportingonresearchmethodologies,andanevaluationoftheinformation’sreliability.Italsoincludesfeaturearticlesanalyzingcurrentenvi-ronmentaltrends.Thesitegathersdatafromtheworld’sleadingstatisticalagenciesandissupportedbyTheWorldBank,UNEP,theNetherlandsMin-istryofForeignAffairs,theSwedishInternationalDevelopmentAgency(SIDA),UNDP,andtheRasmussenFoundation(WRI2004).LikeUNEP’sDataPortal,EarthTrendsisavaluablesourceofdataformultilateralenvironmentalreporting.

OfWRI’slargenumberandvarietyofprojectsgearedtowardspromotingsustainability,afewareinvolvedindevelopingenvironmentalindicators;theyincludetheMaterialFlowAnalysisproject,thePilotAnalysisofGlobalEcosystems(PAGE),andaprojectorientedtowardsassessingenvironmentalandhumanwaterscarcity,freshwaterbiodiversity,andwetlandsgoodsandservices(WRI2004).

Worldwatch Inst�tute

Anothermajorplayeramonginitiativesthatuseindicatorstoreportonthestateoftheglobalenvi-ronmentistheWorldwatchInstitute.ItproducesanannualState of the World reportandashorterannualreportcalledV�tal S�gnsthatuseindicatorstotracktrends.Issuedeveryyearsince1984,theState of the Worldpublicationsreporton“progresstowardsasustainablesociety”.Theyeachconsistofsome8–10chapterswrittenbystaffmembers,cov-eringthesalientenvironmentalissuesoftheyearindata-richtext(WorldwatchInstitute2004).

V�tal S�gnscovers“theenvironmentaltrendsthatareshapingourfuture”throughtheuseofkeyindicatorstotracktrendsinenvironmentalchange.Theseincludetrendsinfoodproduction,agricul-turalyields,energyconsumptionandproduction,atmosphericissues,theeconomy,transportation,communication,healthandsocialissues,andmilitaryandgovernancefeatures.Twopagesaredevotedtoeachindicator,withonedisplayinggraphicrepresentationsoftheindicatorandatableofthedata,andtheotherprovidinginterpreta-tionandcontext.Anumberofthekeyindicatorsarerepeatedfromyeartoyear.Thepublicationcontainsasecondsectiononspecialfeaturesthatisdedicatedtotrackingnewandemergingissuesandbringingthesetothereader’sattention.Oneofthedistinctivecharacteristicsofthisreportisthe


inclusionofmanydriverandresponseindicatorsthatareusuallylackinginmanyotherindicatorinitiatives.Theseindicatorsshowtrendsinissuessuchasperversesubsidiestoactivitiesthatharmtheenvironmentandtheshifttotaxingtheseactivities.Otherexamplesofdriverindicatorsincludetrendsinautomobileproduction,meatconsumption,andagriculturalsubsidies.Examplesofresponseindicatorsincludethosethattracktrendsinwind-generatingcapacityandsolar-cellproduction,themarketinpollutioncontrols,bicycleproduction,andbiomassenergyuse.

Common issues

Aglanceattheboxeslistingtheindicatorsineachofthereportssurveyedabove(Boxes21–24)makesplainthesimilarityinthechoiceofissuesselectedbyinternationalagenciesinvolvedincreatingsetsofindicatorsforenvironmentalreportingatthegloballevel.Box25showstheissuesorthemesad-dressedbythereports.

Common indicators

Itfollowsthatthereshouldalsobeconsiderablesimilarityintheenvironmentalindicatorsthathavebeendevelopedfortheissueareasinallthreeinternationalinitiatives.Table3liststheissueareas,withthecorrespondingindicatorsthataregenerictoatleasttwoofthethreeinitiativesdescribedinthischapter.Analysis

UNEPandOECDpopulatetheindicatorswithdataandpublishthese,buttheCSD’slistofindica-torsfunctionsasa“menu”forindividualnations,sothereisnocommondataset,andnocentralagencythatcollectsandreportsontheindicators.OECD’sissuesreflecttheconcernsofmembercountries,whilethoseidentifiedbyUNEPandtheCSDaremoreinclusive,sincetheyalsoreflectthoseofdevelopingnations.TheCSDandOECDincludepopulationandeconomicgrowthaswellasdevelopmentassistanceintheirsetsofindica-tors,sincetheCSD’smandateextendstoallaspectsofsustainabilityandtheOECDmeasuresenvi-ronmentalsustainabilityinrelationtoeconomicgrowth.TheOECDalsoprovidesindicatorsofpollutionabatementandcontrolexpendituresandofficialdevelopmentassistancetoshownationalresponsestobothnationalandglobalenvironmen-talandsustainabilityproblems.

Table3showsthatthereareatotalof21similarorcommonindicatorsfoundinalltheinternation-alreports,reflectingamuchgreatercorrespondenceamongthemthanfoundwhencomparingtheindicatorsinthefourNorthAmericanreports.Ina

hierarchyrangingfrominternationaltoecosystem-levelissuesandindicators,itisobviousthatthelowerthelevel,themoretheindicatorsfocusoncharacteristicsspecifictotheareaandthegreaterthedifferencesintheissuesandindicatorsselectedtoportraytheregions.Suchwasthecaseinthecross-bordercasestudiesinChapter2(seeBox19).AsalsonotedabouttheNorthAmericanreports,responseindicatorsamongtheinternationalindica-torinitiativesarefewerinnumber,withimpactandpressureindicatorsthemostrepresented.

an integration of north american and interna-tional indicators

Table4(page58)comparesgenericindicatorscommontoNorthAmericawiththosemostusedintheinternationalreports.Itrevealsthatthereisagooddealofoverlapbetweenthem,withsimilarindicatorsforanumberofissues.Therearegaps,however:indicatorsforindoorair,toxicsubstances,landuse,coastalandmarineecosystems,grasslandsandshrublands,andurbanareasarenotcommonlyfoundineithertheNorthAmericanorinternation-alreports.OECDconfirmsthegapsinanumberoftheseindicators,includingpollutionfromtoxicsubstances(toxicmetals,organiccompounds,andfibres);populationandareaexposedtoairpollut-ants;effectsofairpollutantsonhumanhealthandontheenvironment;andindoorairpollution.AswillbeseeninChapter4,lackofdataisoftenthemainreasonforthesegaps(OECD2002b).

Box 25: International environmental issue areas

•Drivers(GDP,population,consumption)

•Climatechange

•Ozonelayer

•Airquality

•Waste

•Freshwater

•Coastalandmarineecosystems

•Fisheries

•Forests

•Agriculturalland

•Biodiversity

•Protectedareas

•Energyandtransportation

•Naturaldisasters

•Nationalresponses(expenditures)Source:CompiledbyauthorfromUNDESA2004a;UNEP2004a;OECD2004b;OECD2001.

��

Issue area Common indicators

Drivers(population,GDP,consumption) •percapitaGDP

Climatechange •percapitaCO2emissions

•totalannualCO2emissions

Ozonelayer •ODSconsumption

Airquality •ambientconcentrationsofSO2andNO

2

Waste •generationofindustrial,hazardous,andradioactivewaste, andmunicipalsolidwaste(MSW)

•wasterecyclingandreuse

Freshwater •wateruseas%ofannualrenewablewater

•%totalpopulationwithaccesstoimprovedsanitation

•%populationwithaccesstoimprovedwatersupply

Fisheries •totalfishcatches

Forests •forestharvestsas%annualgrowth

•forestareaas%oftotallandarea

Agriculturalland •fertilizeruse/unitagriculturallandarea

•pesticideuse/unitagriculturallandarea

Biodiversity •#ofknownmammals,birds,fish,reptiles,amphibians, andvascularplants

•threatenedspeciesas%ofspeciesknown

Protectedareas •protectedareaas%oftotallandarea

Energyandtransportation •percapitaenergyuse

•energyuse/GDP

Nationalresponses(expenditures) •officialdevelopmentassistanceas%GNP

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromUNDESA2004a;UNEP2004a;OECD2004b;OECD2001.

IssuescommontotheNorthAmericanre-portsbutnotrepresentedbymostinternationalinitiativesincludeaciddepositionandwetlands.AlthoughnotexclusivelyNorthAmericanissuesofconcern,theyareofparticularsignificancetoCanadaandtheUnitedStates.Internationallyim-portantissuesthatsomeoftheNorthAmericanre-portssurveyedneglectincludeclimatechange,fishresources,protectedareas,naturaldisasters,andex-penditures.NeithertheHeinzreportnortheEPAdraftreportincludesindicatorsofclimatechange.Theecosystemfocusoftheformerprecludesthisis-sueandtheEPAchosenottoreportongreenhousegasemissionsduetothe“complexitiesofthisissue”(USEPA2003,1–11).SomeindicatorsimportantfordevelopingcountrieshavelesssignificanceinCanadaandtheUnitedStates,suchaspopulationwithaccesstoimprovedsanitationandpopulationwithaccesstoimprovedwatersupply.

Theresultsofthisexerciseinidentifyingcommonindicatorsamongnationalandinterna-tionalindicatorinitiativesisconfirmedbyrecentworkconductedbyEnvironmentCanadaduringitsdeliberationsonastrategyforenvironmentalindicatorsandstate-of-the-environmentreportinginCanada.Abackgroundpapernotestheneedtoworkonimprovingtheoverlapbetweennationalandinternationalissuesandindicators(NIRO2003b).Table5(page59)integratesthemostcom-monlyusedindicatorsfromboththenationalandtheinternationalinitiativesasastartingpointincompilingalistofcandidateindicatorsforNorthAmerica.

Basedonthelessonslearnedfromthisstudy,thefollowingsectionexaminesthechallengesindevelopingmultilateralindicatorsandmakessomerecommendationsforfutureenvironmentalindica-torinitiativesfortheNorthAmericanregion.

Table 3: Indicators common to at least two international initiatives


Table 4: Indicators common to north american and international initiatives

Issues Common North American Common international indicators indicators

Drivers •%changeinpopulation,GDP •percapitaGDP(population,GDP,consumption) percapita,andenergyuse

Energyandtransportation •trendingasolineuseby •percapitaenergyuse motorvehicle •energyuse/GDP



Ozonelayer •ODSproduction •O

3levelsoverNorthAmerica •ODSconsumption

Airquality •criteriapollutantsemissions •ambientconcentrationsof •concentrationsinaverageannual SO

2andNO

2

PM2.5

levels •O

3concentrationsbyregion

Aciddeposition •changeinwetsulphatedeposition •changeinwetnitratedeposition

Indoorair

Toxicsubstances

Waste •municipalsolidwaste(MSW) •generationofindustrial, management hazardous,andradioactive waste,andmunicipalsolidwaste (MSW)recyclingandreuse

Landuse

Freshwater •municipalwaterextraction •wateruseas%ofannual renewablewater •%totalpopulationwithaccess toimprovedsanitation •%populationwithaccessto improvedwatersupply

Wetlands •%landareainwetlands

Coastalandmarine


Forests •timberharvest •forestharvestsas%ofannual •areaofforestcover growth •forestbirdpopulations •forestareaas%oftotallandarea •areaburnedinforestwildfires •areaofprotectedforest

Agriculturalland •%farmlandsusceptibletowater •fertilizeruse/unit erosion agriculturallandarea •pesticideuse/unitagricultural landarea

Grasslandsandshrublands

Biodiversity •#threatenedspeciesor%ofall •#ofknownmammals,birds,fish, species reptiles,amphibians,andvascular plants •threatenedspeciesas%of speciesknown

Protectedareas •protectedareaas%oftotalland

Urbanareas

Naturaldisasters •humanlossduetonaturaldisasters

Nationalresponses(expenditures) •totalofficialdevelopmentassistance as%ofGNP

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2004b;UNDESA2004a;UNEP2004a;EC2003a;USEPA2003;NRTEE2003;HeinzCenter2002;OECD2001.

��

Table 5: Integration of common national and international environmental indicators

Issue Common indicators drawn from all the reports surveyed

Drivers(population,GDP,consumption) •percapitaGDP •%changeinpopulation,GDPpercapita,andenergyuse



Ozonelayer •ODSconsumption •ODSproduction •O

3levelsoverNorthAmerica

Airquality •criteriapollutantsemissions •ambientconcentrationsofSO

2andNO

2

•concentrationsinaverageannualPM2.5

levels •O

3concentrationsbyregion

Aciddeposition •changeinwetsulphatedeposition •changeinwetnitratedeposition

Indoorair

Toxicsubstances

Waste •generationofindustrial,hazardous,radioactive,andMSW •MSWmanagement(recyclingandreuse)

Landuse

Freshwater •municipalwaterextraction •wateruseas%ofannualrenewablewater •%totalpopulationwithaccesstoimprovedsanitation •%populationwithaccesstoimprovedwatersupply

Wetlands •%landareainwetlands

Coastalandmarine


Forests •forestharvestsas%annualgrowth •forestareaas%oftotallandarea •forestbirdpopulations •areaburnedinforestwildfires •areaofprotectedforest

Agriculturalland •fertilizeruse/unitagriculturallandarea •pesticideuse/unitagriculturallandarea •%farmlandsusceptibletowatererosion

Grasslandsandshrublands

Biodiversity •#ofknownmammals,birds,fish,reptiles,amphibians, andvascularplants •#threatenedspeciesor%ofallspecies

Protectedareas •protectedareaas%oftotalland

Urbanareas

Energyandtransportation •percapitaenergyuse •energyuse/GDP •trendingasolineusebymotorvehicles

Naturaldisasters •humanlossduetonaturaldisasters

Nationalresponses(expenditures) •totalofficialdevelopmentassistanceas%GNP

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2004b;UNDESA2004a;UNEP2004a;EC2003a;USEPA2003;NRTEE2003;HeinzCenter2002;OECD2001.


UNEP/MorgueF�le

��

Thenational,bilateral,andinternationalindicatorreportshighlightedaboverevealampleconsensusontheusualstepsandcriteriafortheselectionanddevelopmentofindicators,thekeyroleofindicators,themainissuestoaddress,andthebasicgenericindicatorstouse.Thechallengesindevelopingasetofindicatorstopresentaninte-gratedpictureofthestatusandtrendsintheNorthAmericanenvironmentliemainlyindataavailabil-ity,reconcilingthediscrepancyinmethodologiesunderlyingevensimilarandcommonindicators,differencesintimeperiodandformatandotherparameters,andthedisparityinthestandardsandtargetsusedinperformanceindicators.Otherchal-lengesrelatetotheselectionof“ideal”indicatorstofillgaps,theappropriatelevelofaggregation,andthesuitablenumberofindicatorstouse.Thissectionexaminestheseandotherchallengesandsuggestswaystoovercomethem.

Lessons LearnedIssue areas

ChapterThreerevealsthesimilaritiesbetweentheenvironmentalissuesofconcerntoCanadaandtheUnitedStates,theoverlapwiththethemespresentedinglobalindicatorreports,andtheexistenceofanumberofgaps.Forexample,neithertheHeinzCenter’sreportnortheEPAdraftreportincludesindicatorsofclimatechange.Theecosys-temfocusoftheformerprecludesthisissueand,aspointedoutearlier,theEPAchosenottoreportongreenhousegasemissionsduetothe“complexitiesofthisissue”(USEPA2003,1–11).Gapsintheissueareasaddressed,however,aregenerallyduetolackofdataandthedifficultyinmakinglinksbetweenconcernsandenvironmentalcauses;boththesechallengesareaddressedbelow.Thesedifficul-tiesshouldnotprecludeidentifyingcriticalissuesandincludingtheminastate-of-the-environmentreportalongwithidealindicatorsthatmaystillbeindevelopment,asdonebyNTREEandtheHeinzCenter.Plentifuldataexistforanumberofissueareasthatareweaklyrepresentedinsomereports,includingurban,transportation,andenergyissues.TheseareparticularlypertinenttoNorthAmerica’simpactonboththelocalandglobalenvironment.

Ofcourse,asthereportsshow,theissuesad-dressedbyanyNorthAmericanenvironmental

indicatorsinitiativewilldependonthevisionandgoalsofthestakeholdersinvolvedandonavailableresources.Avisionbasedonthegoalofglobalenvi-ronmentalsustainabilitywouldrequirethatNorthAmericameasureandreduceitsimpactonglobalsystems.State-of-the-environmentreportingeffortsbyCanadaandtheUnitedStatesshouldstrengthenassessmentsoftheirecologicalfootprint.

Frameworks

Thevarietyofconceptualandorganizationalframeworksusedbytheorganizationsexaminedabovereflecttheirvariousmandates,goals,andaudiences.Thereisnostandardoridealframework.TheapproachwithwhichtodevelopasetofNorthAmericanenvironmentalindicatorswilldependontheorganizationundertakingtheinitiativeanditsneeds.Someofthelessonslearnedfromthevariousframeworksarediscussedbelow.

Lessons from the PSR approach

Asshowninthepreviouschapters,despiteitsdrawbacks,thePSRframeworkanditsderivativescontinuetobethemodelsofchoicefornumer-ousinitiatives,includingEnvironmentCanada,

SOLEC,UNEP,andOECD.WhenindicatorsarecomplementedwithtextexplainingcontextandprovidingintegratedanalysisasdonebyUNEPinitsGEOreports,forexample,useofthisframe-workavoidstheriskofoversimplificationandfalsecause-and-effectconclusions.

ByorganizingthepresentationofindicatorsusingtheDPSIRapproach(asinAppendix1:Table2),thisstudyrevealsthedearthofindicatorsrepresentingbothdriversofenvironmentalchangeandresponsestoit.Thislackispartlybecause

4 Developing Indicators For north america

Chapter 4

If governments want to promote sustain-able development, they have to make sure that prices and incentives are right. That job requires identifying subsidies, measuring them and assessing their impact (de Moor and Calamai 1997, 2).


someinitiativeshavenotyetfinalizedtheirsetsofindicators,themandateofothersrestrictsthescopeofreportingtopressures,states,andimpacts,andoneofthegoalsofeffectivereportingistolimitthenumberofindicatorstoasmallset.WorldwatchInstitute,whichwasmentionedbutwasnotpartofthedetailedstudy,includesmanyresponseindica-torsinitsState of the World andV�tal S�gnsreportsandthesemakeavaluablecontributionthatcouldprovidemodelresponseindicatorsforotherSOEinitiatives.

TheEPAandEnvironmentCanadareportsbothincludeagraphdepictingoverarchingindi-catorsthatactasdriversofchangeinmostenvi-ronmentalmedia.Noneofthereports,however,isolatesdriversspecifictoeachoftheissueareas.Examplesofsuchdriversaretrendsinsubsidiestoagriculture,fisheries,fossilfuels,waterprovision,wastecollectionanddisposal,andotherperverse

subsidiesthatprovideincentivesforunsustainablepractices.

Ifgovernmentswanttopromotesustainabledevelopment,theyhavetomakesurethatpricesandincentivesareright.Thatjobrequiresidentify-ingsubsidies,measuringthemandassessingtheirimpact(deMoorandCalamai1997,2).

Therearemanytypesofsubsidies,includingdirectbudgetarygrantsandpaymentstoconsumersorproducers;taxpoliciessuchascredits,exemp-tions,andotherpreferentialtaxtreatments;thepublicprovisionofgoodsandservicesbelowcost;capitalcostsubsidiessuchaspreferentialloansanddebtforgiveness;andpoliciesthatcreatetransfersthroughmarketmechanisms(deMoorandCala-mai1997).Withoutacknowledgingandmeasuringdriverssuchasthesesubsidiesandincludingthemalongsideindicatorsofenvironmentalconditions,decision-makerscaneasilyoverlooktheconnec-

Box 26: Measuring environmentally harmful subsidies

ThestocktakingofOECDworkonsubsidiestodatehasidentifiedfivemainapproachestomeasuringthem,someofwhichoverlap:

1.Programmeaggregation—addingupthebudgetarytransfersofrelevantgovernmentprogrammes;inmostcasesdataareatthenational,andnotsub-nationallevel.

2.Price-gap—measuringthedifferencebetweentheworldanddomesticmarketpricesoftheproductinquestion.

3.Producer/consumersupportestimate—measuringthebudgetarytransfersandpricegapsunderrelevantgovernmentprogrammesaffectingproductionandconsumptionalike.

4.Resourcerent—measuringtheresourcerentforegonefornaturalresources.

5.Marginalsocialcost—measuringthedifferencebetweenthepriceactuallychargedandthemarginalsocialcost.

Source:Potier2002,192.

UNEP/MorgueF�le.comEarlymorningshotofalocalfarminColebrook,OntarioCanada.

�3

tionsbetweenenvironmentaldeclineandpoliciesthataffectthemarket.CanadaandtheUnitedStatesaremakingprogressinaddressingtheseis-sues,whichcouldbeillustratedthroughtheuseofindicators.

TheOECDisworkingondevelopingmethodstomeasurehowmuchvariousformsofgovern-mentsupport,includingsubsidies,departfromalevelplayingfield(deMoorandCalamai1997).Ithasidentifiedanumberofapproachestomeasureenvironmentallyharmfulsubsidies(Box26).De-velopingrobustindicatorsforthiskindofdriverofenvironmentalchangeisstillachallenge,however,duetoawiderangeofmeasurementproblems,includingdifferencesindefinitionsof“subsidies”,“support”,and“transfers”andinmethodologicalapproaches;patchyandincompletedata;andnon-comparablesubsidyestimatesacrossvarioussectors(OECD2002a).Toremedytheneedforgreaterconsistencyandinternationalconsensus,interna-tionaleffortsareunderwaytodevelopamorecom-monreportingframeworktoenablethecreationofaggregateindicatorsthatwouldbeusefulformonitoringandthatwouldhelpstandardizedatacollectionandreporting(Steenblik2002).

Assessingtrendsinresponsesisalsoimportantbecause,ifresponsescanbelinkedtoimprovedconditions(states)anddiminishingimpacts,theinformationprovidesincentivestodecision-makerstostrengthenandincreasesupportforresponsestoenvironmentalills.

Responseindicatorsshouldincludethosethataddressissuesthathaveanimpactonglobalenvironmentalquality,suchaspopulationgrowthandpoverty,eventhoughtheissuesmaynotap-pearcriticalindevelopedregionssuchasNorthAmerica.PopulationgrowthcontinuestobeanimportantindicatorinNorthAmerica:theUnitedStatesisoneofthethreemostpopulouscountriesintheworld(afterChinaandIndia)andisexpect-edtostillbeamongthetopthreein2050.Whencombinedwithapatternofhighconsumptionandenergyuse,largepopulationsareapotentdriverofenvironmentalchange.Thefundingofnationalandinternationalpopulationprogrammeswillhelptheworldattainanearlydemographictransitiontoastableorsmallerpopulation(Speth2004),sothecontributionCanadaandtheUnitedStatesmaketosuchprogrammescouldbeincludedinasetofNorthAmericanindicators.

UNEP/MorgueF�le.comAstreetinNewYorkCity,NewYorkUSA.

�3


Box 27: examples of response indicators

Issue examples of response indicators

Population growth Indicatorsthatmeasureincentivesforpopulationcontrol,suchasthepercentageofGNPspentonfundingnationalandinternationalpopulationprogrammes.

Poverty Indicatorsthatmeasurepovertyalleviation,suchasthepercentageofGNPthatgoestowardsfundingOfficialDevelopmentAssistance(ODA).OtherscouldincludethecontributiontotheGlobalEnvironmentalFacilityandotherenvironmentallytargeteddevelopmentaid;exportsortransfersofcost-effectiveandenvironmentallysoundtech-nologiestodevelopingcountries;indicatorsoffairtrade,debtrelief,openingofmarketstodevelopingcountries;andsoforth.

Market failures Indicatorstomeasureprogressinadoptingecologicalfiscalreformtocorrectthemarket,suchasfull-costpricing(makingpricesreflectthefullenvironmentalcosts),theelimina-tionofperversesubsidies,andtaxincentives.Indicatorscouldmeasureinvestmentsandsubsidyprogrammesinenvironmentallybenigntechnologiesandalternativeenergy,suchasgreen-buildingincentives.Theycouldbedevelopedtomeasuretradableemissionpermits;pollutiontaxes(carbon,sulphur,andotheremissions,andtaxesonlandfilling,incineration,andmunicipalgarbagecollection);userfees;congestiontaxes;taxesonmo-torfuel,electricity,andwater;productchargesleviedonpesticides,chlorinatedsolvents,batteries,beveragecontainers,plasticbags,disposablecamerasandrazors,industrialpackaging;andsoforth.Otherindicatorscouldrelatetotaxexemptionsorcreditsforenvironmentally-friendlyactivities,suchaspurchasingahybridcar.Apossibleindicatorisrevenuefromenvironmentally-relatedtaxesasapercentageofGDP.

Consumption Responseindicatorscouldmeasuresustainableconsumption.Indicatorsrelatedtogreen-labelingproductcertificationcouldincludethenumberofacresorpercentageofforestscertifiedassustainablymanaged(undertheForestStewardshipCouncil,forexample);thenumberoffisheriescertifiedassustainable(undertheMarineStewardshipCouncil’spro-gramme);thenumbersorpercentageofcroplandareacertifiedasorganic;thepercentageofsalesinfairtrade,organic,andshade-growncoffeeandcocoaandothergoods,suchascertifiedorganiccotton;thenumberoftourismcompaniesandhotels(andotherserviceproviders)certifiedassustainable;andcertifiedsustainableinvestmentsinenvironmen-tallyandsociallyresponsiblestocks.Otherpossibleindicatorsthatshowresponsestoconsumptionincludethenumberofprogrammesforrecyclingconsumerdurables;thepercentageofgovernmentpurchasingbudgetsdevotedtogreengoodsandservices;indi-catorsofdematerializationandintensityofuse(measuringconsumptionagainsttrendsinGDP);trendsincomposting(numberofcompostingfacilities);percentageofwastewaterre-usedas“greywater”forindustrialprocesses;thenumberofcompaniesissuing“sustain-abilityreports”recommendedbytheGRI;andsoon.

Ecosystem degradation Indicatorsthatmeasureactionsrelatedtoecosystemconservationandrestoration,(“free-ingrivers,restoringwetlands,replantingforests,recharginggroundwaters,regeneratingwastelands,reclaimingurbanbrownfields,reintroducingspecies,removinginvasives”(Speth2004,200).Examplesofindicatorsincludethenumberofacresinconservationeasementsandlandtrusts;numberofacresoferodablecroplandretired;acresundersoilconservationpracticesandIntegratedPestManagement(IPM);andothers.

Energy use Indicatorstomeasureresponsestoenergyuseandtransportationissuesincludetrendsinwind,solar,andgeothermalenergy(suchasthepercentageofelectricitysupply;theannualrateofgrowth;ortrendsingeneratingcapacity);trendsinthefactorypriceforphotovoltaicmodules;trendsinsolarcellshipments;salesofcompactfluorescentbulbs;salesofhybridelectricvehicles;salesofbicycles;milesofbicycleroutes;trendsincompa-niesandcorporationsadoptingGHGemissionreductioncommitments;andothers.

Environmental awareness Indicatorsthatshowprogressindeliveringenvironmentaleducation.Forexample:thenumberofadvanceddegreesinenvironmentalscience,engineering,conservation,naturalresourcesmanagement,andsoon;thenumberofcurricula,materials,andtrainingop-portunitiesthatteachtheprinciplesofsustainabledevelopment;thenumberofschoolsystemsthathaveadoptedK–12voluntarystandardsforlearningaboutsustainabledevel-opmentsimilartostandardsdevelopedundertheUSNationalGoals2000initiative;andothers.

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromPCSD1996;PembinaInstitute2004;Speth2004;WorldwatchInstitute2004.

��

��

Likewise,theircontributionsofOfficialDe-velopmentAssistance(ODA)indicatearesponsetoworldpoverty.Intheirlistsofindicators,theOECDandtheCSDincludeanindicatoroftheshareoffundingforODAinrecognitionoftheUNtargetof0.7percentofgrossnationalproduct(GNP)agreedtobytheinternationalcommunityin1970(ICPD1994).Thisisanimportantindica-torbecausealargeproportionofforeignaidismeanttohelpalleviateenvironmentalproblemsinthedevelopingworld(Boyd2001).Theinclusionofsuchindicatorssupportsinternationalcommit-mentstotheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals,whichfocusonreducingpoverty,hunger,inequal-ity,ill-health,andothermanifestationsofpoverty,aswellasonachievingenvironmentalsustainabil-ity.Thesegoalsaremutuallyreinforcingandhavepositiverepercussionsontheglobalenvironmentaswellasonlocalconditionsindevelopingcountries.

SOEprogrammesthatpublishresponseindica-torsarenotonlydemonstratingthecommitmentoftheirgovernmentsandsocietytoresolvingenviron-mentalills,butarealsoprovidinginformationtodecision-makersandthepublicaboutthekindsofactionsthatcanbetakentoaddressenviron-mentalproblems.Box27listssomeexamplesofresponseindicators.

Finally,thekeyreasonforincludingdriversandresponsesinasetofenvironmentalindicatorsistoemphasizetherelationshipbetweenenviron-mentalconditionsandhumanactivity.Reportingwithstateorconditionindicatorsalonecandivorceenvironmentalqualityfromhumanresponsibility.Pressureindicatorsarealsoimportantinthisregardsincetheyareusuallydirectstressesfromhumanactivities.

Lessons from the natural cap�tal framework

BothCanadaandtheUnitedStateshavebeenad-visedtobroadentheirsystemsofnationalaccountsatthefederallevel.NRTEE’sreportrecommendsthattheCanadiangovernmentexpanditsSystemofNationalAccountstoallowmeasurementofthenation’soverallbaseofcapitalassets.TheUSNationalAcademyofSciencespanelintheUnitedStatesconcludedthat“extendingtheUSnationalincomeandproductaccounts(NIPA)toincludeassetsandproductionactivitiesassociatedwithnat-uralresourcesandtheenvironmentisanimportantgoal”andthat“asetofcomprehensivenon-marketeconomicaccountsisahighpriorityforthenation”(NordhausandKokkelenberg1999:2–3).Indica-torsshowingphysicalflowsofnaturalresourcescanprovideusefulsignsrelatedtoconsumption,oneoftheabidingdriversofenvironmentalchangein

NorthAmerica;abilateralenvironmentalindicatorinitiativeshouldincludethem.Anotheraspectofthisframeworkistheeffectivenessofassigningeco-nomicvaluetoenvironmentalgoodsandservicesandtotheimpactsuponthem,whichhelpstolinkenvironmentalandeconomicdata.

Lessons from the b�ogeophys�cal approach

IndicatorsthatmeasurebiogeophysicalconditionsandtrendsintheenvironmentformthecoreofmostenvironmentalindicatorandSOEprojects.Biogeophysicalperformanceindicatorsfocusonscientificthresholds.Ifbasedonsoundscience,in-dicatorprogrammesusingthisapproachcanclaimtobeunbiasedandnon-partisanbecausetheymakenoconnectionbetweenenvironmentalchangeandpolicy.TheHeinzCenter’srationaleforthisap-proachisthattheindicatorscanserveasacatalystfordebateaboutUSenvironmentalpolicy.

Oneofthedrawbacksofusingthresholdstomeasureenvironmentalqualityisthatcurrentscienceisnotyetabletoidentifythemwithmuchprecision(NTREE2003).Indicatorsofecosystemcapacityandthosethatindicateathresholdbeyondwhichdamagemaybeirreversiblearedifficulttodevelopsincetheyrequireinformationaboutecosystemfunctioningthatisstilllimited.Inaddi-tion,thresholdsforthesametypeofecosystemmaydifferbetweenregions.Therelationshipbetweenthecomplexinteractionsamongecosystemele-mentsandtheeffectonecosystemcapacityisoftenunclear.Identifyingidealcapacityindicatorscouldhighlighttheneedformoresupportforresearchintoecosystemfunctioning.

L�nkages

Thematterofdevelopingaframeworkthatwillhelpindicatorsaccuratelyshowthelinksamongdrivers,pressures,states,impacts,andresponsesremainsahurdle.Therelativeabsenceofindicatorsfortheissuesofhumanenvironmentalhealthandnaturaldisasterscanbeexplainedbythefactthatthelinksbetweenhumanhealthandtheenviron-mentandnaturaldisastersandhumanagencyarestilldifficulttoestablishandportraywithreli-ability.Thecoststohumanhealthandecosystemservices,suchasthecostofhealthcareforthosesufferingfromtheimpactsofairpollutionandsuchascostsrelatedtodamagetoforests,lakes,crops,andbuildingscausedbyacidrain,arealldifficulttomeasurebecausetheimpactsaretheresultsofmorethanonepressure.Moreworkisrequiredtodevelopimpactindicatorsthatmeasurethehumanhealthconsequencesofenvironmentalchangeandmoregenerally,todevelopaframeworkthathelps


maketheconnectionsbetweentheelementsoftheDPSIRmodel.

Inadditiontothemethodologicaldifficultiestoexplainorestablishlinksbetweeneconomicandenvironmentalprocessesexpressedindiffer-entspaceandtimescales,thereareotherelementsofinter-sectoralcharacteristicsthatalsolackclearlinkages:forexample,differentpolicies—urban,environmental,agricultural,communications,andsoforth—havesynergiceffectsthataredifficulttoexplainthroughindicators.

Awayofshowinglinksbetweenpressuresandresponsesistocompareclosely-relatedactivitiesinthesamesector,suchastimber-harvestingratesandregenerationandreplantingrates.Anotherexampleisshowingtheuseofnon-renewablesrelativetoinvestmentsinarenewablesubstitute,suchasoilextractionversustreeplantingforwoodalcohol(Speth2004).Andasmentionedabove,assigningamonetaryvaluetotheenvironmenthelpstolinktheenvironmentandtheeconomy.

TheOECDhasdeveloped“intensity”indica-torsthatareusefultolinkingindicatorsthathelpshowthedecouplingofenergyuseandeconomicgrowthasasignofprogress.Developinginter-nationallycomparableintensityorenergyeffi-ciencyindicatorsismadedifficult,however,bythestructural,behavioural,andeconomicdifferencesamongcountries.Aswell,eachcountryhasitsownmeasures,definitions,currencies,incomeac-counting,andmonitoringtechniques(EIA1995).CanadaandtheUnitedStateshavesimilar-enougheconomies,however,thatsometypesofintensityindicatorscouldfeasiblybeharmonizedtogiveabi-nationalpicture.

Whilemorelinkingindicatorsandframeworksthathelprecognizelinksarebeingdeveloped,indicatorreportsmustcontinuetorelyoninter-pretationprovidedbyaccompanyingtext.UNEP’sintegratedassessmentmethodusedintheGEO

series,forexample,isaneffectivewayoflinkingenvironmentalchangetopolicydecisions.

Informing policy

Perhapsthemostchallengingtaskindevelopingandusingenvironmentalindicatorsistoensuretheyenterthepolicycycleandinfluencedecisions.InarecentsurveyofanumberofindicatorprojectsinNorthAmerica,theauthorrelatesthataccordingtooneofherinterviewees,arecentnationalindica-torreport“...didnotgarneranyperceptiblenoticefromthepolicy-makersforwhomitwasintended”(Pidot2003,15).Environmentalproblemsneedlong-terminvestmentsandpoliticiansareoftenfo-cussedontheirownshortpoliticalterms.Withoutpoliticalwill,environmentalbudgetsremainsmall.FinancialconstraintscancurtailmonitoringanddatacollectionandsoaffectinputstoindicatorandSOEprogrammes(Segnestam2002).

Inadditiontoimprovingthedevelopmentanduseofdriverandresponseindicators,usingindi-catorsthatshowlinkages,andincludingassess-mentinthetext,asunderscoredabove,Chapter1suggestedtheuseofperformanceandcomparativeindicatorstogettheattentionofpolicy-makersandspurthewilltoact(Box28).

Pol�cy targets, gu�del�nes, and standards

Thenationalindicatorreportssurveyeduserela-tivelyfewindicatorsthatmeasureprogressagainstinternationalpolicytargets.Morecommonly,theyuseparametersrelatedtonationalstandardsorguidelinesthatgaugeprogressagainstthresholdsforenvironmentalandhumanhealth.Targets,guide-lines,andstandardsaswellasthelevelofenforce-mentvaryamongcountries,however.CanadaandtheUnitedStatesareworkingtogetheratseverallevelstoimprovethecomparabilityofsomeoftheirstandardsandguidelines,especiallywithrespecttowaterandairstandardsandespeciallyinborderregions.

Nationalcriteriaformaximumlevelsofdrink-ingwatercontaminantsarecomparableinCanadaandtheUnitedStates,withstandardsandnormsvaryingamongstatesandprovinces.Canada’snationalobjectivesareprovidedasguidelines,however,whileUSstandardsarelegallyenforce-

Box 28: Indicators for decision-makers

1.Performanceindicatorswithpolicytargetsorstandardsthatclearlyshowwherepoli-ciesandregulationsneedtobeimprovedorenforced.

2.Comparativeindicatorsorindicesthatshowprogressrelativetoothernations.

3.Highlyaggregatedindicesthatgivevisualsnapshotsofperformance.

Source:Compiledbyauthor.

Indicators prove valuable only if they are publicized and used by citizens’ groups, the media, government, and development agen-cies (Brown, Flavin, and Postel 1991, 130).

��

able(EC2003b).Similarly,criteriaforairqualityinthetwocountriesarecomparablebothintheconcentrationlevelsandinthegoalofprovidingadequatehealthprotection.TheCanadianobjec-tives(NationalAmbientAirQualityObjectives—NAAQOs),althoughmorestringentinmanycases,arenon-binding:theyhavenoattainmentplansorschedules,andthereisnoreportingmechanismtodeterminetheextentofimplementation(CEC2004b).In1998,standardssimilartothoseintheUnitedStatesweresetforparticulatesandozone,tobeachievedby2010.TheUSairstandardsforsixcriteriapollutantsaredefinedbytheNationalAm-bientAirQualityStandardsorNAAQS.Theyarelegallyenforceable(OECD2004a).Sucharethedifficultiesincomparingandcontrastingairqualitystandards,regulations,andenforcementamongthethreecountries,thattheCommissionforEnviron-mentalCooperationrefrainsfromattemptingtodoso,notingthat“componentsofthesesystemsarenotalwaysdirectlycomparable”(CEC2004b,1).

TheCECiscommittedtoestablishingaprocessfordevelopinggreatercompatibilityofenviron-mentaltechnicalregulationsandtoimprovingthequality,comparability,andaccessibilityofenviron-mentalinformationacrossNorthAmerica.

Unlessnationalpolicytargetsarecomparableforcountriesinamultilateralreportinginitiative,theidealpolicy-orientedperformanceindicatorsarethosethatusetargetssetbymultilateralandinternationalagreementsorotherinternationaltargetsandrecommendedstandards.Forexample,theimpactsofairpollutioncanbegaugedbyreportingonthenumberofdaysperyearthattheWHOstandardsareexceeded.Indicatorsincludetheaverageannualmeasuredconcentrationsforsulphurdioxide,nitrogenoxide,carbonmonoxide,ozone,particulates,andlead.

WithinNorthAmerica,someeffortstoalignstandards,suchasregulationsforvehiclesandfuels,areproceedingapace:increasinglystringentemissionstandardsformotorvehicleshavebeenad-opted,forexample,andby2010CanadiannationalstandardsonNOx

andVOCswillbealignedwithUSstandards(OECD2004a).

Whenreportingonissuesforwhichstandardsareincongruous,bilateralandmultilateralindicatorreportinginitiativesmayneedtoportrayperfor-manceindicatorsforeachnationseparately,show-ingeachone’ssuccessinachievingitsowntargetsoradheringtonationalstandards.Finally,whenperformanceindicatorsbasedonnationalorstateandprovincialstandardsandguidelinesaretoodifferent,reportingonthebilateralormultilateralscalemayrequireindicatorsthatarefocussedonabsolutevalues.

Comparat�ve �nd�cators

Policy-makerscanbealertedtoenvironmentalchangeandpromptedtoacttoreverseunsustain-ablepracticesthroughexposuretoSOEpro-grammesthatcompareperformanceeitheragainstthestatusoftheissueatapreviousdate,ortotheprogressmadebyothernations.AsunderscoredinChapter1,thiscouldbeachievedbyprovidingindiceswithclearvisualcluestothestateofprog-ress,suchasmetersandhappy/sadfaces,andbyusingcomparativeindices.Despitethedifficultiesindevelopingcompositeindices,thesecanbemoreusefulforcross-countrycomparisonthanindi-vidualindicators.Usingrelativerankingratherthanabsolutescoreisameanstostimulatechange,andthismethodshouldnotbeeschewedbyareportingprogrammebecauseofthechallengesindevisingfairandunbiasedrankingschemes.Noneofthereportssurveyed,excepttheOECD’s,includedrankingorcomparativeindicators.

Bywayofexample,twostudieshaveusedcom-parativeindicatorstoassessCanada’sperformanceagainstthatofotherOECDcountries.A2001surveyranksCanada’senvironmentalrecordagainst28otherOECDcountriesfor25environmentalindicators(Boyd2001).In2004,theConferenceBoardofCanadaextendeditsanalysisofCanada’ssocioeconomicperformancetotheenvironmentinitsflagshippublicationPerformance and Potent�al,benchmarkingCanadaagainstthebestcountriesintheOECD.Itsclassificationschemeawards“gold”,“silver”,or“bronze”levelstoindividualindicatorsaccordingtowhethertheoutcomeisinthetopthird,middlethird,orbottomthirdoftherangeofperformancefor24OECDcountries(ConferenceBoardofCanada2004).

H�ghly aggregated �nd�ces

Theissueofdevelopingandusingoneindexofen-vironmentalqualityasasingle,easy-to-understandmeasureofnationalenvironmentalperformance,oftheperformanceofanyoneissue(suchaswaterorairquality),orontheintegrityofanecosystemisacontroversialone.Thoseinvolvedindevelop-ingNRTEE’sindicators,forexample,agreednottosupporttheuseofanindexwherethescoreisbasedon“theaggregationofdifferentlyweightedindica-torsbasedondifferentunits”(NRTEE2003,48).

Indicators that are internationally agreed upon will provide an opportunity for compar-isons of environmental performance between countries (Brunvol 1997, 2).


Ontheotherhand,asnotedearlier,easy-to-under-standindicescanattracttheattentionofpolicy-makers.

Lack of comparability

Theissueofincompatiblestandardsillustratesoneofthemostchallengingaspectsofdevelopingindicatorstoportrayaregion.Tobemeaningfulfordecision-makersandtoallowforperformanceevaluationandinternationalcomparison,itises-sentialtohavecoherenceorcomparabilityamongcountriesthroughharmonization(OECD2003).

AlthoughmanyCanadianandUSindicatorshighlightedinthissurveyappearsimilar,therearevaryingdegreesofdifferencesindefinitionsandmethodologies,makingthestandardizationofenvironmentalvariablesacrossthecountriesverydifficult.TheGeorgiaBasin–PugetSoundindica-torprojectprovidesagoodexampleofthetypesofchallengesfacedbytwocountriesattemptingtoreportontheenvironmentalstateofasharedecosystem:solidwasteisdefineddifferentlyineach

jurisdictionandmonitoringtechniquesandmeth-odsofdataanalysisforinhalableparticlesdiffersomewhatbetweenthem.“TheBritishColumbiaPM

10indicatormeasuresthepercentageofmoni-

toredcommunitiesinwhichPM10

levelsexceed25μg/m3morethan5percentofthetimeannually,or18daysperyear.TheWashingtonStatePM

10

indicatorforthePugetSoundregionmeasuresthenumberofdaysPM

10concentrationsatsamplesta-

tionsinmonitoredcommunitiesfallintorangesof0–24μg/m3,25–49μg/m3,50–74μg/m3,and75μg/m3andover”(GBPSEI2002,5,8).

Evenamongtheagenciesthathaveachievedsomesuccessinharmonizingdataacrossnations,usersneedtobeawareofthecaveatsprovidedintechnicalnotesthatexplainremainingdisparities.Forexample,theOECD’sdatafortheconcentra-tionofparticulatesreflectsdifferentmeasurementmethodsforCanadafromthosefortheUnitedStatesanddifferentdefinitionsofthesizeoftheparticulates(OECD2002b).Canada’sNationalIndicatorsandReportingOffice(NIRO)suggeststhatstandardizingthestepsinairqualitymonitor-ingandreportingwouldensurethatnationalandinternationaldataarethesame(NIRO2003b).

Somemoreexamplesfromtheindicatorproj-ectssurveyedaboveservetoillustratethechallengerelatedtothelackofcomparability.Theconserva-tionstatusofspeciesisanimportantindicatorforassessingbiodiversity.Canada’sCommitteeontheStatusofEndangeredWildlifeinCanada(COSE-WIC)determinesthestatusofwildlifespecieswhosefuturemaybeindoubtanddeterminesthestatusdesignation.COSEWICassessesspeciesus-ingastandardizedprocessadaptedfromtheWorldConservationUnion(IUCN)criteriaandclassifies

AferryboatplyingPugetSoundinthelateafternoon. Mary Holl�nger/UNEP/NOAA

The European Environment Agency sums up the common goal of multilateral indicator initiatives: “The overriding objective would be to develop as far as possible a common set supported by a shared system of relevant environmental data information in which all interested parties would co-operate and play a role” (EEA 2003, 10).

��

speciesintosevencategories:Extinct,Extirpated,Endangered,Threatened,SpecialConcern,NotatRisk,andDataDeficient(GovernmentofCanada2004).EnvironmentCanada’sEnvironmentalSignalsreportusesabiodiversityindicatorthatshowsthenumbersofendangeredandthreatenedspecies,subspecies,andpopulationsaccordingtotheseCOSEWICdesignations.In2000,theCa-nadianEndangeredSpeciesConservationCouncil(CESCC)publishedareportthatprovidesamoregeneralstatusassessmentofspeciesinCanadathatisnotmeanttoreplacethein-depthandtargetedCOSEWICevaluationsorprovincialandterritorialequivalents.Itusessomewhatdifferentcategories,classifyingspeciesasoneofExtirpated/Extinct;AtRisk;MayBeAtRisk;Sensitive;Secure;Unde-termined;orNotAssessed,Exotic,orAccidental(CESCC2000).

IntheUnitedStates,formalat-riskspeciesstatusreviewsareconductedthroughdistinctstateand/orfederaladministrativeprocesses.TheUSindicatorreports(USEPAandtheHeinzCenter)useabiodiversityindicatorforthreatenedspe-ciesbasedonaschemedevelopedbyNatureServe,whichusesfivecategories:CriticallyImperiled;Imperiled;VulnerabletoExtirpationorExtinction;ApparentlySecure;andDemonstrablyWidespread,Abundant,andSecure.NatureServerepresentsaninternationalnetworkofbiologicalinventories—knownasnaturalheritageprogrammesorconserva-tiondatacentres—operatinginall50USstates,Canada,LatinAmerica,andtheCaribbean.Thesystemusesstandardcriteriaandrankdefinitionssothatconservationstatusranksarecomparableacrossorganismtypesandpoliticalboundaries.ButNaturalHeritagelistsofvulnerablespeciesandof-

ficiallistsofendangeredorthreatenedspecieshavedifferentcriteria,evidencerequirements,purposes,andtaxonomiccoverage.Forthesereasons,theynormallydonotcoincidecompletelywiththeof-ficialdesignationof“rareandendangered”species(USEPA2003).Thebilateralindicatorforassess-ingtheconservationstatusofspeciesinthecom-binedGeorgiaBasin–PugetSoundregionwasmadepossiblebecauseofNatureServe’sstandardizedmethod(seeFigure27inChapter2).

Inanotherexample,bothcountriesreportonwatererosionbutexpresstheparametersusingdifferentmethods(Figure30).TheUSindicatoraboveinFigure30showsthepercentageofcrop-landfallinginthreecategoriesofwatererosionpotential:mostprone,moderatelyprone,andleastprone.Canada,ontheotherhand,expressestheriskofwatererosioninfiveclassesonly,thelowestofwhich(tolerable)isconsideredsustainablesinceitisoffsetbysufficientsoilbuilding.Theindicator(below)showsthepercentoflandbyregionthatissubjecttotheotherfourclassesofwatererosion(Shelton2000;EC2003a).BothCanadaandtheUnitedStatesuseparametersrelatedtotheuni-versalsoillossequation(USLE)todevelopthesewatererosionindicators.Itisthusfeasiblethatanindicatorcouldbedevisedtousedatafrombothcountriesusingthesamemethodologyandexpress-ingtheresultsinacomparableway.

Despitethedifferencesbetweenthetwocoun-triesinthewaytheyreportonthesetwoissues,thetwoexamplesaboveshowthatinternation-ally-acceptedmethodologiesexist.OtherexamplesincludetheprotocolsandstatisticaltreatmentsformeasuringmeanannualO

3levelovereachcountry,

andguidelinesforreportingtotheUnitedNations

Source:USEPA2003,100;CompiledbyauthorfromSheltonandothers2000http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicator_series/Excel/agri3.xls.

Figure 30: Water erosion indicators for Canada and the US

)


FrameworkConventiononClimateChange(UN-FCCC)onGHGemissions.

ApartfromindicatorworkconductedbytheCommissionforSustainableDevelopment,theOECD,andUNEP,describedinChapter3,anumberofotherinternationalindicatorinitiativesprovideguidelinesforusingstandardizedindica-tors.TheUnitedNation’sHabitatprogrammehasdevelopedanindicatorssystemforreportingonurbanissues.ItsUrban Ind�cators Tool K�tprovidesaquantitative,comparativebaseforassessingtheconditionoftheworld’scitiesandformeasuringprogresstowardsachievingurbanobjectives(UNHabitat2003).TheWorldHealthOrganization’sreportEnv�ronmental Health Ind�cators: Framework and Methodolog�esestablishesasetofindicatorsformonitoringtrendsinenvironmentandhealth(Briggs1999).AnotherWHOreportprovideslistsofpotentialindicatorsforchildren’senvironmental

health(seeBriggs2003).Asmentionedbefore,theCommissionforEnvironmentalCoopera-tioncoordinatedNorthAmericaneffortstoselectandpublishacoresetofchildren’senvironmentalhealthindicators(CEC2006).BothcountriesreportonthesustainabilityoftheirforestsusingindicatorsestablishedbytheMontrealProcess(SeeCCFM2000andUSDA2004)10.

Protocolsandguidelinesareoftendrawnupbymultilateralindicatorinitiativestoensureadegreeofcomparabilityamongthenationsinvolved;theyfrequentlystipulatetheuseofinternationallyac-ceptedmethodsandprovideguidelinesforhowtoexpressresultsinacomparablemanner.TheCom-missionforSustainableDevelopment’sveryusefulsystemofmethodologysheetsisanexample(Box29)(UNDESA2001a;UNDESA2001b).

Satelliteremotesensingisascientificmethodofreportingonenvironmentalconditionsthatover-comestheproblemofcomparabilityacrossnations.Itisapromisingwaytoprovideoverall,integratedviewsoftheextentofecosystemsandcertainaspectsoftheirconditionevenwhentheycrosspoliticalborders.Anotheradvantageisthatphotosareexcellentvisualtools.However,theyareoftenonlyavailableattheappropriatescaleforonetimeperiod.In2005,UNEPreleasedOne Planet Many People: Atlas of Our Chang�ng Env�ronment,whichusespairedimagesasaneffectivetooltoportrayenvironmentalchange.

Spatial and temporal scales

Spat�al scale

Informationneedsvaryatlocal,regional,andgloballevels.Indicatorsdevelopedforlocal-levelis-suesortoportraypropertiesofaspecificecosystemmaynotbeusefulforanotherspatialscaleorlendthemselvestoaggregationforahigherspatiallevel.Decidingonthetrade-offbetweenthesimplicityofaggregationandthelossofdetailitentailsisoneofthechallengesofdevelopingnationalandgloballevelindicators.Differentindicatorsmaybeneededforeachscale(CSIRO1999;UNESCO2003).

Mostindicatorsaredevelopedforuseatthena-tionallevel.Findingmeaningfulindicatorstorepre-sentconditionswithinthevarioussub-regionsandecosystemsofacountryisachallenge.Thisisespe-ciallythecasewithlargecountrieswithhighlevelsofheterogeneitysuchasCanadaandtheUnitedStates(Gallopín1997).Airandwaterqualityindi-catorsareparticularlydifficulttodevelopathigherlevelsofsynthesisoraggregationsinceinternationalandnationalair-andwatershedsdonotexistandpoliticalboundariesusuallydefinebothdatacollec-

Box 29: CSD’s methodology sheets1.Indicator(a)Name(b)BriefDefinition(c)UnitofMeasurement:%.(d)PlacementintheCSDIndicatorSet

2.PolicyRelevance(a)Purpose(b)RelevancetoSustainable/UnsustainableDevelopment(theme/sub-theme)(c)InternationalConventionsandAgreements(d)InternationalTargets/RecommendedStan-dards

3.MethodologicalDescription(a)UnderlyingDefinitionsandConcepts(b)MeasurementMethods(c)LimitationsoftheIndicator(d)StatusoftheMethodology(e)AlternativeDefinitions/Indicators

4.AssessmentofData(a)DataNeededtoCompiletheIndicator(b)NationalandInternationalDataAvailabilityandSources(c)DataReferences

5.AgenciesInvolvedintheDevelopmentoftheIndicator(a)LeadAgency(b)OtherContributingOrganizations

6.References(a)Readings(b)InternetsitesSource:AdaptedfromUNDESA2001.

10Canada’sframeworkis80percentcompatiblewiththeMontrealProcess(CCFM2000).

��

tionandpolicydecisions(Segnestam2002;NIRO2003b).Developingindicatorsthatovercomethedifficultiesinherentinportrayingdifferentterritori-al(orwater-based)units—ecosystems,watersheds,landscapes,andsoon—usingsocioeconomicdatathatareorganizedbyadministrativeunitsremainsahurdle.Furthermore,manyecologicalindicatorsonlyapplytoaspecificareaorecosystemortoaparticularspeciesorpopulationandsocannotserveasnationwideindicators(CGER2000).

InternationalSOEreportinginitiatives,suchasthoseundertakenbyOECD,UNEP,andWRIandpartners,dependonnational-levelindicatorsanddataprovidedbycontributingcountries.Country-,region-,andecosystem-specificindicatorsoftenac-companyinternationalindicatorssets(MAP1998).Sincecountry-specificconditionsareseldomcom-parable,internationalandregionalcomparisonsareusuallyaccompaniedbyinterpretationthatexplainstheecological,geographical,social,economic,andinstitutionalcontexts.

Thissurveyillustratessomeofthesechallenges:asyet,thereisanunexploredopportunitytoreportcoherentlyonmanydifferentaspectsofuniformterritorialspacesthattraversepoliticalboundaries,inpartbecauseofthedifferentpressureshumanac-tivityexertsonthoseplaces(populationpressures,forexample)oneachsideoftheborder.

Temporal scale

Includingindicatorsforemergingenvironmen-talissuesisawaytoinfluencedecisionsandhelppromptaction.Bythetimeenvironmentalchangeisconfirmedbytrendindicators,theyarenolongerusefulindesigningpreventivepolicies.Ontheotherhand,indicatorswithhistoricaldatasetsallowthetrackingoftrendsoverrelativelylongperiodsoftime.Thissupportsthemeasurementofenvironmentalchangeandenablestrackingthesuccessofearlierpolicymeasures.

Theotherchallengerelatedtothetemporalscaleofindicatorsconcernsthedifficultyinmatch-ingdatacollectedduringdifferenttimeperiods.Table2,whichprovidesthedatesofthetimeseriesforeachindicator,istestimonytothisfact.OECDandUNEPnotethegreatvarietyinconsistencyandcompletenessoftimeseriesdataforissuesandnations,whichhampersasystematicandmean-

ingfulpresentationoftrendsoverlongerperiodsandmakescomparisonproblematic(UNEP1999;OECD2003).

Numbers and sets of indicators

Thereisagreatdealofconsensusintheliteraturethatthenumberofindicatorsshouldbekepttoaminimum.TheHeinzCenterhadsomedifficultyinreducingthenumberofindicatorstoamini-mum.Theaimwastobesuccinctsothatthereportwouldactuallybereadandabsorbedbypolicy-makers(Pidot2003).Followingrecommendationsreceivedduringreview,theCSDshorteneditsfirstlistofindicatorstoasmaller,coresetfromwhichindividualuserscanselectthosethatbestfittheirneeds.ThesolutionforthecreatorsoftheStateoftheGreatLakesreportswastotrytodevelopindicatorsforallimportantissuesandtoselect

fromthelistalimitednumbertobeincludedinproductstailoredforparticularaudiences(Pidot2003).Similarly,theOECDdevelopedasuiteofindicatorlistsadaptedtodifferentuses.ThetwoCanadianreportscontainedfarfewernumbersofindicatorsthanthetwoUSreportshighlightedinthisstudy,favouringaconciseapproachorientedtopolicymakers.ThelistofindicatorsinUNEP’sfirstyearlyreportisalsolimited.Sometimes,thelimitednumberofindicatorswasnotachoice.NRTEEfocussedononlysixindicatorsbecausethesecouldbedevelopedintheshortterm,andtheGeorgiaBasin–PugetSoundEnvironmentalIndicatorsgroupkeptitsinitiallistofindicatorsshortduetoalimitedbudgetandstaff,andplansonincreasingthenumberinthenextedition.Mostoftheinitia-tivesincludedaselectfewheadlineorkeyindica-torsinasummarysection.Inshort,itappearsthatitisconsideredimportanttoeitherkeepindicatorsetsshort,ortoatleasthighlightkeyindicators.

Data limitations

Alltheinitiativessurveyed(aswellastheliteratureexamined)notedthelackofavailabledatatosup-portindicatorsandthewidevariationintheavail-abilityofdata.Ofthe103indicatorsintheHeinzreport,fullorpartialdataareprovidedfor58(or

The time scale of an indicator also affects the usefulness and interpretation of indica-tors (Segnestam 2002, 21).

The number of environmental indicators rep-resents a critical issue. The inherent purpose of indicators dictates that the number should be limited (Rump 1996, 75).


56percent).Forty-fiveindicators(or44percent)donotincludedata,eitherbecauseofthelackofavailabledatafornationalreportingorbecausetheindicatoritselfneedsfurtherdevelopment(HeinzCenter2003).SeventypercentoftheindicatorsintheEPA’sDraftReportontheEnvironmentsuf-feredfrominsufficientdata(USGAO2004).

SOLECdevelopedmonitoringprogrammestofilldatagaps,butoftenlackedthebudgettocreatedatasetsforallindicatorsofinterest(Pidot2003).

Canada’sNationalRoundTableontheEnviron-mentandtheEconomy(NRTEE)andtheEPAbothnotedtwomajordataproblems:thelackofcomparabledataacrosseachcountry,limitingtheabilitytoprovideanationalsnapshot,andgapsinspatialandtime-seriesdata(NRTEE2003;USEPA2003).Intheory,indicatorsandindicesshouldbeinformedbyabroadbaseofreliablepri-marydata,asinthepyramidontheleftinFigure31;inreality,theinformationpyramidisupsidedown(Singh,Moldan,andLoveland2002).

AsnotedinChapter3,therearefewindicatorsforindoorair,toxicsubstances,landuse,coastalandmarineecosystems,grasslandsandshrublands,andurbanareasinboththeNorthAmericanandinternationalreports.TheNorthAmericanini-tiativesareweakinreportingonfishresources,

protectedareas,naturaldisasters,andexpenditures.Datalimitationscontributetothelackofadequateindicatorsfortheseissues.

Thetemptationistouseindicatorsforwhichdataarereadilyavailable,buttheliteraturenotestheimportanceofnotnarrowingtheoptionswhendevelopingindicatorsets(Gallopín1997).TheHeinzCenter’sinitiativeindefiningidealindica-torsprovidesamodelofhowtostimulateeffortstogatherneededdata.Notonlyaredatalacking,butfrequently,availabledataarenotsuitableforpopulatingindicatorsbecauseofvariablequality.Datatimelinessalsoaffectsthesuccessofindica-tors.Bythetimeindicatorsarereleased,eventhemostcurrentenvironmentaldataareoftenoutofdatebyseveralyears,limitingtheeffectivenessoftheirimpactonpolicy(OECD2003).

UNEPnotesthislackofhigh-quality,com-prehensive,andtimelydataontheenvironment,especiallyintheareasoffreshwaterquality,marinepollution,wastegenerationandmanagement,andlanddegradation.Thesegapslimittheabilitytoaccuratelyassesstheextentofproblemsassociatedwiththeseissues(UNEP2004a).AttheNorthAmericanlevel,theissuesforwhichtheamountandqualityofdataarelackingincludecoastalandmarineecosystems;grasslandsandshrublands;indoorairquality;numbersofspecies;invasivespe-cies;wetlands;andurbanareas.

Thecomparabilityandcompatibilityofdataacrossnationsisanotherimportantissue.Asnotedelsewhere,withoutdatathatrefertothesamedefi-nition,standards,anddates,aggregationtoregionalandgloballevelsisverydifficult(UNEP1999).

BothCanadaandtheUnitedStatesareat-temptingtoaddressissuesrelatedtodataacquisi-tion,compatibility,andtimelinesswithintheir

Figure 31: The information pyramid

Source:Singh,Moldan,andLoveland2002,18http://na.unep.net/publications/newtools.pdf

A sobering and recurring theme throughout many of these reports is the lack of suitable data to quantify important aspects of the state of the environment in ways that are comparable across the geographic extent and time-horizon of the report (Parris 2000).

�3

ownborders,tappingsolutionsnowavailableduetoadvancesindigitaltechnologies.InresponsetoEPA’soutmodeddatamanagementsystemsthatreliedondatabasesthatweregenerallynottechni-callycompatible,theUnitedStatesinitiatedtheNationalEnvironmentalInformationExchangeNetworktotransformthewaydataareexchangedamongtheEPA,states,andotherpartners.Theaimistoconverthistoricalsystem-specificdataflowstonetworkflowsusingtheInternetandstandard-izeddataformats,tosecurereal-timeaccessandtoallowtheelectroniccollectionandstorageofreli-ableandaccurateinformation(ExchangeNetwork2004;NetworkBlueprintTeam2000;USGAO2004).Inaddition,theUnitedStatesisworkingontheNationalEcologicalObservatoryNetwork(NEON).Itwillbeanobservationsystembasedonanintegrated,continent-widecyber-infrastructuretoenableecologicalforecastingandprovide“na-tionallynetworkedresearch,communication,andinformaticsinfrastructureforcollaborative,com-prehensiveandinterdisciplinarymeasurementsandexperimentsonecologicalsystems”(NEON2004).

Anotherefforttostandardizeenvironmentalin-formationistheGlobalEarthObservationSystemofSystems,orGEOSS.Thisisaten-yearinterna-tionalcooperativeinitiativetoenableprojectsthatendeavortomonitortheland,sea,andairaroundtheworldtocommunicatewithoneanothersoastocombineandwidelydisseminatetheinformation(GAO2004).Inpartnershipwithothernations,theUnitedStateswillworktowardsthegoalofestablishingthisinternational,comprehensive,coordinated,andsustainedsystemtoobservetheEarthusingandmakingcompatibleexistingandnewhardware(USEPA2004).

In2000,CanadabeganworkonestablishingtheCanadianInformationSystemfortheEnvi-ronment(CISE),whichisintendedtobeabetterapproachtocollectingandusingenvironmentalinformation.Thegoalistodevelopanintegrated,strategicenvironmentalinformationsystem,linkedtoeconomicandhumanhealthinformationsys-tems,thatwouldsupportanationalsetofsustain-abledevelopmentandnationalenvironmentalindicatorsandprovidecomprehensive,continuous,andcredibleinformationonthestateoftheenvi-ronment.ItisenvisionedthatCISEwouldpro-videaclearinghouseofenvironmentalstandards,indicators,policytargets,anddatasets,usingnewInternettechnologiestolinkdatabasesheldbydif-ferentorganizationsthroughadistributeddatabasestructureandagreed-tostandards(CISE2004;NIRO2003a).

Attheinternationallevel,theInternationalSteeringCommitteeforGlobalMappingiswork-

ingonaglobalspatialdatainfrastructureofknownandverifiedqualityandconsistentspecifica-tions,whichwillbeopentothepublic.DataareproducedthroughcooperationamongnationalmappingorganizationsparticipatingintheGlobalMappingproject.ThereisanintegrateddatasetforMexico,Canada,andtheUnitedStates,andthethreecountriesareworkingtogetheronanewdigi-taldatabaseforaframeworkforcomparativedata.Theyuseaninteroperablewebserverapproach,andaccesstothedatawillbefree(ISCGM2004).

TheGlobalBiodiversityInformationFacility(GBIF)isanotherefforttoputdatasetsofenvi-ronmentalinformationtogetherandmaketheminteroperableglobally.Itsaimistobecomeaninteroperablenetworkofbiodiversitydatabasesthatwillallowaccesstothevastamountofbiodiversitydataheldinavarietyofcollectionsthroughouttheworld(GBIF2004).SuchinteroperabledatasystemsshouldbeinvaluabletobilateralSOEandindicatorsprojectsinNorthAmerica.

Management and monitoring issues

Newdataarefrequentlyexpensiveandtime-con-sumingtocollect,soSOEreportingandindicatorinitiativesoftenrelyonexistingdata,especiallyathigherspatialscales.Ideally,theidentificationofaneedforindicatorstofillgapsinknowledgeshouldinfluencethedesignofmonitoringprogrammes,promptingthegatheringofdatatopopulatenewindicators.Forexample,byproducingacompre-

hensivelistofindicators,SOLECexpectstoinflu-encefuturemonitoringanddata-gatheringefforts.Itisbelievedthatinvolvingmultiplestakeholdersinthedevelopmentprocess,wheretheylearnaboutwhatinformationisnecessaryandsufficienttocharacterizethehealthoftheGreatLakesecosys-tem,helpstofostercost-efficient,standardized,andrelevantmonitoringprogrammes(BertramandStadler-Salt2000).Similarly,inidentifyingindica-torsthatstillneedtobedevelopedandforwhichdataarelacking,theHeinzCenteralsopointstowhereadditionalmonitoringisneeded.NRTEEidentifiedtheneedforgood-qualityinformationandrecommendedthattheCanadiangovernment

It is critical that both the scientists who will op-erate environmental monitoring networks and the scientists who plan to use the resulting data be involved in system design, system upgrade, data evaluation, and data dissemination (CGER 1997, 31).


improveandexpanddatastructuresandinforma-tionsystemsrequiredtoreportonnationalcapitalandtoinvestinimprovedmonitoringandinforma-tionsystemstoovercomethepaucityofgood-qual-ity,national-levelinformationonenvironmentalissues(NRTEE2003).

Frequentlythereisalackofcoordinationamongmonitoringnetworksandbetweenmoni-toringandindicatorinitiatives.Chapter1notedtheneedforboththesesystemstobeembeddedinaniterativepolicycyclewithlong-termgoalsandobjectives.Ideally,indicatorprofessionalsandscientistsinvolvedinmonitoring,alongwithotherstakeholders,shouldcollaborateindesigningSOEprogrammesandindicators.

DuringdeliberationsaboutindicatorsfortheGulfofMaine,participantsagreedthatanintegrat-edmonitoringnetworkwouldenabletheregiontocomparedataonaregionalbasisandwouldallowforfuturestatusandearlywarningassessments.Aunitedapproachwouldhelptoprovidemanagersandregulatoryofficialswithacommonmessageandwouldmakeitmorelikelythatthemessagewillbeheard(GMCME2002).

Collaboration

Duringthepreparationforitsnationalenviron-mentalindicatorsandreportingstrategy,Envi-ronmentCanadanotedthelackofcollaborationamongthenation’svariousindicatorinitiatives.Thereis“apatchworkquiltofindicatorsandmodels,withtoolittleconsistency,andtoomuch

potentialforeitheroverlapandduplicationofeffortorgapsthatneedtobeaddressed.Intheend,thelackoflinkages—thelackofknowledgesharing—maybeseriouslyinhibitingtheabil-ityofenvironmentalindicatorsandreportingprogrammestosupportsoundpolicy-makingforsustainabledevelopment”(NIRO2003a,19).Since2002,EnvironmentCanadaandStatisticsCanadahavebeenworkinghand-in-handtodeveloptheirrespectiveindicatorsetsandtogenerateorstimu-latethegenerationofneededdata.Bythesame

token,theUSGovernmentAccountabilityOfficenotesthatbettercoordinationisneededtodevelop

environmentalindicatorsetsthatinformdecisions(USGAO2004).TheEPAandtheHeinzCenterintheUnitedStatesarealsocollaboratingintheirrespectiveindicatorinitiatives.Thethreecross-bor-derecosysteminitiativeshighlightedinChapter2areexamplesofsuccessfulcollaborationbetweenCanadaandtheUnitedStates,withtheparticipa-tionofawiderangeofstakeholders,includingmanylevelsofgovernment.Atthebinationallevel,however,thetwocountrieshavenotyetestablishedanongoingcollaborativeefforttodevelopanduseindicatorstoportraytheconditionsandtrendsoftheirlargersharedenvironment.

Summary of lessons learned

•ThePSRandDPSIRframeworksaresoundtools:theyareusedandunderstoodinterna-tionally;theyarestillbeingperfectedandcanbeadaptedtotheneedsofeachuser.

•Thebetteruseofdriverandresponseindi-catorsenablesthedevelopmentofamorecompleteDPSIRprofileforeachissueandstimulatesanunderstandingofthelinkagesamongdrivers,impacts,andresponses.

•Intensityindicators,pressure-impactindica-torssuchasmaterialflows,pressure-responseindicators,andnaturalcapitalaccountingindicatorsaresomeofthewaystohelpshowlinkages.

•BiogeophysicalindicatorswillcontinuetoformthecoreofSOEreportinginitiatives;scientificallysoundbenchmarksarestillbeingimproved.

•Humanenvironmentalhealthindicatorsareincreasinglybeingdeveloped.

•Integratedenvironmentalassessmentmakesinter-linkagesmoreexplicit.

•Performanceindicesandrelativerankingofcountryperformancecanstimulatedecision-makerstoaddressenvironmentalissues.

•Indicatorsthatmeasureprogressinadheringtogoalsandtargetsininternationalandbilat-eralagreementsusedefinitionsandmethod-ologiesthathavealreadybeenagreedupon.

•Methodologiesagreed-uponinternationallyformeasuringenvironmentalconditionsal-lowforcomparability.

•Protocolsorguidelinesfostertheuseofcomparablemethodologiesformultilateralindicators.

•Whenavailable,satelliteremotesensingprovidesvisuallyexplicitindicatorsofland-usechange.

•Developingindicatorsforemergingissuesearlyoninthemonitoringstagecaninfluence

If all of these efforts are performed in isolation, the methods and data could differ enough that 1) the tracking of global and cross-jurisdictional issues would not be possible and 2) lessons-learned in one country for a given issue may be difficult or impossible to apply in another (NIRO 2003b, 32).

��

datagathering.

•Historicaltrendindicatorscanenabletheevaluationofpolicyperformance.

•Spatialscaleisimportanttoconsiderateachlevelofdecisionmaking,aswellasinhowdataarecollected.

•Indicatorsdevelopedbyinternationalagen-ciesandorganizationssuchasOECD,UNEP,andWRIandpartnersareusefulformultilat-eralreporting,sincenational-leveldatahavealreadybeensynthesizedoraggregatedtorepresentregions.

•Wheninterpretedincontext,country-specificandecosystem-levelindicatorsareusefulinaccompanyingmultilateralorinternationalindicators.

•Setswithalimitednumberofindicatorsaremorereadable;coresetsofindicatorscanbeadaptedtodifferentneeds.

•Asmallersetofheadlineorsummaryindica-torsisusefultodecision-makers.

•Complementaryindicatorscanbeusedtoreflectconcernsrelatedtotheauthoragency’smandate,goals,andprogrammes.

•Identifyingidealindicatorsregardlessoftheavailabilityandqualityofdataandthe

existenceofafullydevelopedindicatorcanstimulatetargetedmonitoring.

•Ideally,theintervalbetweentheperiodtowhichdatareferandthedatewhentheindicatorsarereleasedshouldbeasshortasispracticable.

•Interoperabledatasystemsarebeingdevel-opedandwillincreaseaccesstostandardizeddata.

•Cooperationbetweenindicatorpractitionersandthescientistsinvolvedinmonitoringhelpstoembedindicatorprojectsintheman-agementandpolicycycles.

•Indicatorprojectsforsharedecosystemspro-videlessonsinhowtocollaboratetodevelopmultilateralindicators.

Conclusions

Thissectionconsolidatesthefindingsandrecom-mendationsandsuggestsstepstowardsthegoalofcreatingacoresetofharmonizedenvironmentalindicatorsforCanadaandtheUnitedStates.Ideal-ly,stakeholdersfrombothcountriesandalllevelsofthemanagementcyclewouldcooperatetodevelopacommonsetofindicatorsandasharedenvironmentaldatasystembasedoncommon

BeaverDamonMcgregorRanch,nearRockyMountainNationalPark,USA. Gary Kramer/UNEP/NRCS

��


monitoringmethods.Giventhatnationalgovern-mentsarestillgrapplingwithhowtocreatemorecomparabilityamongsub-nationallevelsofstate-of-the-environmentreportingandmonitoring,theapproachtoachievingthisgoalshouldremainflexibleandbebasedongradualimprovementovertime(CEC2003).

ThefollowingproposedstepsareadaptedfromthegenericstepsoutlinedinBox9:

1.Setoutthevisionandgoalsoftheindicatorproject.

2. Identifystakeholdersfrombothcountriesrep-resentingalllevelsofthemanagementprocess(governments,monitoringprogrammes,sta-tisticsdepartments,andsoforth—seeFigure13).Holdabrain-stormingsessiontoidentifythemesandissuesrelatedtotheoverarchingvisionandgoals.

3. Prioritizetheissues(seeBox10).

4. Developsetsofquestionsrelatedtoeachissuetoprompttheidentificationofindicators(seeexamplesinBox11).

5. Proposecandidateindicatorsthatrespondtothequestionsposed.

6. Selectananalyticalframeworkthatlinksgoalstoindicators(seeChapter1).

7. Developalistofcriteriaforindicatorselec-tion(seeBox12),complementinggenericcriteriawiththoserelatedspecificallytotheproject’svision.

8. Evaluateindicatorsaccordingtothecriteria.

9. Narrowdowntheindicatorstoalimitedandmanageableset.Definecomplementarysets

ofindicatorsifneedbe(seeBox13).

10.Decideonlevelsofaggregationandtypesofindices;identifyheadlineorkeyindicators.

11.Preparemethodologysheetsforeachindicator(seeBox29).

12.Identifydatasources(seeAppendix2).13.Gatherdatatopopulatetheindicators,begin-

ningwithexistingdata(seeTable6).14.Standardizemeasurementwhereverpossible;

noteincongruities,withaviewtoimprovingcomparability.

15.Compareindicatorvaluestotargets,thresh-olds,andpolicygoalsasappropriate,begin-ningattheinternationalandbilaterallevelsbutusingnational-leveltargetsintheabsenceofhigherlevelsofagreement.

16.Identifydatagaps,retainingunpopulatedindicatorsandthosethatrevealincomparabil-itybetweenthetwocountriesintheindicatorset(s),tostimulateeffortstofillgaps.

17.Decideonasuiteofproductstocommuni-catetheresults.

18.Disseminatetheresults,focusingonpolicy-makers.

19.Conductanassessmentoftheuseoftheproductsbydecision-makers.

20.Assessstrengthsandweaknessoftheindicatorset(s).

21.Continuetodevelopsuperiorindicators.

Theinformationinthisreportshouldfacilitatemanyofthestepssuggestedabove.TheindicatorsinAppendix1:Table2,extractedfromthenation-al-levelCanadianandUSreportssurveyed,could

AhumpbackwhaletailintheGulfofMaine. Capta�n Albert E. Theberge/UNEP/NOAA

��

informafirstlistofcandidateindicators,aspro-posedinStep5.Thefollowingtable(Table6)isalistofindicatorsforwhichcomparabledataalreadyexistforbothnationseitherseparatelyorasanintegratedregion.Itprovidessourcesofthesedataandisafirststeptowardsstep13,“Gatherdatatopopulatetheindicators,beginningwithexistingdata”.DataforalargenumberoftheseindicatorsarederivedfromtheOECD,allowingthedatatobeintegratedsoastoprovideaNorthAmericanperspective.Basedonthislist,Chapter5providesasetofindicatorsforwhichcomparabledataexistasanexampleofhowindicatorscanbeusedtoshowtrends.Finally,Appendix2containsapreliminarylistofdatasourcesforaselectsetofenvironmentalissues,facilitatingStep12,“Identifydatasources”.

Insummingup,thisreporthasshownthesignificantroleenvironmentalindicatorscanhaveininformingenvironmentalpolicy.Tohelpdeliverinformationtodecision-makers,SOEprojectsneedtoincludearangeofindicatorsrelatedtoavisionforasustainableenvironment.Regular,periodicassessmentsofprogresstowardsenvironmentalgoals,usingclearandcompellingindicators,willgivedecision-makersameanstomeasureprogresstowardsenvironmentalsustainability.SOEreportsshouldincludeasetofcoreindicatorsthatrevealconditionsandtrendsandthatincludeindicatorsofdriversandresponses,intensityindicators,andperformanceandcomparativeindicatorslinkedtotargetsandbenchmarks.Thelinksbetweenpolicy

andenvironmentalconditionscanbeshownbycarefulinterpretationofindicatorprofiles,whileef-fortsshouldcontinuetoimproveconceptualframe-worksthatreveallinkagesamongtheelementsoftheDPSIRapproachandthatintegratemultipleeffectsintothemodel.Workshouldcontinueondevelopingindicatorstoshowthelinksbetweenhumanhealthandwell-beingandhuman-inducedenvironmentalchange.RegionalSOEinitiativesshouldalsoacknowledgelinkswiththerestoftheworld,byrevealingimpactsontheglobalenviron-ment,forexample.

Implicitinthestepssetoutaboveistheneedforcooperationbetweenthetwocountriestoproduceafirstsetofenvironmentalindicatorsfortheregion.Thiswillrequirecollaborationindeci-sionsaboutwhichinternationalindicatorsaremostappropriateandinthedevelopmentofnewre-gionalindicatorsthatrenderdata,definitions,andmethodscomparable.Finally,theselectedindica-torsshouldrefertoavisionfortheenvironmentalhealthoftheNorthAmericanregion.Regular,pe-riodicassessmentsoftheregion’sprogresstowardsenvironmentalgoalssharedbythetwocountriesthatrevealconditionsandtrendswithclearandcompellingindicatorswillgivedecision-makersameanstomeasureprogresstowardsenvironmen-talsustainability.

SunsetonLakeWatertoninWaterton,Canada. UNEP/MorgueF�le

��


Table 6: Feasible bilateral environmental indicators for Canada and the United States

Issue Feasible bilateral indicators Potential sources

economy GDP OECD2002b

structureofGDP OECD2002b

percapitaGDP OECD2001

Population totalpopulation OECD2002b

FAOSTAT2004

populationgrowthanddensity OECD2001;OECD 2002b;UNDP2003; FAOSTAT2004

Consumption totalandpercentbytype,percapitaprivate OECD2002b finalconsumptionexpenditure totalprivatefinalconsumptionexpenditure, OECD2001;OECD2002b andaspercentGDP

energy energysupplypercapita IEA2003a;OECD2001

energysupplyperunitGDP IEA2003a;OECD2001

totalprimaryenergysupply EIA2003a;OECD2001

totalprimaryenergysupplybysource EIA2003a;OECD2001 (percentshareoftotal)

totalandpercapitaenergyconsumption OECD2002b;IEA2003a

energyconsumptionbysource IEA2003a;OECD2002b

energyconsumption/GDP IEA2003a;OECD2002b; UN2004

Transportation roadtraffic/unitGDP OECD2001

roadfuelpricesandtaxesbytype OECD2001;OECD2002b

roadnetworklength OECD2002;IRF2004

roadvehiclestocks OECD2001;OECD2002b

roadtrafficpernetworklength OECD2001

roadtrafficvolumes OECD2001;OECD2002b

transportbymode OECD2002b

consumptionofroadfuels OECD2002b

consumptionofalternativeandreplacementfuels StatisticsCanada2000b forroadmotorvehicles

annualreceiptsfromroadusertaxation IRF2004

averagepriceoffossilfueltoend-users StatisticsCanada2000b

newmodelyearfuelefficiencyforroad StatisticsCanada2000b motorvehicles

federalemissioncontrolrequirementsfor StatisticsCanada2000b passengercarsandlighttrucks

energyconsumptionbytransportsector,andmode OECD2001;OECD2002b; StatisticsCanada2000b

��

Climate change percapitaCO2emissions OECD2001;Marland

&others2003

totalannualCO2emissions,andbysource OECD2001;Marland

&others2003;UN2004

CO2emissions/unitGDP OECD2001

CO2emissionsfromenergyuse OECD2001;OECD2002b

GHGemissions UNFCCn.d.;IEA2003b, OECD2002b

averagetemperaturevariationinNorthAmerica CCME2003;NCDC andNOAA2004

Ozone layer ODSconsumptionandproduction OECD2001;UNEP 2002c;UN2004

O3levelsoverNorthAmerica USEPA2003

totalcolumnO3overselectedcities OECD2001

air quality SOXandNO

XemissionsperunitGDP OECD2001;OECD2002b

percapitaSOXandNO

Xemissions,andintensities OECD2001

totalSOXandNO

Xemissions,andbysource OECD2001;OECD2002b

ambientconcentrationsofSO2andNO

2, OECD2001;OECD2002b

selectedcities

concentrationsofparticulates,selectedcities OECD2002b

emissionsofCObysource OECD2002b

emissionsofVOCbysource OECD2002b

O3concentrationsbyregion(easternand EC2002

westernCanadaandUS)

acid deposition trendsinCanada-USSO2emissions EC2002

trendsinCanada-USNOXemissions EC2002

changeinwetsulphatedeposition EC2003c;EC2002

changeinwetnitratedeposition EC2003c;EC2002

Indoor air

Toxic substances PCBsinGreatLakesfishtissue USEPA2003

GreatLakesatmosphericdepositionofPCBs USEPA2003 andDDT

contaminantlevels(ppmDDTandPCBs)in EC2003 double-crestedcormoranteggs,GreatLakes

toxicreleasesandtransfers,matchedindustries CEC2004a andchemicals

mercuryemissionsfrompowerplants CEC2004a

Waste generationofhazardous,industrial,andradioactive OECD2002b wasteandmunicipalsolidwaste(MSW)

percapitagenerationofhouseholdandmunicipal OECD2001;OECD2002b solidwaste(MSW),andnuclearwaste

productionofindustrialandhazardous OECD2001 waste/unitGDP

recyclingrates(%)ofpaper,cardboard,glass OECD2001;OECD2002b

municipalsolidwaste(MSW)management OECD2001;OECD2002b (recyclingandreuse)



Land use mapofNorthAmericanlandcovercharacteristics Loveland&others2000; EarthObservatory2002

Freshwater waterextractionbyuse OECD2002b;FAO2004a

waterextractionbysource OECD2002b

wateruseaspercentofannualrenewablewater OECD2001;FAO2004a

waterqualityinselectedrivers OECD2001;OECD2002b

totalandpercentpopulationwithaccessto OECD2001;WHOand improvedsanitation UNCF2004

percentpopulationwithaccesstoimproved OECD2001;OECD2002b watertreatment

Wetlands totalareaandnumberofwetlandsof Ramsar2004 internationalimportance

totalareaofpermanentwetlands Loveland&others2000

numberanddistributionofmarineprotectedareas GBRMPA,TheWorld Bank,andIUCN1995

marineorlittoralprotectedareas(totalarea,number) Loveland&others2000

Fisheries livingmarineresourcescatch FAO2004b

totalfishcatch FAOSTAT2004; OECD2001

totalfishharvestsandpercentofworldcaptureby OECD2001 majormarinefishingareaandspecies

aquacultureproduction OECD2002b;

fishconsumption OECD2002b

Forests forestharvestsaspercentannualgrowth OECD2001

currentforestcover(geospatial) UNEP-WCMC2004

averageannualrateofchange FAOSTAT2004

forestareaaspercentoftotallandarea FAO2001a;FAO2001b

areaburnedinforestwildfires EC2003c;

HeinzCenter2003

FSC-certifiedforests UNEP-WCMC/WWF2004

forestplantationextent FAOSTAT2004

percentofforestsprotected UNEP-WCMC2004

agricultural land extentofcropland(percentandtotal) OECD2002b; FAOSTAT2004

apparentconsumptionofnitrogenousand OECD2002b phosphatefertilizers,andcommercialfertilizers

fertilizeruse/unitagriculturallandarea OECD2001

pesticideuse/unitagriculturallandarea OECD2001

consumptionofpesticides OECD2002b

irrigatedarea OECD2002b

selectedlivestocknumbers OECD2002b

selectedlivestockdensities OECD2001

NandPfromlivestockperarealand OECD2001

waterabstractionsperareaofirrigatedland OECD2001

totalenergyconsumptionbyagriculture OECD2002b

soilsurfaceNbalance OECD2001


��

haunderorganicmanagement,andaspercentof Willerand agriculturalarea Yussefi2004

agricultural(cropandlivestock)production OECD2002b

Grasslands and extentofpasturelandorpermanentpasture OECD2002b;shrublands (percentandtotal)

Biodiversity numberofknownmammals,birds,fish,reptiles, OECD2001;OECD2002b; amphibians,andvascularplants NatureServe2004

allknownecologicalcommunities NatureServe2004 (alliancesandassociations)

allknownecologicalsystems NatureServe2004

numberofthreatenedspeciesorpercentofallspecies OECD2001;OECD2002b; NatureServe2004

distributionofthreatenedanimalandplantspecies IUCN2003

Protected areas totalareaprotectedandaspercenttotalland WCMC2004;Chape& (IUCNcategories) others2003;OECD2001; UN2004

marineprotectedareas(IUCN),numbersandarea Chape&others2003

mapofprotectedareasinNorthAmerica GeoGratis2004

Urban areas percentageurbanpopulationgrowthrate UNDESA2003

urbanpopulationgrowth FAOSTAT2004

mapofnight-timelights DMSP1994–1995

totalrural/urbanpopulation FAOSTAT2004;

natural disasters numberofpeoplekilledduetonaturaldisasters OFDA/CRED, EM-DAT2003

numberofpeopleaffectedbynaturaldisasters OFDA/CRED,

EM-DAT2003

majorfloodsandrelatedlosses OECD2002b

majorclimaticandmeteorologicaldisasters OECD2002b

numberofweather-relateddisasters PSEPC2004

national totalofficialdevelopmentassistance,andas OECD2001responses percentGNP

(expenditures) pollutionabatementandcontrolexpenditure OECD2001 (publicandbusiness)aspercentGDP,andpercapita

Source:Compiledbyauthor.



UNEP/MorgueF�le

�3

Thischapterpresentsaselectedsetofenvironmen-talindicatorsforwhichcomparabledataexistforCanadaandtheUnitedStates.ThemandateandscopeofthissurveydidnotincludedevelopingalistofidealindicatorsforNorthAmerica,sotheindicatorsbelowdonotadheretothemanysugges-tionsmadeinChapterFour.Rather,itisa“quickanddirty”exerciseusingavailableinformation.Asrevealedinthepreviouschapters,reliable,up-to-dateandcomparabledataarepresentlymissingforanumberofissuesofimportancetotheNorthAmericanregion.Forthisreason,thischapterdoesnotincludetrendsorcomparativedataontheareaandstatusofwetlandsandcoastalandmarineecosystems;nordoesitincludeindicatorsonindoorairquality,onhumanhealthimpactsofexposuretourbanairpollutionortoxicsubstances,oronimpactsofnaturaldisasters,amongotherissuesforwhichtherearegapsindataorintheexistenceoffullydevelopedindicators.Anattemptwasmadetouseaconsistenttimeperiod,somostoftheindicatorsshowtrendsbetween1990and

2000.Theygenerallyshowdataforeachcountry,aswellasforthetwocountriestogether,representingNorthAmerica.Inmostcases,thedataderivefromtheOECD.Thefirstsectionincludesanumberofindicatorsofdriversofenvironmentalchange.Forthemostpart,comparativeindicatorsshoweachcountry’srankwithintheOECDortheworld.

Thechapterprovidesexamplesofhowindica-torscanshowtrendsclearlyandhowtheycanbeusedtocompareprogresswithotherregionsandnations.Tomakethemessagescleartodecision-makersandtheinterestedpublic,eachindicatorisaccompaniedbyexplanatorytextandhappy,neutral,orsadfaces(seelegend,below).Thesesymbolsaresubjectiveinterpretationsofthetrendsasenvironmentalthreatsoropportunitiesandrenderthemvisuallystriking.Althoughincom-plete,theindicatorsetgivesanideaofthestatusofsomeofNorthAmerica’senvironmentalassetsandwherethepicturelooksunsustainable,thesadfacesprovidewarningsignsandawake-upcalltopromptaction.

Legend for Chapter 5

5 Using Indicators To Track environmental Trends In north america

Chapter 5

Positivetrend,movingtowardsqualitativeobjectivesorquantifiedtargets

Somepositivedevelopment,buteitherinsufficienttoreachqualitativeobjec-tivesorquantifiedtargets,ormixedtrendswithintheindicators

Unfavourabletrend


Figure 32: Trend in GDP, 1990–2000

value of agriculture down

value of industry down

economy up

Goodorbad?asourceofdebate

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b,9.

Figure 33: Trends in the structure of GDP: agriculture, industry, services, 1990–2000

Thisindicatorshowsthechangesinvolumeofgrossdomesticproduct(GDP)between1990and2000(Figure32).Dataareexpressedasindices(1995=100)calculatedfromthevalueofGDPatconstantprices.

Grossdomesticproductmeasurestheoutputofgoodsandservicesbutignorestheenvironmentalcostsofeconomicactivity.Thus,apositiveinter-pretationofthisupwardtrendisafalseassumptionbecauseexternalities—costsassociatedwithpollu-

tion,wastedisposal,andtheextractionanddeclineinnaturalresources,aswellasthevalueofecosys-temgoodsandservicestakenas“free”—arenotac-countedforinthecalculationsofGDP.Infact,intheshortterm,cleaninguppollutionandextract-ingresourcescontributestoeconomicgrowth.Ontheotherhand,astrongeconomyisalsoonethatcanfinanceenvironmentally-friendlytechnologies.Effortsareunderwaytodevelopanindicatorthatgaugesprogressinamorebalancedway.

The economyGDP

Structure of GDP

��

Private consumption up

Note:Dataforagricultureincludehunting,forestry,andfishing.Industrydataincludeenergyandconstruction.

Dataonservicesexcludefinancialintermediationservicesindirectlymeasured.Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b,10.

value of services up

TheseindicatorsshowthestructureofGDPforthreesectorsoftheeconomy,andchangessince1990(Figure33).DatarepresentthevalueaddedbyeacheconomicsectorasitscontributiontoGDP.Theyareexpressedasapercentageofgrossvalueadded.

Theshiftawayfromaneconomybasedonindustryandagriculturetooneinwhichtheservicesectorplaysagreaterrolehasimplicationsforenergyconsumptionsincetheservicesectorislessenergy-intensive.ThishascontributedtoadeclineinNorthAmerica’sshareofworldenergyconsumption(EIA1999).Inadditiontoitsheavy

useofenergy,agriculturalandindustrialactivitiesaspresentlypracticedalsodamagetheenvironmentinotherways,includingthroughair,soil,andwaterpollution.The‘happy’facenexttothedownwardtrendinthevalueofagricultureisnotmeanttoimplythatagricultureisa‘negative’activity:agraphshowingagrowingtrendtowardsthevalueofsustainableagricultureinthestructureofGDPwouldbedeemedapositivetrendsinceitwouldindicateincreasedsupportforpracticesthatbuildsoils,reducetheuseofagrochemicals,preserverurallandscapes,andimprovelivelihoodsinthesustain-able/organicfarmingsector.

Thisindicatorshowsthechangesinvolumeofpri-vatefinalconsumptionexpenditurebetween1990and2000(Figure34).Dataareexpressedasindices(1995=100)calculatedfromthevalueofprivatefinalconsumptionexpenditureatconstantprices.

Theindicatorshowsthetrendinconsumptionbyhouseholdsandtheprivatenonprofitorganiza-

tionsthatservetheminCanadaandtheUnitedStates.IncreasedconsumptioninNorthAmericamirrorsincreasesinGDP;bothareassociatedwithgreateruseofmaterialsandenergy,theproductionofwaste,andemissionsofpollutantsintotheenvironment.


Figure 34: Trend in private final consumption expenditure, 1990–2000

Private consumption


Canada and the United States are among top 5 countries with high-est personal consumption

energy consumption up

Source:AdaptedfromOECD2001,77.

Figure 35: Private final consumption expenditure, 1999

Thisindicatorshowsthepercapitaconsumptionbyhouseholdsandtheprivatenonprofitorgani-zationsthatservethemforeachofthemembercountriesoftheOECDin1999,inthousandsofUSdollars(Figure35).

ThiscomparativeindicatorrevealsthatprivateconsumptioninCanadaandtheUnitedStatesishigherthaninalmostallotherdevelopedcountries.

Culturesthatpromoteconsumptioncontributetogreaterenvironmentalpressuresbyhelpingtoin-creasethedemandforanduseofenergyresources,including:fuelforprivatecars;water;manufac-turedgoods;andpackaging.Italsoimpliesincreas-esingreenhousegasemissionsandtheproductionofwaste.

Figure 36: Trend in primary energy consumption, 1993–2002

Comparat�ve �nd�cator

energy usePrimary energy consumption

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromEIA2004a.

��

Thisindicatorshowstheupwardtrendintheconsumptionofprimaryenergybetween1993and2002(Figure36).Primaryenergyreferstopetro-leum,naturalgas,coal,andelectricpower,andother(hydro,nuclear,geothermal,solar,wind,andwoodandwaste).Totalenergyconsumptionistheamountofprimaryenergyusedonaveragebyeachperson.Consumptionequals:indigenousproduc-tionplusimportsminusexportsplusstockchangesminusenergydeliveredtointernationalmarinebunkers(WRI2004).

NorthAmericahasseenariseinenergycon-sumptionoverthepastdecade.Between1992and2002,overallenergyconsumptionroseby14.6quadrillionBritishThermalUnits(Btu).In

2002,CanadaandtheUnitedStatesused13.07and98.03quadrillionBtuofenergyrespectively(EIA2004a).Theconsumptionofenergyputsavarietyofpressuresonthenaturalenvironmentandhumanhealth.Theexplorationfor,andextractionoffossilfuelsandtheconstructionofhydroelectricdamsdamages,alters,ordestroyswildlifeandhu-manhabitatandothervaluablenaturalresourcesandlandscapes,whileburningfuelsresultsinairpollutionandassociatedrespiratoryproblemsinexposedpopulations,theemissionofgreenhousegasesthatcontributetoclimatechange,andpollut-ingemissionsthathelpformsmogandacidrain.CanadaandtheUnitedStatesrankastwooftheworld’shighestconsumersofprimaryenergy.

Thisindicatorshowstheintensityofenergyuse(Figure37).Thismeansthetotalamountofenergyconsumedperdollarofgrossdomesticproduct.To-talprimaryenergydomesticsupply(sometimesre-ferredtoasenergyuse)iscalculatedbytheInterna-tionalEnergyAgency(IEA)as:productionoffuelsplusinputsfromothersourcesplusimportsminusexportsminusinternationalmarinebunkersplusstockchanges.“Purchasingpowerparities”(PPP)referstothenumberofcurrencyunitsrequiredtobuygoodsequivalenttowhatcanbeboughtwithoneUSdollar(UN2004).

NorthAmerica’senergy/GDPratiohascon-tinuedaslowdeclinethatbeganin1970.Thisreflectsashifttolessresource-intensivepatternsofproductionandadematerializationofGDPastheserviceandinformation-basedsectorsincrease

inimportancetotheeconomy.CanadaandtheUnitedStatesareamongthemostenergy-intensivecountriesintheindustrializedworld,however.In2002,Canada’senergyintensity(perGDP)was16,452Btuper$1995inpurchasingpowerparity(PPP),wellabovethatoftheUnitedStates,whichwas11,047Btu/$1995.In1999,Canadawas33percentlessenergyefficientthantheUnitedStates(Boyd2001).Althoughdecliningsomewhat,Canada’senergyintensityremainshighduetoitsenergy-intensiveindustries(EIA2004b)andtoincreasedpopulationandeconomicgrowth(Boyd2001).OnereasonfortheslowdeclineintheUntiedStatesisthatnewerhomesareabout18percentlargerthantheexistinghousingstockandsorequiremoreenergyforheating,cooling,andlight-ing(EIA2003).

Intensity of energy use down slightly

Figure 37: Trend in apparent consumption of energy, 1990–2001

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromUN2004http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_series_results.asp?rowId=648.

Energy intensity (apparent consumption)


Figure 38: Trends in energy consumption by transportation sector: air, road, rail, and total, 1970–2000


energy consumption by air transport up

energy consumption by road transport up

energy consumption by rail transport down

In total, energy consumption by all transport sectors to-gether is up

TransportationEnergy consumption by transportation

��

Theseindicatorsshowtrendsbetween1970and2000intotalfinalenergyconsumptionbyair,road,andrailandbythetransportsectorasawhole,measuredinmillionsoftonnesofoilequivalent(Figure38).

ThetotalamountofenergyconsumedbytheNorthAmericantransportsectorhasrisensignifi-cantlyoverthepastdecade—from273to332mil-liontonnesofoilequivalent.Thedeclineinenergyusedbyrailwasmorethanoffsetbyrisesinenergyuseforairandroadtransport.Thetransportationsectorisresponsibleforabout33percentofenergyuseinNorthAmerica.InboththeUnitedStates

andCanada,arecentshifttowardstheuseoflargerandlessfuel-efficientvehiclessuchassportsutilityvehicles(SUVs),reversedaprevioustrendtowardsfuelefficiencyimprovements.Forexample,energyefficiencyinCanada’spassengertransportationsectordecreased1.1percentbetween1990and2002(EIA2004b).Energyusebythetransportsector,especiallyroadfuelconsumption,isamajorcontributortolocalandregionalairpollutionandtoemissionsthatcontributetoclimatechange.Infact,motorvehiclesrepresentthesinglelargesthuman-madesourceofairpollutionintheUnitedStates(OECD2002b).

Thiscomparativeindicatorshowsthenumberofvehicles(passengercars,goodsvehicles,busesandcoaches)per100inhabitantsinOECDcountries(Figure39).

TheUnitedStatesandCanadaareamongthetopnineOECDcountriesinpassengervehicleownershipperperson.IntheUnitedStates,therearethreevehiclesforeveryfourpeople,comparedtoWesternEuropeandJapan,wherethereistypi-callyoneforeverytwopeople(Brown2001).The

environmentalimpactsofmotorvehiclesandtheinfrastructurethatservesthemincludetheexpro-priationoflandforroadsandhighways,theuseofmaterialsandenergy,pollutingemissions,andgreenhousegases.Theimplicationsforhumanhealthandqualityoflifeincluderisksofrespiratoryillnessfromairpollution,deathsandinjuryfromaccidents,andthedetrimentaleffectofnoiseandtrafficcongestion.


Figure 39: Motor vehicles per capita, 1998

Canada and the United States among top nations with most passenger vehicles per person

Motor vehicles



Figure 40: Trend in total population, 1990–2000

Total population up

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromFAOSTAT2004.

Thisindicatorshowsthetrendintotalpopulationfrom1990to2000(Figure40).

ThetotalpopulationofNorthAmericain2000was315.8million(FAOSTAT2004).Itispresentlygrowingatlessthanonepercentannually(PRB2004).TheUnitedStatesisoneofthethreemost

populouscountriesintheworld(afterChinaandIndia)andisexpectedtostillbeamongthetopthreein2050.Whencombinedwithapatternofhighconsumptionandenergyuse,largepopula-tionsareapotentdriverofenvironmentalchange.

ThisindicatorshowsaveragepopulationdensityinNorthAmerica,measuredbythenumberofinhab-itantspersquarekilometer(Figure41).

AveragepopulationdensityisincreasingslightlyinNorthAmerica.About79percentofNorthAmericansliveinrelativelydenselypopulatedurbanareas(StatisticsCanada2001a;USCensusBureau2002).Changesinpopulationdensitiesareoftenusedasasurrogateforurbanization(Brownandothers2004).Becausethedensityindicatorisanaveragemeasureofthenumberofinhabitantspersquarekilometer,itappearstoshowthatCa-nadiansaresparselyspreadoutacrossthecountry.ThisisduetoCanada’srelativelysmallpopulationanditslargelandmass.Infact,mostCanadiansliveinthesouthernpartofthecountry,with79.7

percentlivinginurbanareas(StatisticsCanada2001a).Denselypopulatedareasareusuallyas-sociatedwithhighpressuresontheenvironment,includingdemandsforwater,energy,materials,aswellaswastedisposalandtheuseofland—oftenproductiveagriculturalland—forurbaninfrastruc-ture.Ontheotherhand,whenplannedforsustain-ability,densesettlementpatternshavethepotentialtoreduceenvironmentalpressurescomparedtotheimpactofsprawlingsuburbs.“Smart”growthofurbanareasreducesenvironmentalimpactthroughclusteringamixtureofresidential,office,retail,andoutdoorrecreationalusestogether,therebyshrinkingtraveldistancesandencouragingwalking,cyclingandpublictransitthatreducestheuseoffossilfuels.

Figure 41: Trend in population density, 1990–2000Population density up slightly


PopulationTotal population

Population density

��

Figure 42: Population density, 1999

Canada and the United States among the world’s least densely populated countries


Thiscomparativeindicatorshowsthepopula-tiondensity(inhabitantspersquarekilometer)ofOECDcountriesin1999(Figure42).

CanadaandtheUnitedStatesareamongtheleastdenselypopulatedcountriesintheOECD.Thesettlementpatternsofseveralmuchmore

denselypopulatednations,suchastheNetherlands,Belgium,theUnitedKingdom,andGermany,aregenerallymuch“smarter”intermsofenergyex-penditureontransportationandtheenvironmentalimpactsofwateruseandwastedisposalassociatedwithurbanareas.

NewYorkCityUSA,2005 UNEP/MorgueF�le


��


CO2 emissions up slightly

Figure 44: Trend in total CO2 emissions, 1990–2001

Thisindicatorshowsthehistoricaltrendinthenumberofpeoplelivinginurbanareasfrom1950,projectingthetrendfrom2000until2030(Figure43).Theurban/ruralpopulationisobtainedbysystematicallyapplyingtheproportionofurbanpopulationratiotothetotalpopulation.Theurbanpopulationestimatesarebasedonthevaryingna-tionaldefinitionsofurbanareas.

Theindicatorreflectstotalpopulationgrowthinurbanareas,showingthatthenumberofpeoplelivingincitiesandtownsinNorthAmericawillcontinuetogrow.In2000,morethan80percentoftheUSpopulationlivedinurbanareasandtheurbanpopulationwasgrowingbymorethan2

millionpeopleperyear(USDAn.d.).Ifaccompa-niedbyurbanplanningthatavoidsthepitfallsofsuburbansprawlandfocuseson“smart”growthandthesustainableuseofenergyandresources,thistrendcouldhavepositiveimpactsontheenviron-ment.However,thepastdecadehasseenadecreaseinhouseholdsizeandatrendtowardpopulationgrowthinsuburbsandsmallertownsandcentresoutsidelargecities(Brownandothers2004).Oneoftheimpactsofsuchgrowthistheconversionofruralland.In2000,ruralareasintheUnitedStateswerebeinglosttourbanusesataratefasterthanabout12millionkm2(3millionacres)peryear(USDAn.d.).

Figure 43: Trend (and projection) in total urban population, 1950–2030

Population in urban areas will continue to increase


Urban areasUrban growth

Climate ChangeCO2 and greenhouse gas emissions

Note:Originalsourceofdata:UNFCCConlinedatabase.“UnitedStates”includesterritories.Source:CompiledbyauthorfromUN2004.

�3

Figure 45: Per capita greenhouse gas emissions, 2000

Per capita emissions of green-house gases in Canada and the United States are among the highest in the world

Source:AdaptedfromBaumertandPershing2004.

ThisindicatorshowsCO2emissionsinNorth

Americafrom1990to2001(Figure44).Thedataareinthousandsofmetrictonnesofcarbondioxide(notcarbon).

CarbondioxideemissionsinCanadaandtheUnitedStatescontinuedtoincreaseduringthe1990s.Canadiangreenhousegasemissionsgrewbymorethan13.5percentbetween1990and1999(Boyd2001).EmissionsofCO

2fromfossil

fuelcombustion(whichcontribute80percentofglobalwarmingpotential)intheUnitedStatesgrewby17percentfrom1990to2001(USEPA2003).By2002,theUSwasresponsibleforemitting1.65thousandmilliontonnesofcarbon(Marlandandothers2003)andwastheworld’slargestproducerofCO

2fromfossilfuelcombustion,accounting

for24percentoftheworldtotal(EIA2004b).USemissionshavedeclinedsomewhatinrecentyearsduetoaslowereconomy,butwithstagnat-inghydroelectricandnuclearenergygeneration,astrongereconomy,andthecontinuedincreaseinthesaleofSUVs,emissionswilllikelygrowagain(EIA2003).

ThereisastrongcorrelationamongthetrendsinGDP,population,energyuse,andCO

2emis-

sions,suggestingthesignificanceofthefirsttwooftheseasdriversofenergyuseandtheassoci-atedemissionsfromtheburningoffossilfuels.Thereisageneralconsensusamongscientiststhatgreenhousegasemissionsfromhumanactivityarecontributingtoglobalclimatechange.

Thisindicatorshowsthetop25greenhousegas–emittingcountriesintheworld,inabsoluteterms(Figure45).EmissionsincludeCO

2from

fossilfuelsandcement,andnon-CO2gasses.

Percapitagreenhousegasemissions(GHG)inNorthAmericahavebeenconsistentlyhighandwellabovethoseforanyotherregion(Marlandandothers2003).In2000,Canadianseachproducedanaverageof18.7thousandmetrictonnesof

carbondioxide.ThepercapitayearlyrateintheUnitedStateswas20.6(UN2004).IntheUnitedStates,emissionsperpersonincreasedabout3.4percentbetween1990and1997(USEPA2000b).Withgreaterhydroelectricityandnucleargenera-tion(thatdonotemitGHGs),Canada’spercapitaemissionsareslightlylowerthanthoseoftheUnitedStates.



ThiscomparativeintensityindicatorshowspercapitaCO

2emissions(grossdirectemissions)from

energyuse(fossilfuelcombustion)amongtheOECDcountriesin1998(Figure46),measuredintonnesofCO

2relativetoGDP(1000USdollars).

GDPdatareferto1991pricesandpurchasingpowerparities(PPPs).Sincenationalinventoriesdonotprovideacompleteandconsistentpictureofallgreenhousegasemissions,energy-relatedCO

2

emissionsrepresentoveralltrendsindirectGHGemissions(OECD2001).

Carbonintensityandenergyintensityarecloselyrelated.CanadaandtheUnitedStateshave

amongtheworld’shighestcarbonandenergyintensities.Increasedconsumptionoffossilfuelsforelectricitygeneration,increasedenergycon-sumptioninthetransportationsector,andgrowthinfossilfuelproduction(largelyforexport)haveinfluencedCanada’shighcarbonintensityrelativetoothernations.Thehighrelianceoncarbon-intensivecoalforenergygenerationcontributestothehighcarbon-intensityratingoftheUnitedStates(EIA2003).

Canada and the United States are among the 7 nations with the highest carbon intensities

Figure 46: CO2 emissions per unit GDP, 1998

Source:OECD2001,15.

Carbon intensityComparat�ve �nd�cator

CO2 Emission intensities per unit of GDP, 1998

SwitzerlandFranceNorwaySwedenIcelandAustria

ItalySpainJapan

PortugalLuxembourg

Denmark

UKDIreland

New ZealandNetherlands

GermanyMexicoOECD

BelgiumFinland

HungaryUSA

GreeceKorea

CanadaAustralia

Czech Rep.Poland

Turkey

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4tonnes/1000 USD

��

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromUN2004.

Source:ModifiedfromOECD2001,113.

Thisindicatorshowsthetrendbetween1990and2000inconsumptionofchlorofluorocarbons(CFCs),thesyntheticcompoundsformerlyusedasrefrigerantsandaerosolpropellantsthatareknowntoharmtheozonelayeroftheatmosphere(Figure47).Consumptionisdefinedas:productionplusimportsminusexportsofcontrolledsubstances(UN2004).Basicdataareweightedwiththeozone-depletingpotentials(ODP)oftheindividualsubstances(OECD2001).

AsaresultoftheMontrealProtocol,CanadaandtheUnitedStatesrapidlydecreasedtheircon-sumptionofCFCsandreachedtargetsearlierthancalledfor.Asof1996,therehasbeennoproduc-tionorconsumptionofthesesubstancesexceptforcertainessentialuses,althoughtherearestillreleasestotheatmospherefrompreviousproduc-tionorconsumption(OECD2001).

Figure 47: Trend in ozone-depleting CFC consumption, 1990–2000

Ozone-depleting CFC consump-tion rapidly down to zero

Figure 48: Trends in consumption of hCFCs and methyl bromide, 1988–1998

hCFCs still up and methyl bromide still in use

Thisindicatorshowsapparentconsumption(usedasaproxyforactualemissions)ofhydrochloroflo-rocarbons(HCFCs)andmethylbromide(Fig-ure48).Dottedlinesrefertodatanotavailable.Theyear1989,representing100,istheindexforHCFCsand1991isthemethylbromideindex.

ThisindicatorshowsthatNorthAmerica,likeotherindustrializedcountries,continuestouseHCFCs.Althoughtheyhaveonly2to5percentoftheozone-depletingpotentialofCFCs,concentra-tionsofHCFCsarestillincreasingintheatmo-sphere.Itwilltakeanother20yearsbeforeuseofHCFCsisphasedoutundercurrentinternational

agreementsandthemoleculeswillremaininthestratosphereforalongtimeafterthat(OECD2001).

UndertheMontrealProtocol,CanadaandtheUnitedStatesagreedtoreducemethylbromideby25percentby1999(comparedto1991levels),50percentby2001,70percentby2003and100percentby1January2005.InMarch2004,thetwocountrieswereamong11nationstoreceivecriti-cal-useexemptionsthatwillallowthissubstancetocontinuetobeusedinsmallquantitiesuntil2005(UNEP2004b).

HCFC and methyl bromide consumption

Ozone LayerCFC consumption

Index North America (CAN+USA)

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

01986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

HCFC (1989=100) Methyl bromide (1991=100)

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0

-5000019

9019

9219

9419

9619

9820

00

OD

P m

etric

tonn

es

CanadaUS


Figure 49: Trend in total column ozone over selected cities, 1979–1999Ozone column thickness over Canada and the United States down slightly

Source:OECD2001,23.

TheseindicatorsshowtrendsinthethicknessoftotalcolumnozoneoverselectedcitiesinCanadaandtheUnitedStates,inDobsonunits(Figure49).Totalcolumnozonereferstotroposphericplusstratosphericozone.Dobsonunitsareusedtoestimatetheozonelayer’sthickness.OnehundredDobsonunitsrepresentathicknessof1mmofozoneat0degreesCelsiusatsea-levelpressure.Dataareannualaveragesofdailyvalues(OECD2001).

Between1997and2001,theaverageamountsoftotalcolumnozoneintheNorthernHemisphere

mid-latitudes(35°N–60°N)werethreepercentbelowthepre-1980values(NOAA2002).Thin-ningoftheozonelayerallowsincreasedamountsofultravioletradiationtoreachtheearth.ThiscontributestotheincreaseintheincidenceofskincancersinNorthAmerica.Itmayalsocausestressonsomemarinephytoplanktonandaffectpro-ductivity.Althoughtheozonelayerisrecovering,itsfullrestorationwilltakedecadesbecauseofthecontinueduseofozone-depletingproductspro-ducedpriortotheMontrealProtocolban(USEPA2003)andduetorecentexemptions.

Note:Datarefertoman-madeemissionsonly;SO2only.


Figure 50: Trend in total emissions of SOx, 1990–1999

SOx emissions down

Total column ozone

air QualitySOx emissions

��

Thisindicatorshowstheamountofsulfuroxides(givenasquantitiesofsulfurdioxide)emittedbe-tween1990and1999asaresultofhumanactivity(Figure50).

Sulfurdioxideemissionsdecreasedsignificantlyoverthelasttenyearsinbothcountries,gener-allyduetoeffortstoattainbothregulatoryandvoluntarytargetstoreduceacidrain.Asaresult,sulfatelevelsinlakesineasternNorthAmericahavedeclinedappreciatively(OECD2004a).Acidraincanharmaquaticecosystemsandchangespecies

composition,aswellasimpairforestsandcrops.ElectricutilitiesarethemajorsourceoftotalNorthAmericanSO

2emissions.IntheUnitedStates,well

over90percentoftheseemissionscomefromcoalcombustion.InCanada,non-ferrousminingandsmeltingcontributesthemajorityofSO

2releases

(EC2002a).TheemissionofSO2andtheresulting

acidrainarelinkedtoenergyconsumption,andtofossilfueluseinparticular.CanadaandtheUnitedStateshaveseenasignificantdecouplingofSO

x

emissionsfromGDPrecently(OECD2001).

Thisindicatorshowstheamountofnitrogenoxides(givenasquantitiesofnitrogendioxide)emittedbetween1990and1999asaresultofhumanactiv-ity(Figure51).

EmissionsofNOxhavenotdeclinedasmuch

asthoseofSOxduringthisten-yearperiod.Fossil

fuelcombustionbymotorvehicles,residentialandcommercialfurnaces,industrialandelectricutilityboilersandengines,andotherequipmentaretheprincipalsourcesofNO

xemissionsthatresultfrom

humanactivity(EC2002a).Gainsmadethroughpollutionregulationsandprogressintechnicalpol-lutioncontrolsinNorthAmericahavebeenoffsetbythesteadygrowthinroadtrafficandotherusesoffossilfuelthatgenerateNO

x(OECD2001).

ComparedtomostOECDcountries,emissionsoftraditionalairpollutantsinNorthAmericaremaingenerallyhigh(OECD2004b).NO

xcontributesto

acidrainandtotheformationofsmog.

nOx emissions up slightly

Figure 51: Trend in total emissions of nOx, 1990–2000

Note:Datarefertoman-madeemissionsonly.Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b,16.

Increasingtraffic,aswellastheassociatedairpollutionandfuelconsumption,arebecomingmajorproblemsforcommunities. Warren Gretz/UNEP/NREL

NOx emissions

��


Source:AdaptedfromCEC2004a,xxv.

Figure 52: Change in releases and transfers of pollutants, 1998–2001

Toxic emissions down

Thisindicatorshowsthetrendintheon-andoff-sitereleaseandtransferoftoxicsubstancesinCanadaandtheUnitedStates(Figure52).Datainclude155chemicalscommontothepollutantreleaseinventoriesofeachcountry(NPRIandTRI)fromselectedindustrialandothersources.Theyrepresentdatathathavebeenconsistentlyreportedoverthe1998–2001periodandincludechemicals,aswellasmanufacturingfacilities,electricutilities,hazardouswastemanagementfacilities,chemicalwholesalers,andcoalmines.

“TotalreleasesandtransfersofchemicalsinNorthAmericadecreasedby10percentfrom1998

to2001.Totalreleasesdecreasedby16percent,on-sitereleasesdecreasedby19percent,othertransfersforfurthermanagementdecreasedby8percent,andtransferstorecyclingdecreasedby2percent.However,off-sitereleasesincreasedby3percent.Comparedwithadecreaseintotalreleasesof16percentforallmatchedchemicalsfrom1998to2001,releasesofcarcinogensdecreasedby20percentandchemicalsknowntocausecancer,repro-ductiveordevelopmentharm(CaliforniaProposi-tion65chemicals)decreasedby26percent”(CEC2004a,xxv).

WeldonSpringsOrdnanceWorks.TNTcontaminatedwaterinexcavation.St.Louis,MOUSA. B�ll Empson/UNEP/USACE

Toxic SubstancesReleases and transfers

��

��


Figure 53: Generation intensities of municipal waste per capita, late 1990s

Canada and the United States among highest per capita pro-ducers of municipal waste

ThisindicatorshowstheamountofhouseholdandmunicipalwastegeneratedpercapitaintheOECDcountriesinthelate1990s(Figure53).

CanadaandtheUnitedStatesareamongthetoptenpercapitaproducersofhouseholdandmu-nicipalwasteintheOECD,withtheUnitedStatestoppingthelist.ThegenerationofwasteinNorth

Americagenerallymirrorsprivatefinalconsump-tionexpenditureandGDP.Thedisposalofmu-nicipalwastehasvariousenvironmentalimpacts,includingtoxicairemissionsfromincinerators,methaneemissionsfromlandfills,andthecontami-nationofsoilsandwaterfromleakinglandfills.

radioactive waste generation steady

Figure 54: Trend in nuclear waste: spent fuel arisings, 1990–2000


Thisindicatorpresentsannualspentfuelarisingsinnuclearpowerplants(Figure54).Spentfuelaris-ingsareonepartoftheradioactivewastegeneratedatvariousstagesofthenuclearfuelcycle(uraniumminingandmilling,fuelenrichment,reactoropera-tion,spentfuelreprocessing)(OECD2002b).

Thesteadygenerationofradioactivewasteoverthepastdecadereflectsthecontinueduseofnuclear

powerbutthelackofgrowthinthenumberofnu-clearpowerplantsinNorthAmerica.Nuclearwasteisaseriousthreattohumanhealthandtheenviron-mentand,despiteeffortstoincreasetheefficientuseofnuclearfuelandtooptimizestoragecapacity,thereareconcernsabouttheregion’scapacitytostorespentfuel(Fukudaandothers,n.d.).

WasteMunicipal waste


Nuclear waste


Canada and the United States are the highest per capita users of water in the world

Figure 56: Trend in wastewater treatment connection rates, 1980–1997


Figure 55: Per capita freshwater abstractions, late 1990s

ThisindicatorshowstheyearlyamountofwaterusedpercapitaineachoftheOECDcountries(Figure55).Useismeasuredasabstractions,orto-talwaterwithdrawalwithoutdeductingwaterthatisreintroducedintothenaturalenvironmentafteruse(OECD2001).

TheUnitedStatesandCanadarespectivelyarethetwohighestusersofwateronapercapitabasisintheworld.Infact,percapitawaterabstractionistwoorthreetimesgreaterthanthatofmostOECDcountries.Inbothcountries,theelectricpowersectoraccountsformostwateruse(about64and48percentofthetotalwaterabstractioninCanadaandtheUnitedStatesrespectively).Canada’shighpercapitauseisaccountedfortosomedegreebythisrelianceonhydroelectricpower.Thisisfol-

lowedbyirrigationintheUnitedStates,with34percent,andthemanufacturingsectorinCanada,whichaccountsforabout14percentoftotalab-stractions.InCanada,agricultureaccountsforonly9percentofabstractions(Hutsonandothers2004;OECD2004a).Thepressuresaccountingforhighwateruseinbothcountriesincludeinfrastructuredevelopmentandmaintenance;water-useconflicts;droughtintheprairies;urbansprawl;andclimatechange(Gaudet2004)aswellasunrealisticwaterpricing.Highwater-use,especiallyforirrigationindrought-proneregions,iscausingtheunsustain-ableuseoffossilwaterfromaquiferswhiledamsandwaterdiversionstosupplyusershavedisruptedecologicalprocessesandwildlifehabitat.

Wastewater treatment connection rates up

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2001,45.

North America

FreshwaterUse of water


Wastewater treatment

�0�

Thisindicatorshowsthepercentageofthepopu-lationconnectedtopublicwastewatertreatmentplantsinthelate1990s,accordingtothetypeoftreatment—primary(physicalandmechanicalpro-cesses),secondary(biologicaltreatmenttechnolo-gies),andtertiary(advancedchemicaltreatmenttechnologies)—andthetotal(Figure56).

Theindicatorshowsthesteadyriseintheper-centageofthepopulationservedbysewagetreat-ment.In1996,wastewatertreatmentfacilitiesprovidedfor73percentofthetotalUSpopula-tion.Theindicatorshowsthatatthesametime,therewasasteadyincreaseintheproportionoffa-cilitiesprovidingsecondaryandtertiarytreatment.Untreatedsewageandwastewaterisstillreleased

intotheenvironment,however.Newerstatisticsshowthatby1999,73percentofCanadianswereservedbymunicipalsewersystems,althoughabout3percentofCanadianswereservicedbysewagecollectionsystemsthatdischargeduntreatedsewagedirectlyintolakes,rivers,oroceans(EC2002b)andonly33percentofthepopulationwasservedbytertiarytreatment(Boyd2001).NumerouscoastalareasandinlandbeachesinbothCanadaandtheUnitedStatesarefrequentlyclosedtorecre-ationaluses,fishing,andshellfishharvestingduetothepollutionfromsuchdischargesorfromstormwaterrunoffthatcontainscontaminantsfrominad-equatesewagetreatment.

Thisindicatorshowsthetonnesoffish(speciesoffishintheninedivisionsoftheFAOInterna-tionalStandardStatisticalClassificationofAquaticAnimalsandPlants)producedinallfishingareasofCanadaandtheUnitedStatesfrom1990to2000(Figure57).

Therehasbeenadownwardtrendinthevol-umeoffishharvestedfromNorthAmericanwaterssince1990.Sincetheycollapsedintheearly1990s,codstocksinthecoldwatersofftheCanadianAtlanticcoasthavenotrebounded.Therewasa78percentdropinAtlanticcatchesofgroundfishinCanadabetween1990and2002andamarkedde-

clineinsalmonstocksbeganin1995ontheWestCoast(StatisticsCanada2001b).AlthoughUSfederalmanagementoffisherieswasstrengthenedin1999andoverfishingofsomestockshasbeeneliminated,ofatotalof909stocksreviewedin2003,76weredeemedtobeoverfishedand60fishstocksthoughttobefishedattoohigharate,whilethestatusofnearly75percentoffishstocksman-agedbythefederalgovernmentremainedunknown(NMFS2004).BoththeUnitedStatesandCanadarecentlyadoptedtougherfishingcontrolsandarereducingthesizeoftheirfishingfleets(UNDPandothers1998).

Figure 57: Trend in total fishery production, all areas, 1990–2000

Fish production down


Wastewatertreamentcenter Kyer W�ltsh�re/UNEP/C�ty of Santa Cruz

FisheriesFish harvests

�0� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca

Thisindicatorshowsthepercentoftotallandareaunderforestsin1990and2000(Figure58).For-estincludesnaturalforestsandforestplantations.Itreferstolandwithatreecanopycoverofmorethan10percentandareaofmorethan0.5hectares(UN2004).

TheareaofforestedlandinNorthAmericaisgrowing.ThereweresubstantialincreasesinforestareasintheUnitedStatesduringthedecade,butthesewerepartlyoffsetbydecliningareasofotherwoodedland.Thetotalareagrewbyabout3.9millionhectares(9.6millionacres)(FAO2003).

Canada’swoodedareaisassumedtohaveremainedfairlyconstantoverthedecade,at417.6millionhectares(1032millionacres),ofwhichover70percenthasneverbeenharvested(OECD2004a).NorthAmericaisabout25.6percentforested,slightlybelowtheglobalaverageof30percent(FAO2001b).Theindicatordoesnotrevealanyinformationaboutthequalityoftheforestsintermsoffragmentation,ageofstands,insectandfiredamage,andairpollutionimpacts,amongotherindicatorsofforesthealth.

Figure 59: Trend in FSC-certified forests, 1996–2001

area of certified forests up

Thisindicatorshowsthenumberofhectarescerti-fiedassustainablebyaccreditedForestSteward-shipCouncil(FSC)bodies,from1996to2001(Figure59).FSC-endorsedcertificationofaforestsitesignifiesthatanindependentevaluationbyoneofseveralFSC-accreditedcertificationbodieshasshownthatitsmanagementmeetstheinterna-

tionallyrecognizedFSCPrinciplesandCriteriaofForestStewardship.Someofthecriteriaincludetheassurancethatareasofnaturalwealthandendan-geredwildlifehabitatarenotbeingnegativelyaffectedandthatforestmanagementdoesnotputtheforest’snaturalheritageatrisk(FSC2004;UNEP-WCMC2004).

Figure 58: Trend in total forest area as per cent of land area, 1990 and 2000

Forested area up slightly

Certified sustainable forests

ForestsForest area

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromFSC(onlinedataservice)2004.

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromUN2004(metadata:FAO).

�03

Source:AdaptedfromUNEP-WCMC/WWF2004.

Thiscomparativeindicatorranksthetoptencoun-triesintheworldin2004bythearea(inmillionsofhectares)oflandcertifiedbytheForestSteward-shipCouncil(FSC)(Figure60).

CanadaandtheUnitedStatesareamongthetopfourcountriesintheworldwithlandcertified

bytheForestStewardshipCouncil.TheFSCisoneofthreedominantNorthAmericanforestcertifica-tionprogrammes.TheothertwoaretheCanadianStandardsAssociation(CSA)andtheSustainableForestryInitiative(SFI)(IISD2004b).

Figure 60: Top ten countries with certified forests

United States and Canada are among the top four countries by certified forest area

AlthoughtheForestStewardshipCouncil(FSC),oneofthreemajorcertificationprogrammesinNorthAmerica,wasonlycreatedin1993andforestcertificationisstillfairlynew,theamountofcertifiedforestworldwidehasgrownrapidly(Segura2004).Oneofthedriversofthisgrowthhasbeenincreasedpublicawarenessofforestdestructionanddegradationandthedemandbyconsumersforwoodandotherforestproductsthatdonotcontributetothisdestructionbutratherhelptoensuresustainableforestry(FSC2004).In2003alone,Canadadoubleditscertifiedlands,largelyduetothefirstlarge-scaleFSCcertification

intheborealforestinNorthernOntario.Canada’sgrowthincertificationwasamajorfactorinthe31percentincreaseincertifiedforestareasworldwide.At56millionhectares,CanadahastwiceasmuchtotalcertifiedareaastheUnitedStates.OneofthereasonsforthedifferenceisthatalargeshareofforestproductsintheUnitedStatescomesfromnon-industrial,privately-ownedforestlands,wherecertificationismuchhardertoimplementthaninCanada,wheretheexpansionofcertificationhasbeenonlarge-scalepubliclands(FSC2004;IISD2004b).

AspensinfallcolorinUncompahgreNationalForest,USA. Gene Alexander/UNEP/NRCS


�03


area in permanent grassland steady


Figure 62: Trend in permanent grassland, 1990–2000


Figure 61: Trend in arable and permanent-crop land, 1990–2000

area in cropland down slightly

Arableandpermanent-croplandisthesumoftheareasofarablelandandlandunderpermanentcrops.“Arableland”referstoalllandthatcanbecultivatedtoplantseed,includingmeadowsandlandthatisleftfallow(atrest,withoutacrop)inthecycleofcroprotation.Permanentcropsarethosethatoccupylandcontinuouslyformanyyears,ratherthanarecompletelyreplantedannu-ally.Theywouldinclude,forexample,orchardandothertrees;vines;shrubsandperennialsgrownforflowers,leaves,seed,fruit;andnurs-erystock(withtheexceptionoftreesgrownforreforesting)(OECD2002b).

TherehasbeenaslowdeclineintheamountoflandunderrotationalandpermanentcropsinNorthAmericasince1990(Figure61),continu-ingatrendsincethe1950s.IntheUnitedStates,croplandareadecreased11percentbetween1950and2000,from35percentofthelandareato31percent(Brownandothers2004).InCanada,only4.5percentofthetotallandareaisarableandper-

manent-cropland(OECD2004a).ThedeclineintotalareadevotedtocroplandintheUnitedStatesistheresultofanumberofprocesses,includingtheconversionofagriculturallandtootheruses(espe-ciallyurbanization),abandonmentofpoor-qualityland,increasesinproductivityintheagriculturesector,andintensificationofagricultureonlandstillcultivated.Thedeclinevariesbyregion,withthecornbeltandpartsofthewestshowingstablecroplandareawhileregionseastoftheMississippiRiverexperienceddeclines.Wherethedominantfactorisexurbangrowthandtheabandonmentofagriculturallands(especiallyintheEasternUnitedStates),environmentalimpactssuchaschangesinthefunctioningofecologicalsystemsandconcernsaboutthepotentialforrestorationaremostsignifi-cant,especiallygiventhelargeareasaffected.Theecologicalstateofcroplandvariesdependingontheintensityofirrigationandtheuseoffertilizers,pes-ticides,andherbicides(Brownandothers2004).

Area of grassland

agricultural LandsArea of cropland

TotalNorth America

United States

Canada

�0�

Thisindicatorshowsthe1990–2000trendinthearea(insquarekilometers)ofpermanentgrassland(Figure62),whichreferstolandusedforfiveyearsormoreforherbaceousforage,eithercultivatedorgrowingwild.

TheareadevotedtograsslandinNorthAmericahasremainedsteadysince1990.Thistrendwasprecededbyadeclinethatstartedinthemid-1960sduetoeffortstoimprovetheforagequalityandproductivityofgrazinglandsthatledtotheneedforlesspastureandrangetosustaingrazingherds(Heimlich2003).IntheWesternUnitedStates,thelossofgrasslandstootheruseshasbeenoffsetbytheconversionoflandbacktorangeland(Connerandothers,n.d.).Withabout31percentofthelandinthecontiguousUnitedStatesundergrass-land,pasture,andrangein1997,thisisthelargestmajorland-usecategoryinthecountry(Heimlich2003).InCanada,only2.9percentofthelandbaseispermanentgrassland(OECD2004a).Na-tivegrasslandsandrangelandssupportthelivestock

industryinbothcountries(Connerandothers,n.d.).

Grasslandsareimportantecologicalareasbe-causetheystoresubstantialamountsofcarbonandcyclenutrients.Whilereclaiminglandforpasturehelpstosoftenthetotallossofrangeland,theeco-logicalvalueofreclaimedgrasslandisnotassignifi-cantasundisturbednativegrasslands.PopulationgrowthanddevelopmentintheGreatPlainscanbeathreattotheexistenceandhealthofgrasslands,leadingtoloss,deterioration,andfragmentation—between1990and2000,thepopulationofthe22stateswestoftheMississippiRiverincreasedby17.3percent(Connerandothers,n.d.).Grasslandsareoneoftheworld’smostendangeredecosystems,andsomeexpertsconsiderthemtobeoneofNorthAmerica’shighestconservationpriorities.IntheUnitedStates,theEndangeredSpeciesActlistsabout55prairiegrasslandswildlifespeciesaseitherthreatenedorendangered(Bachand2001).

Figure 63: Trend in irrigated area, 1990–2000

area under irrigation up


Thisindicatorshowsthetrendintheamountoflandunderirrigationbetween1990and2000(Figure63).Thedataonirrigationrelatetoareaspurposelyprovidedwithwater,includinglandfloodedbyriverwaterforcropproductionorpas-tureimprovement(controlledflooding),whetherthisareaisirrigatedseveraltimesoronlyoncedur-ingtheyear(OECD2002b).

TheamountoflandunderirrigationinNorthAmericahasrisensteadilysince1990.TheUnitedStates,with224000km2(55351605acres)ofirrigatedlandin2002,hassignificantlymorelandunderirrigationthandoesCanada,withonly7200km2(1779159acres).Irrigation,thelargest

useofwaterintheUnitedStates,representsabout80percentofthenation’swaterconsumptionandasmuchas90percentoffreshwaterconsumptionintheWesternStates(Heimlich2003).Muchofthiswaterirrigatescropsindryregions.Irrigationfromgroundwatersourcesexertsamajorpressureonavailablewaterresources(OECD2002b).Forexample,irrigatedagricultureisthedominantlanduseoverlyingtheHighPlainsaquifer,whichyieldsabout30percentofthewaterusedforirrigationintheUnitedStates.From1980to1997,theaveragearea-weightedwaterlevelintheHighPlainsaquiferdeclined0.8m(2.7ft)(USGS2003).

Irrigated area


Theindicatorshowsthetrendinapparentcon-sumptionofnitrogenousfertilizerinNorthAmericabetween1990and2000inthousandsoftonnes(Figure64).Thedatainthisindicatorrefertothenitrogen(N)contentofcommercialinor-ganicfertilizers.

TheuseofnitrogenousfertilizerinNorthAmericacontinuestoincrease.Themajorsourceiscommercialfertilizer,followedbyanimalmanure.IntheUnitedStates,consumptionofallnitrogenproductsincreasedover17percentbetweenthe1991–92and1996–97period.InCanada,nitrogendemandgrewby33percentinthesameperiod(KorolandLarivière1998).Giventhemuchsmalleragriculturalbase,Canada’sfertilizercon-sumptionisnotnearlyashighinabsolutetermsasthatoftheUnitedStates.OfallOECDcountries,however,Canada’sincreaseintheuseofnitrogenfertilizerhasbeenthelargest(OECD2004a).Increasesvaryacrossthecountry.MorelandinagricultureandmoreintensiveuseofthelandinwesternCanadaledtoanincreaseofnearly50percentsince1990,whileincentralCanada,ashiftincropsandbettermanagementresultedina

decreaseinfertilizerusedespiteincreasedyieldsincornandothercrops(KorolandLarivière1998).IntheUnitedStates,increasesintheareaplantedaccountforthegrowthinuseofcommercialfertil-izer,whichrosetoover22milliontonnesduring1996–98.In1998,12.3milliontonnesofnitrog-enousfertilizerwasused,representing55.4percentoftotalcommercialfertilizeruse.Theincreasewasgenerallyduetogreatercornproductivitythatledtomoredemandbyfarmers(Daberkow,Taylor,andWen-yuanHuang2000).

Dietarypreference,especiallytheconsumptionofmeat,isasignificantdriverofnitrogenuseinag-riculture.Theconcentrationofindustriallivestockfarminghasledtotheconcentrationofmanure.Whenmanureapplicationexceedstheuptakebycrops,excessnitrogenenterstheenvironment(CGER2000;Howarthandothers2002).Theimpactsincludeair-andwater-qualityimpairment,andespeciallytheeutrophicationofaquaticandestuarinesystems.ExcessnutrientsfromfertilizerrunofftransportedbytheMississippiRiverarethoughttobetheprimarycauseofalarge“deadzone”intheGulfofMexico(Larson2004).

Note:USdataincludesPuertoRico.Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b.

Figure 64: Trend in apparent consumption of nitrogenous fertilizers, 1990–2000

Fertilizer use up slightly

Amanureslurryisappliedtothisfieldtohelpmanagetheanimalwasteandtoaddnutrientstothesoil. T�m McCabe/UNEP/NRCS

Fertilizer use

�0�


Figure 65: nitrogen balance, 1995–1997

The nitrogen balance of agri-cultural land in Canada and the United States is less than in most other industrialized countries

Thisindicatorshowstheaveragenitrogenbal-ancesinOECDcountriesbetween1995and1997(Figure65).Thenitrogenbalanceistheannualtotalquantityofinputs,mainlyfromlivestockandchemicalfertilizers,measuredinkilogrammesperhectareofagriculturalland.Itprovidesinformationaboutthematchbetweennutrientinputsandnu-trientoutputsandthepotentiallossofnitrogentothesoil,theair,andtosurfaceorgroundwater.Thedataexcludenitrogenlosstotheatmospherefromlivestockhousingandstoredmanure(Daberkow,Taylor,andWen-yuanHuang2000;OEDC2001).

CanadaandtheUnitedStateshaverelativelylownitrogensurplusescomparedtootherOECDnations.TheimpactsontheCanadianenviron-mentarefeltregionallyratherthanatthenationallevel(OECD2004a).IntheUnitedStates,nitro-genbalancesalsovaryregionallyandfromyeartoyear,dependingonthecrop,thelevelofyields,andnutrientuptake(Daberkow,Taylor,andWen-yuanHuang2000).

Source:CompiledbyauthorfromUN2004.

Figure 66: Trend in protected areas, 1994–2003

Protected areas up

BiodiversityProtected areas

Nitrogen balance



Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b.

Thisindicatorpresentsthetrendinofficialdevel-opmentassistance(ODA)relatedtogrossnationalincome(Figure67).Datarefertoloans(exceptmilitaryloans),grants,andtechnicalcoopera-tionbythepublicsectortodevelopingcountries(OECD2002b).

Thisisanimportantresponseindicator,sincealargepartofODAgoestowardsconservingnaturalresources,protectingtheenvironment,andfundingpopulationprogrammesindevelopingcountries.ItisappropriatethatNorthAmericaprovidesuchaidtolessdevelopedregionssinceNorthAmerica’s

largeecologicalfootprintmeansthatitsactivi-tieshaveimportantimpactsonregionsbeyonditsshores,andsinceitsownenvironmentalqualityde-pendsonthehealthofglobalecosystemgoodsandservices.TheindicatorshowsthatCanadareducedthepercentageofitsgrossnationalincomedevotedtoODAfrom0.44percentin1990to0.25percentin2000andtheUnitedStatesreduceditfrom0.21percentto0.01percentduringthistime.TheseamountsfallfarshortoftheUNtarget,agreedtobytheinternationalcommunityin1970,of0.7percent(ICPD1994).

Official development assistance down

Figure 67: Trend in official development assistance (ODa), 1990–2000

Thisindicatorshowsthetrendinthearea(squarekilometers)oflandandwatersetasidetoprotectandmaintainbiologicaldiversityandnaturalandassociatedculturalresources(Figure66).Protectedareasaremanagedthroughlegalorothereffectivemeans.ThedefinitionincludesIUCNcategoriesI–VI:areasunderstrictprotection,nationalparksandmonuments,areasconservedthroughactivemanagement,andprotectedlandscapesandsea-scapes(UN2004).

TheareasetasideforprotectioninNorthAmericahasincreasedoverthelastdecade,from2millionto2.6millionkm2(494millionto642.4millionacres).WhilesuchareasinNorthAmericaandelsewheremaybecategorizedasprotected,theyvaryinlevelofeffectivemanagement.In2003,some10.9percentofthelandareaintheregionwasundersomeformofprotection.Theworld

averagewas10.8.InCanada,6.3percentofthelandwasprotectedunderIUCNcategoriesI–VI(excludingmarineandlittoralar-eas)in2003(WRI2004).Canadahasabout20percentoftheworld’sremainingnaturalareas(OECD2004a);sometwo-thirdsofthelandoccupiedbyCanada’sterrestrialecoregionshassomeformofprotection,buttheotherthirdhasvirtuallynone(NRCan2004).Overthepastdecade,however,therewasa40percentincreaseintheareaprotect-ed(OECD2004a).Canada’stargetistoprotect12percentofitsland.IntheUnitedStatesin2003,15.8percentwasprotectedunderIUCNcategoriesI–VI.AlthoughtherehasbeenageneralincreaseintheareaprotectedintheUnitedStatesoverthepast10years,onlythreenewparkshavebeencreatedsince2000.

national responsesOfficial development assistance

Trend in official development assistance (ODA),1990-2000

% o

f Gro

ss N

atio

nal I

ncom

e

�0�

List of acronyms and abbreviationsAQI AirQualityIndex(US)

C10

H12

N2O cotinine

CCs collaboratingcentres

CCME CanadianCouncilofMinistersoftheEnvironment

CEC CommissionforEnvironmentalCooperationofNorthAmerica

CEPA CanadianEnvironmentalProtectionAct

CEQ CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality(US)

CESCC CanadianEndangeredSpeciesConservationCouncil

CFCs chlorofluorocarbons

CISE CanadianInformationSystemfortheEnvironment

CO carbonmonoxide

CO2 carbondioxide

COSEWIC CommitteeontheStatusofEndangeredWildlifeinCanada

CRP ConservationReserveProgram(US)

CSA CanadianStandardsAssociation

CSD UnitedNationsCommissionforSustainableDevelopment

DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DESA UnitedNationsDepartmentforEconomicandSocialAffairs

dkl decalitre

DPSEEA drivingforce,pressure,state,exposure,effect,action

DPSIR drivingforce,pressure,state,impact,response

DSR drivingforce-state-response

EID environmentalindicatorsdatabase

EJ Exajoules

EPA EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(US)

ESDI EnvironmentandSustainableDevelopmentIndicators

ESI EnvironmentalSustainabilityIndex

FSC ForestStewardshipCouncil

ft feet

g gram

GAO UnitedStatesGovernmentAccountabilityOffice

GBIF GlobalBiodiversityInformationFacility

GDP grossdomesticproduct

GEO GlobalEnvironmentOutlook

GEOSS GlobalEarthObservationSystemofSystems

GHG Greenhousegases

Gl gallon

GLWQA GreatLakesWaterQualityAgreement

GNP grossnationalproduct

GPA UnitedNationsGlobalProgrammeofActionfortheProtectionofthe MarineEnvironmentfromLand-basedActivities

GPAC GlobalProgrammeofActionCoalitionfortheGulfofMaine

ha hectare

HCFCs hydrochloroflorocarbons

Hg mercury

��0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca

IEA InternationalEnergyAgency

IUCN WorldConservationUnion(InternationalUnionfortheConservationof NatureandNaturalResources)

K Potassium

km kilometre

l litre

lbs pounds

m3 cubicmetre

MDGs MillenniumDevelopmentGoals

MEME multipleexposures–multipleeffects

mg milligram

MSW municipalsolidwaste

N2 nitrogen

NAAEC NorthAmericanAgreementonEnvironmentalCooperation

NAAQO NationalAmbientAirQualityObjectives(Canada)

NAAQS NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(US)

NAFTA NorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement

NATS NorthAmericanTransportationStatisticsInterchange

NEON NationalEcologicalObservatoryNetwork(US)

NGO Non-governmentalorganization

NIRO NationalIndicatorsandReportingOffice(Canada)

NOx nitrogenoxides

NO2 nitrogendioxide

NO3 nitrate

NOAA NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration(US)

NPL SuperfundNationalPrioritiesList(US)

NPRI NationalPollutantReleaseInventory(Canada)

NRDC NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil

NRTEE NationalRoundTableontheEnvironmentandtheEconomy(Canada)

O3 ozone

ODA officialdevelopmentassistance

ODP ozone-depletingpotential

ODS ozonedepletingsubstances

OECD OrganizationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment

P phosphorous

Pb lead

PBTs persistentbioaccumulativetoxics

PCB polychlorinatedbiphenyl

PCSD President’sCouncilonSustainableDevelopment(US)

PM particulatematter

PM10

particulatematterwithanaerodynamicdiameterlessthan101micrometer

PM2.5

particulatematterwithanaerodynamicdiameterlessthan2.51micrometer (fineparticulate)

POPs persistentorganicpollutants

ppb partsperbillion

PPP purchasingpowerparities

PRTR PollutantReleaseandTransferRegister

��

PSR pressure-state-response

RCRA ResourceConservationandRecoveryAct(US)

Rn radon

RPA ResourcePlanningAct(US)

SD sustainabledevelopment

SDIGroup InteragencyWorkingGrouponSustainableDevelopmentIndicators(US)

SFI SustainableForestryInitiative

SIDA SwedishInternationalDevelopmentAgency

SOx sulphuroxides

SO2 sulphurdioxide

SO42

sulphate

SOE State-of-the-environment

SOLEC StateoftheLakesEcosystemConference

SUV sportsutilityvehicle

TEEI transportation,energy,andenvironmentindicators

TRI ToxicsReleaseInventory(US)

μg microgram

UNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme

UNEP UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme

UNFCCC UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange

USLE universalsoillossequation

VMT vehiclemilestravelled

VOC volatileorganiccompounds

WCED WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment

WHO WorldHealthOrganization

WRI WorldResourcesInstitute

WSSD WorldSummitonSustainableDevelopment


referencesAMAP(ArcticMonitoringandAssessmentProgramme).2003.

AMAP assessment �00�: human health �n the Arct�c.Oslo,Norway:ArcticMonitoringandAssessmentProgrammehttp://www.amap.no/,on31May2004.

———.2004.AMAP assessment �00�: Pers�stent organ�c pollut-ants (POPs) �n the Arct�c.Oslo,Norway:ArcticMonitoringandAssessmentProgrammehttp://www.amap.no/,on31May2004.

ANZECC(AustralianandNewZealandEnvironmentandConservationCouncil).2000.Core env�ronmental �nd�cators for report�ng on the state of the env�ronment.Canberra:Aus-tralianandNewZealandEnvironmentandConservationCouncil,State-of-the-environmentreportingTaskForcehttp://www.deh.gov.au/soe/publications/pubs/coreindica-tors.pdf,on12May2004.

Bachand,RichardR.2001.The Amer�can pra�r�e: Go�ng, go-�ng, gone? A status report on the Amer�can pra�r�e.NationalWildlifeFederationhttp://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/americanprairie.pdf?CFID=5106498&CFTOKEN=87980161f4d0ae22-90F9082E-65BF-09FE-B5FBB07D7A4C0EA7,on24April2005.

Baumert,Kevin,andJonathanPershing.2004.Cl�mate data: Ins�ghts and observat�ons.PewCenteronGlobalClimateChangehttp://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate%20Data%20new%2Epdf,on10January2005.

Berger,A.R,andR.A.Hodge.1998.Naturalchangeintheenvironment:Achallengetothepressure-state-responseconcept.Soc�al Ind�cators Research44:255–65http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/monitoring//ib4/pressure_state_re-sponse.pdf,on7July2004.

Bertram,Paul,andNancyStadler-Salt.2000.Select�on of �nd�-cators for Great Lakes bas�n ecosystem health: Vers�on �.StateoftheLakesEcosystemConference(SOLEC)http://bina-tional.net/solec/doc/Selection%20of%20Indicators%20v4/English/Selection%20Indicators%20Whole%20doc%20access.pdf,on17August2004.

Bossel,Hartmut.1999.Ind�cators for susta�nable development: Theory, method, appl�cat�ons.AreporttotheBalatonGroup.Winnipeg,Manitoba:InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopmenthttp://www.iisd.org/publications/publication.asp?pno=275,on7April2004.

Boyd,DavidR.2001.Canada vs. The OECD: An env�ronmen-tal compar�son.UniversityofVictoria:Eco-ResearchChairofEnvironmentalLawandPolicyhttp://www.environmental-indicators.com/htdocs/PDF/Pgs1-10.pdf,on23May2004.

Briggs,David.1999.Env�ronmental health �nd�cators: Frame-work and methodolog�es.Geneva:WorldHealthOrganiza-tionhttp://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/WHO_SDE_OEH_99.10.pdf,on20October2004.

Briggs,David.2003.Mak�ng a d�fference: Ind�cators to �mprove ch�ldren’s env�ronmental health.Geneva:WorldHealthOrganization.

Brown,DanielG.,KennethM.Johnson,ThomasR.Loveland,andDavidM.Theobald.2004.Ruralland-usetrendsintheconterminousUnitedStates,1950–2000.InEcolog�cal Appl�cat�ons,Presshttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~danbrown/papers/ecolapps_final.pdf,on16January2004.

Brown,LesterR.2001.Pavingtheplanet:Carsandcropscompetingforland.Earth Pol�cy Alertshttp://www.earth-policy.org/Alerts/Alert12.htm,on16January2005.

Brown,LesterR.,ChristopherFlavin,andSandraPostel.1991.Sav�ng the planet: How to shape an env�ronmentally susta�n-able global economy.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Company.

Brunvoll,F.1997.Ind�cators of the state of the env�ronment �n the nord�c countr�es: Exper�ences from the product�on of the first nord�c env�ronmental �nd�cator report (work�ng paper no. �).UN/ECE,StatisticalDivision,EnvironmentStatisticshttp://www.unece.org/stats/documents/1997/09/env_meth/2.e.pdf,on8April2004.

CCFM(CanadianCouncilofForestMinisters).2000.Cr�ter�a and �nd�cators of susta�nable forest management �n Canada: Nat�onal status, �000.Ottawa,Ontario:CanadianCoun-cilofForestMinisters,CanadianForestService,NaturalResourcesCanadahttp://www.ccfm.org/ci/2000_e.html,on10June2004.

CCME(CanadianCouncilofMinistersoftheEnvironment).2003.Cl�mate, nature, people: Ind�cators of Canada’s chang�ng cl�mate.Winnipeg,Manitobahttp://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/cc_ind_full_doc_e.pdf,on25April2005.

CEC(CommissionforEnvironmentalCooperationofNorthAmerica).1997.Ecolog�cal Reg�ons of North Amer�ca: Toward a Common Perspect�ve.Montreal:CommissionforEnvi-ronmentalCooperationofNorthAmericahttp://www.cec.org/files/pdf/BIODIVERSITY/eco-eng_EN.pdfon25April2005.

———.2001.The North Amer�can mosa�c: A state of the env�-ronment report.Montreal:CommissionforEnvironmentalCooperationofNorthAmerica.

———.2003.Feas�b�l�ty study for the development of �nd�cators of ch�ldren’s health and the env�ronment �n North Amer�ca.Montreal:CommissionforEnvironmentalCooperationofNorthAmericahttp://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POLLUT-ANTS/CHE-Feasibility-Study-EN.pdf,on9June2004.

———.2004a.Tak�ng Stock �00�: Execut�ve Summary.Montreal:CommissionforEnvironmentalCooperationofNorthAmericahttp://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POL-LUTANTS/TS2001-Executive-Summary_en.pdf,on14September2004.

———.2004b.North Amer�can a�r qual�ty and cl�mate change standards, regulat�ons, plann�ng and enforcement at the nat�onal, state/prov�nc�al and local levels. Montreal:Commis-sionforEnvironmentalCooperationofNorthAmerica.

———.2006.Ch�ldren’s Health and the Env�ronment �n North Amer�ca: A F�rst Report on Ava�lable Ind�cators and Measures. Montreal:CommissionforEnvironmentalCooperationofNorthAmerica.

CESCC(CanadianEndangeredSpeciesConservationCoun-cil).2000.W�ld spec�es �000: The general status of spec�es �n Canada.CanadianEndangeredSpeciesConservationCouncil.Ottawa:MinisterofPublicWorksandGovern-mentServicesCanadahttp://www.wildspecies.ca/wildspe-cies2000/en/Report.pdf,on22September2004.

CGER(CommitteetoEvaluateIndicatorsforMonitoringAquaticandTerrestrialEnvironments,BoardonEnviron-mentalStudiesandToxicology,WaterScienceandTechnol-ogyBoard,CommissiononGeosciences,Environment,andResources,NationalResearchCouncil).1997.Bu�ld�ng a Foundat�on for Sound Env�ronmental Dec�s�ons.CommitteeonResearchOpportunitiesandPrioritiesforEPA,NationalResearchCouncilhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/5756.html,on10May2004.

��3

———.2000.Ecolog�cal �nd�cators for the nat�on.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPresshttp://books.nap.edu/books/0309068452/html/1.html#pagetop,on9February2004.

Chape,Stuart,SimonBlyth,LucyFish,PhillipFox,andMarkSpalding(compilers).2003.�003 Un�ted Nat�ons L�st of Protected Areas.IUCN,Gland,SwitzerlandandCambridge,UKandUNEPWorldConservationMonitoringCentre,Cambridge,UKhttp://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/un-list/2003_UN_LIST.pdf,on21September2004.

CIESIN(YaleUniversityCenterforInternationalEarthSci-enceInformationNetwork).2002.�00� Env�ronmental susta�nab�l�ty �ndex: An �n�t�at�ve of the Global Leaders of To-morrow Env�ronment Task Force, World Econom�c Forum.incollaborationwithYaleCenterforEnvironmentalLawandPolicy(YCELP)YaleUniversityCenterforInternationalEarthScienceInformationNetwork(CIESIN),ColumbiaUniversity:AnnualMeeting2002,Davos,Switzerlandhttp://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/ESI2002_21MAR02tot.pdf,on12August2004.

———.2005.2005Env�ronmental susta�nab�l�ty �ndex: Benchmark�ng nat�onal env�ronmental stewardsh�p.YaleCenterforEnvironmentalLawandPolicy,YaleUniversityandtheCenterforInternationalEarthScienceInformationNetwork,ColumbiaUniversity.IncollaborationwithWorldEconomicForum,Geneva,SwitzerlandandJointResearchCentre,EuropeanCommission,Ispra,Italyhttp://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_Main_Report.pdf,on6April2005.

CISE(CanadianInformationSystemfortheEnvironment).2004.Canadianinformationsystemfortheenvironment.CISEhttp://www.cise-scie.ca/english/home.cfm,on30September2004.

Clark,William,T.Jorling,andothers.1999.Des�gn�ng a report on the state of the nat�on’s ecosystems: Selected measures for croplands, forests, and coasts and oceans.Washington,DC:H.JohnHeinzIIICenterforScience,EconomicsandtheEnvironment.

ConferenceBoardofCanada.2004.Performance and potent�al �00�–0�: How can Canada prosper �n tomorrow’s world?Ot-tawa:TheConferenceBoardofCanada.

Conner,Richard,AndrewSeidl,LarryVanTassell,andNealWilkins.N.d.Un�ted States grasslands and related resources: An econom�c and b�olog�cal trends assessment.LandInforma-tionSystemshttps://landinfo.tamu.edu/presentations/Exec-SummaryTOC_high.pdf,on12January2005.

CSIRO(CommonwealthScientificandIndustrialResearchOrganisation).1999.A gu�debook to env�ronmental �nd�ca-tors.CommonwealthScientificandIndustrialResearchOrganisation,Australiahttp://www.csiro.au/csiro/envind/code/pages/menu.htm,on25May2004.

Daberkow,Stan,HaroldTaylor,andWen-yuanHuang.2000.Nutrientuseandmanagement.InAgr�cultural Resources and Env�ronmental Ind�cators,editedbyR.Heimlich,Agricul-turalHandbookNo.AH722.WashingtonDC:Depart-mentofAgriculture,EconomicResearchServicehttp://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/ah722/arei4_4/DBGen.htm,on17January2005.

Dale,VirginiaH.,andSuzanneC.Beyeler.2001.Challengesinthedevelopmentanduseofecologicalindicators.Ecolog�-cal Ind�cators 1(1):3–10.

Daly,HermanE.,andJohnB.CobbJr.1989.For the common good: Red�rect�ng the economy toward commun�ty, the env�ron-ment, and a susta�nable future.Boston:BeaconPress.

deMoor,André,andPeterCalamai.1997.Subs�d�z�ng un-susta�nable development: underm�n�ng the earth w�th publ�c funds.SanJosé,CostaRicaandTheHague,TheNether-lands:TheEarthCouncilandtheInstituteforResearchonPublicExpenditure.

Denisov,Nickolai,LawrenceHislop,PhilippeRekacewicz,andOttoSimonett.1998.Cookbook for state-of-the-env�ronment report�ng on the Internet.Arendal,Norway:UNEP/GRIDhttp://www.grida.no/soe/cookbook/,on24June2004.

DMSP.1994–1995.DMSP n�ghtt�me l�ghts data download.DefenseMeteorologicalSatelliteProgram,DepartmentofDefense(DoD),AirForceSpaceandMissileSystemsCenter(SMC):NOAASatelliteandInformationServiceshttp://dmsp.ngdc.noaa.gov/html/download.htmlon3Janu-ary2004.

Dorfman,Mark.2004.Test�ng the waters �00�: A gu�de to water qual�ty at vacat�on beaches:NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil(NRDC)http://www2.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/ttw2004.pdf,on9August2004.

Dubos,René.1994.Environment.InThe Encycloped�a of the env�ronment: The René Dubos Center for Human Env�ron-ments,editedbyR.A.EblenandW.R.Eblen,pp.208–11.Boston:HoughtonMifflinCompany.

Dudley,JosephP.2003.Review:Thestateofthenation’secosystems.Common Ground: An Interd�sc�pl�nary Journal of the Env�ronment � (�).

EarthObservatory.2002.NASA’sTerraSatelliterefinesmapofgloballandcover.NASAhttp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/LCC/,on22September2004.

EC(EnvironmentCanada).1997.The v�s�on for federal state-of-the-env�ronment report�ng �n Canada.NationalIndica-torsandAssessmentOffice,EnvironmentalConservationService,EnvironmentCanadahttp://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/english/SOER/The_Vision.pdf,on9February2004.

———.2001.Track�ng key env�ronmental �ssues.EnvironmentCanadahttp://www.ec.gc.ca/TKEI/eng_final.pdf,on9February2004.

———.2002a.Canada–Un�ted States A�r Qual�ty Agreement: �00� progress report.SectionIV:ScientificCooperation.EnvironmentCanada,TheGreenLanehttp://www.ec.gc.ca/air/qual/2002/section4_e.html#measurement,on21September2004.

———.2002b.Nutr�ents and the�r �mpacts on the Canad�an env�ronment: Report�ng on the state of Canada’s env�ronment. IndicatorsandAssessmentOffice,EcosystemScienceDirec-torate,EnvironmentalConservationService,EnvironmentCanadahttp://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/soer/nutrient-seng.pdf,on12February2004.

———.2003a.Env�ronmental s�gnals: Canada’s nat�onal env�ronmental �nd�cator ser�es �003.EnvironmentCanadahttp://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicator_series/de-fault.cfm#pic,on8June2004.


———.2003b.Canad�an water qual�ty gu�del�nes.Environ-mentCanadahttp://www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/English/Ceqg/Water/default.cfm,on29September2004.

———.2004a.Ecosysteminformation:ToxinsinGreatBlueHeroneggs.http://www.ecoinfo.ec.gc.ca/env_ind/region/gbhtoxin/gbhtoxin_e.cfmandhttp://www.ecoinfo.ec.gc.ca/env_ind/region/herons/heron_e.cfm,on30October2004.

———.2004b.Canadianconsumptionofenergy(1961–97).StateoftheEnvironmentInfobase,NationalEnvironmentalIndicatorSerieshttp://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indi-cators/Issues/Energy/Tables/ectb01_e.cfm,on21September2004.

———.2004c.Nationalenvironmentalindicatorseriesarchive.EnvironmentCanada,StateoftheEnvironmentInfobasehttp://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicators/what/default.cfm#top,on8July2004.

EC,andUSEPA(EnvironmentCanada,andUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency).2001.State of the Great Lakes �00�.EPA905-R-01-003.EnvironmentCanadaandUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyhttp://www.binational.net/sogl2001/download.htmlon7April2005.

———.2003.State of the Great Lakes �003.EnvironmentCanadaandUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyhttp://binational.net/sogl2003/sogl03eng.pdf,on17May2004.

———.2004.Character�zat�on of the Georg�a Bas�n/Puget Sound a�rshed.EnvironmentCanadaandUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyhttp://www.pyr.ec.gc.ca/Air/gb_ps_airshed/summary_e.htm,on4October2004.

EEA(EuropeanEnvironmentAgency).2000a.Are we mov�ng �n the r�ght d�rect�on? Ind�cators on transport and env�ronment �ntegrat�on �n the EU.Environmentalissuesseriesno.12.Copenhagen:EuropeanEnvironmentAgency,Term2000http://reports.eea.eu.int/ENVISSUENo12/en/term2000.pdf,on24June2004.

———.2000b.Quest�ons to be answered by a state-of-the-env�-ronment report: The first l�st.Technicalreportno.47.Copen-hagen:EuropeanEnvironmentAgencyhttp://reports.eea.eu.int/Technical_report_No_47/en/tech47.pdf,on24June2004.

———.2003.Europe’s env�ronment: The th�rd assessment: En-v�ronmental assessment report no. �0.Copenhagen:EuropeanEnvironmentAgencyhttp://reports.eea.eu.int/environmen-tal_assessment_report_2003_10/en/tab_content_RLR,on2October2004.

EIA(EnergyInformationAdministration).USDepartmentofEnergy.1995.Energy-intensityindicatorsfortheUSeconomy,bysector.InMeasur�ng energy effic�ency �n the Un�ted States’ economy: A beg�nn�ng. Washington,DC:En-ergyInformationAdministration,OfficeofEnergyMarketsandEndUsehttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/eefig_exsum.htm,on20September2004.

———.1999.EnergyintheAmericas.EnergyInformationAdministrationhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/theam-ericas.html,on7January2005.

———.2003.UnitedStates—Environmentalissues.EnergyInformationAdministrationhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usenv.html,on7January2005.

———.2004a.Internationaltotalprimaryenergyandrelatedinformation.EnergyInformationAdministration,NationalEnergyInformationCenterhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/total.html#IntlConsumption,on7January2005.

———.2004b.Countryanalysisbriefs.NorthAmerica.EnergyInformationAdministrationhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/cabsna.html,on7January2005.

ExchangeNetwork.2004.Exchangenetworknet.ExchangeNetworkhttp://www.exchangenetwork.net/common/de-fault.asp,on29October2004.

FAO(FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations).2001a.Global forest resources assessment �000: Ma�n report.Rome:FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,ForestryDepartmenthttp://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=101&langId=1,on9December2004.

———.2001b.The state of the world’s forests �00�. Rome:FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,ForestryDepartmenthttp://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/003/y0900E/y0900E00.htm,on2January2005.

———.2003.The state of the world’s forests �003.Rome:FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,For-estryDepartmenthttp://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/005/Y7581E/y7581e00.htm,on16June2004.

———.2004a.AQUASTAT.FoodandAgricultureOrganiza-tionoftheUnitedNations,LandandWaterDevelopmentDivision:http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/aglw/aquastat/main/index.stm,on15June2004.

———.2004b.FISHSTATplus:Universalsoftwareforfish-erystatisticaltimeseries.FoodandAgricultureOrganiza-tionoftheUnitedNations,FisheriesInformationCenterhttp://www.fao.org/fi/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.asp,on21September2004.

———.2004.FAOSTAT.FAO stat�st�cal databases.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations:http://apps.fao.org/default.jsp,on7June2004.

FSC(ForestStewardshipCouncil).2004.ForestStewardshipCouncilhttp://www.fsc.org/en/,on2January2005.

Fukuda,K.,W.Danker,J.S.Lee,A.Bonne,andM.J.Crijns.N.d.IAEA overv�ew of global spent fuel storage(IAEA-CN-102/60).InternationalAtomicEnergyAgency:http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/GrimselLab/storageoverview.pdf,on12January2005.

Gallopín,GilbertoCarlos.1997.Indicatorsandtheiruse:In-formationfordecision-making.InSusta�nab�l�ty �nd�cators: Report of the project on �nd�cators for susta�nable development,editedbyB.MoldanandS.Billharz.Wiley:ScientificCommitteeonProblemsoftheEnvironment(SCOPE)http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope58/ch01-introd.html,on13May2004.

USGAO(UnitedStatesGovernmentAccountabil-ityOffice).2004.Env�ronmental �nd�cators: Better coord�nat�on �s needed to develop env�ronmental �nd�ca-tors sets that �nform dec�s�ons.ReporttoCongressionalrequesters.USGovernmentAccountabilityOfficehttp://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNEPA/ReNepa.nsf/0/38cdc5741a14edb785256f54005939c8?OpenDocument,on30December2004.

��

Gaudet,Connie.2004.Promotinguptakeofwaterefficienttechnology:ACanadianperspective.Presentationatpublicmeeting,MarketEnhancementOpportunitiesforWater-EfficientProducts:TheRolesofWaterUtilities,State,Local,andRegionalGovernments,andNon-GovernmentOrganizations,15January,atAustin,Texashttp://www.epa.gov/owm/water-efficiency/pdf/austin2004/gaudet.pdf,on12January2005.

GBRMPA(GreatBarrierReefMarineParkAuthority),TheWorldBank,andIUCN(TheWorldConservationUnion).1995.A global representat�ve system of mar�ne protected areas.AustralianGovernment,DepartmentoftheEnvironmentandHeritage,GreatBarrierReefMarineParkAuthority,TheWorldBank,andTheWorldConservationUnion(IUCN)http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/global/,on22September2004.

GBIF(GlobalBiodiversityInformationFacility).2004.GlobalBiodiversityInformationFacility.UniversityofCopenha-gen,Denmarkhttp://www.gbif.org/,on29October2004.

GBPSEI(TransboundaryGeorgiaBay–PugetSoundEnvi-ronmentalIndicatorsWorkingGroup).2002.Georg�a Bay–Puget Sound Ecosystem Ind�cators Report. Transbound-aryGeorgiaBay–PugetSoundEnvironmentalIndicatorsWorkingGroup,EnvironmentCanada,BritishColumbiaMinistryofWater,Land,andAirProtection,WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,PugetSoundWaterQualityActionTeamhttp://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/cppl/gbpsei/docu-ments/gbpsei.pdf,on17May2004.

GeoGratis.2004.NCAD–NorthAmericanconservationareasdatabase.NaturalResourcesCanadahttp://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/clf/en?action=entrySummary&entryId=3719&entryType=productCollection&context=&keymap=outlineCanada,on16June2004.

GovernmentofCanada.2004.CommitteeontheStatusofEndangeredWildlifeinCanada.SARAPublicRegistryhttp://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/gen_info/HTML/COSE-WIC_e.cfm,on3October2004.

GLIN(GreatLakesInformationNetwork).2004.GLINmapgallery.GreatLakesInformationNetworkhttp://www.great-lakes.net/gis/maps/,on16August2004.

GMCME(GulfofMaineCouncilontheMarineEnviron-ment).2002.Atlant�c Northeast Coastal Mon�tor�ng Summ�t December �0–��, �00�, Execut�ve Summary.GulfofMaineCouncilontheMarineEnvironmenthttp://www.gulfof-maine.org/summit/ANCMSummitExecSum.pdf,on27October2004.

———.2004a.Nat�onal �nd�cator development �n�t�at�ves.NorthwestAtlanticIndicatorsWorkshopbriefingpackage.GulfofMaineCouncilontheMarineEnvironmenthttp://www.gulfofmaine.org/nciw/PDFs/NationalIndicatorDev.pdf,on12May2004.

———.2004b.Workshopsummaryreport.NortheastCoastalIndicatorsWorkshop,6–8January,atDurham,NewHampshire:GulfofMaineCouncilontheMarineEnviron-ment.

———.2004c.Environmentalindicators.GulfofMaineCouncilontheMarineEnvironmenthttp://www.gulfof-maine.org/default.asp,on12May2004.

———.2004d.Knowledgebase.GulfofMaineCouncilontheMarineEnvironmenthttp://gulfofmaine.org/knowl-edgebase/aboutthegulf/,on11August2004.

GPAC(GlobalProgrammeofActionCoalitionfortheGulfofMaine).N.d.HomepageoftheGlobalProgrammeofAc-tionCoalitionfortheGulfofMainehttp://www.gpac-gom.org/,on11August2004.

GRI(GlobalReportingInitiative).2002.Susta�nab�l�ty report-�ng gu�del�nes �00�.GlobalReportingInitiativehttp://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/2002/contents.asp,on7April2004.

———.2004.Publ�c agency susta�nab�l�ty report�ng: A GRI resource document �n support of the Publ�c Agency Sector Supplement Project. GlobalReportingInitiativehttp://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/resource/public.pdf,on30August2004.

GulfofMaineSummit.2004a.WelcometotheGulfofMaineSummithttp://www.gulfofmainesummit.org/index.html,on11August2004.

———.2004b.Reg�onal ecosystem �nd�cators for the Gulf of Ma�ne, pre-summ�t draft: F�sher�es, contam�nants, and coastal development.GulfofMaineCouncilontheMarineEnvironmenthttp://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/publica-tions/regionalecosystemindicators-presummitdraft.pdf,on7April2005.

Hammond,A.,A.Adriaanse,E.Rodenburg,D.Bryant,andR.Woodward.1995.Env�ronmental �nd�cators: A systemat�c approach to measur�ng and report�ng on env�ronmental pol�cy performance �n the context of susta�nable development. Wash-ington,DC:WorldResourcesInstitute.

Hardi,Peter,andStephanBarg.1997.Measuringsustainabledevelopment:Reviewofcurrentpractice.Occas�onal paper number ��,IndustryCanada.

Hardi,Peter,andTerrenceZdan,eds.1997.Assess�ng susta�n-able development: pr�nc�ples �n pract�ce. Winnipeg:Interna-tionalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment.

Hecht,JoyE.2000.Lessons learned from env�ronmental ac-count�ng: F�nd�ngs from n�ne case stud�es.Washington,DC:IUCN(TheWorldConservationUnion)http://biodiver-sityeconomics.org/pdf/topics-600-00.pdf,on28June2004.

Heimlich,Ralph.2003.Agr�cultural resources and env�ronmen-tal �nd�cators.WashingtonDC:DepartmentofAgriculture,EconomicResearchServicehttp://www.ers.usda.gov/publi-cations/arei/ah722/,on20July2004.

HeinzCenter(TheH.JohnHeinzIIICenterforScience,Eco-nomicsandtheEnvironment).2002.The state of the nat�on’s ecosystems: Measur�ng the lands, waters, and l�v�ng resources of the Un�ted States.H.JohnHeinzIIICenterforScience,EconomicsandtheEnvironmenthttp://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/intro/toc.shtml,on12February2004.

———.2003.The state of the nat�on’s ecosystems: Annual up-date �003.H.JohnHeinzIIICenterforScience,Econom-icsandtheEnvironmenthttp://www.heinzctr.org/ecosys-tems/intro/updates.shtml,on21June2004.

Hezri,A.A.2003.Susta�nab�l�ty �nd�cators and pol�cy processes: Exper�ence from Malays�a.PaperreadattheInternationalConferenceonSustainabilityIndicators,6–9November,atValetta,Malta.

Howarth,RobertW.,ElizabethW.Boyer,WendyJ.Pabich,andJamesN.Galloway.2002.NitrogenuseintheUnitedStatesfrom1961–2000andpotentialfuturetrends.AM-BIO: A Journal of the Human Env�ronment31(2):88–96.


Hutson,SusanS.,NancyL.Barber,JoanF.Kenny,KristinS.Linsey,DeborahS.Lumia,andMollyA.Maupin.2004.Est�mated use of water �n the Un�ted States �n �000.UnitedStatesGeologicalSurveyhttp://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/text-intro.html#ack,on5April2004.

ICPD(UnitedNationsInternationalConferenceonPopula-tionandDevelopment).1994.Un�ted Nat�ons Internat�onal Conference on Populat�on and Development (ICPD): Sum-mary of the Programme of Act�on.UnitedNationsDepart-mentofPublicInformationhttp://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/populatin/icpd.htm#chapter14,Viewed29August2004.

IEA(InternationalEnergyAgency).2003a.EnergystatisticsofOECDcountries.InternationalEnergyAgencyDataServiceshttp://data.iea.org/IEASTORE/DEFAULT.ASP,on2June2004.

———.2003b.CO� em�ss�ons from fuel combust�on (�003 ed�-

t�on).InternationalEnergyAgencyDataServiceshttp://data.iea.org/ieastore/product.asp?dept%5Fid=101&pf%5Fid=305,on2June2004.

IISD(InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment).1997.LitScan:Abriefoverviewofthe‘big’annualinterna-tionalSDreports.InDevelop�ng �deas: A b�-monthly d�gest by IISD May/June(9)http://www.iisd.org/didigest/may97/de-fault.htm,on20May2004.

———.2002.Welcome to the dashboard of susta�nab�l�ty.Inter-nationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopmenthttp://www.iisd.org/cgsdi/intro_dashboard.htm,on10June2004.

———.2004a.Compend�um: A global d�rectory to �nd�cator �n�t�at�ves. Winnipeg:InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopmenthttp://www.iisd.org/measure/compendium/,on23May2004.

———.2004b.Canada led world growth �n forest cert�fica-t�on �n �003.InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment,ForestsForumhttp://lists.iisd.ca:81/read/messages?id=20310,on15January2005.

ISCGM(InternationalSteeringCommitteeforGlobalMap-ping.).2004.InternationalSteeringCommitteeforGlobalMapping.GeographicalSurveyInstitute,Ibaraki,Japanhttp://www.iscgm.org/html4/index.htmlon29October2004.

ISIN(InternationalSustainabilityIndicatorsNetwork).2002.Comparat�ve Summary of Ex�st�ng Ind�cator In�t�at�ves.InternationalSustainabilityIndicatorsNetworkhttp://www.sustainabilityindicators.org/workgroups/NIC/Pocantico-ComparativeElements.html,on2October2004.

IUCN(InternationalUnionfortheConservationofNature—TheWorldConservationUnion).2003.�003 IUCN red l�st of threatened spec�es.Gland,Switzerland:IUCN—TheWorldConservationUnion,IUCNSpeciesSurvivalCom-missionhttp://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/RedList2003/Eng-lish/backgroundEn.htm,on16June2004.

Keating,Michael.2001.Rev�ew and analys�s of best pract�ces �n publ�c report�ng on env�ronmental performance: A report to Execut�ve Resource Group.Researchpaper#9.

Korol,Maurice,andÉricLarivière.1998.Fert�l�zer pr�c�ng �n Canada:AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanadahttp://www.agr.gc.ca/spb/fiap-dpraa/publications/fertil/fertil_toc_e.php,on18January2005.

Larsen,J.2004.Dead zones �ncreas�ng �n world’s coastal waters.EarthPolicyInstitutehttp://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update41.htm,on17January2005.

Lealess,Sherry.2002.Headl�ne �nd�cators. Backgroundpaperforsymposium,BeyondIndicators:IndicesofEnvironmen-talSustainability,March5–6,2002,atDownsview,ON:PolicyResearchDirectorate,EnvironmentCanada.

Linster,Myriam.1997.OECDenvironmentalindicators.InSusta�nab�l�ty �nd�cators: Report of the Project on Ind�cators for Susta�nable Development,editedbyB.MoldanandS.Billharz.Wiley:ScientificCommitteeonProblemsoftheEnvironment(SCOPE)http://www.icsu-scope.org/down-loadpubs/scope58/box3a.html,on13May2004.

Loveland,T.R.,B.C.Reed,J.F.Brown,D.OOhlen,Z.Zhu,L.Yang,andJ.Merchant.2000.Global land cover charac-ter�st�cs data base vers�on �.0.LandProcessesDistributedActiveArchiveCenterhttp://edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/glob-doc2_0.html,on1June2004.

Luxem,Monika,andBirgitteBryld.1997.Introductorybox:TheCSDworkprogrammeonindicatorsofsustainabledevelopment.InSusta�nab�l�ty �nd�cators: Report of the Project on Ind�cators for Susta�nable Development,editedbyB.MoldanandS.Billharz.Wiley:ScientificCommitteeOnProblemsoftheEnvironment(SCOPE)http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope58/introd-box.html,on13May2004.

MAP(MediterraneanActionPlan).1998.Env�ronmental performance Ind�cators: Frame document.PaperreadattheSub-regionalWorkshop:EnvironmentalPerformanceIndi-cators,PlanBleu,26–28November,atCairo.Mediterra-neanActionPlan,MediterraneanEnvironmentalTechnicalAssistancehttp://www.planbleu.org/pdf/ipecadra.pdf,on4June2004.

Marland,G.,T.A.Boden,andR.J.Andres.2003.Global,regional,andnationalCO

2emissions.InTrends: A compen-

d�um of data on global change.CarbonDioxideInformationAnalysisCenter,OakRidgeNationalLaboratory,USDe-partmentofEnergy,OakRidge,TNhttp://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_nam.htm,on7December2004.

MFE(MinistryfortheEnvironment).GovernmentofNewZealand.1996.Nat�onal env�ronmental �nd�cators: Bu�ld�ng a framework for a core set.MinistryfortheEnvironment,GovernmentofNewZealandhttp://nat-env-inds-jan96.pdf,on8April2004.

———.2000.Env�ronmental performance �nd�cators: Proposals for �nd�cators of the env�ronment effects of energy.MinistryfortheEnvironment,GovernmentofNewZealandenergy-pro-posals-jun00.pdf,on8April2004.

Mills,Elizabeth.2003.State of the Gulf report: Nutr�ent �nd�ca-tors.NOAAOfficeofOceanandCoastalResourceManage-menthttp://www.gulfofmainesummit.org/docs/state_of_gulf_report_nutrients10_03.pdf,on11August2004.

Mortensen,LarsFogh.1997.Thedrivingforce-state-responseframeworkusedbyCSD.InSusta�nab�l�ty �nd�cators: Report of the Project on Ind�cators for Susta�nable Development,editedbyB.MoldanandS.Billharz.Wiley:ScientificCommitteeOnProblemsoftheEnvironment(SCOPE)http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope58/box1d.html,on13May2004.

��

Murcott,Susan.1997.AAASAnnualConference,IIASASus-tainabilityIndicatorsSymposium:Conceptualframeworks.PaperreadattheSustainableLivingNetwork,16February,atSeattle,WAhttp://www.sustainableliving.org/,on29August2004.

NatureServe.2004.NatureServeexplorerdatabase.Nature-Servehttp://www.natureserve.org/explorer/,on23July2004.

NCDC,andNOAA.2004.Un�ted States: Cl�mate summary June �00�.Ashville,NC:NationalClimaticDataCenter,NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministrationhttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/NA.html.

Nedeau,Ethan.2003.Scienceinsights:Environmentalindica-tors:Asenvironmentalredflags,indicatorsrevealmarinechanges.In Gulf of Ma�ne T�mes7(4):www.gulfofmaine.org/times/winter2003/science_insights.asp.

NEON(NationalEcologicalObservatoryNetwork).NationalEcologicalObservatoryNetwork.NationalScienceFounda-tion,DivisionofBiologicalInfrastructurehttp://www.nsf.gov/bio/neon/start.htm,on14October2004.

NetworkBlueprintTeam.2000.Bluepr�nt for a nat�onal env�ronmental �nformat�on exchange network: Report to the State/EPA Informat�on Management Workgrouphttp://www.epa.gov/oei/imwg/files/Blueprint_Report.pdfon29Octo-ber2004.

NIRO(NationalIndicatorsandReportingOffice).2003a.Current status, trends, and percept�ons regard�ng env�ron-mental �nd�cators and state-of-the-env�ronment report�ng �n Canada.Backgroundpaperno.1toAnEnvironmentCanadastrategyforenvironmentalindicatorsandstate-of-the-environmentreportinginCanada.NationalIndicatorsandReportingOffice,EnvironmentalReportingBranch,KnowledgeIntegrationDirectorate,EnvironmentCanadahttp://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/documents/default.cfm,on27October2004.

———.2003b.A nat�onal strategy for env�ronmental �nd�-cators and state-of-the-env�ronment report�ng �n Canada: Proposed opt�ons.NationalIndicatorsandReportingOffice,EnvironmentalReportingBranch,KnowledgeIntegrationDirectorate,EnvironmentCanadahttp://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/documents/default.cfm,on27October2004.

NMFS(NationalMarineFisheriesService).2004.Susta�n�ng and rebu�ld�ng Nat�onal Mar�ne F�sher�es Serv�ce �003—Re-port to Congress—The status of US fisher�es.SilverSpring,MD:USDepartmentofCommerce,NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration,NationalMarineFisheriesService,OfficeofSustainableFisherieshttp://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/statusostocks03/Report_Text.pdf,on25April2005.

NOAA(NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration).2002.Sc�ent�fic assessment of ozone deplet�on: �00�, execut�ve summary. ReportNo.47.WorldMeteorologicalOrgani-zationGlobalOzoneResearchandMonitoringProject,NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministrationhttp://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/assessment02/execu-tive-summary.html#A2,on12January2005.

Nordhaus,WilliamD.,andEdwardC.Kokkelenberg,eds.1999.Nature’s numbers: Expand�ng the nat�onal econom�c accounts to �nclude the env�ronment.WashingtonDC:PanelonIntegratedEnvironmentalandEconomicAccount-ing,NationalResearchCouncil:http://www.nap.edu/books/0309071518/html/,on29August2004.

NRCan(NaturalResourcesCanada).2004.TheatlasofCanada:Protectedareas.NaturalResourcesCanadaonlinemaps.NaturalResourcesCanadahttp://atlas.gc.ca/site/eng-lish/maps/environment/ecology/protecting/protectedareas,on16June2004.

NRTEE(NationalRoundTableontheEnvironmentandtheEconomy).2003.Env�ronment and susta�nable develop-ment �nd�cators for Canada.NationalRoundTableontheEnvironmentandtheEconomyhttp://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/programs/Current_Programs/SDIndicators/ESDI-Report/ESDI-Report_IntroPage_E.htm,on18June2004.

O’Malley,Robin,KentCavender-Bares,andWilliamC.Clark.2004.Providing“better”data:Notassimpleasitmightseem.InEnv�ronment45(4):8–18.

OECD(OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment).1994.Env�ronmental �nd�cators: OECD core set.Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment.

———.1998.Env�ronmental performance rev�ews. Mex�co.Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevel-opment.

———.1999.Frameworks to measure susta�nable develop-ment.OECDExpertWorkshop,2–3September,atParis.OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopmenthttp://www.belspo.be/platformisd/Nederlands/documents/oecd-expert_workshop_1999.pdf,on27January2005.

———.2001.OECD env�ronmental �nd�cators: Towards susta�nable development.Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment.

———.2002a.Background.InEnv�ronmentally Harm-ful Subs�d�es Workshop, 7–8November2002.Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopmenthttp://www1.oecd.org/agr/ehsw/background.htm,on27September2004.

———.2002b.OECD env�ronmental data— Compend�um �00�.Paris:EnvironmentalPerformanceandInforma-tionDivision,OECDEnvironmentDirectorate,Work-ingGrouponEnvironmentalInformationandOutlooks(WGEIO)http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,2340,en_2649_34303_2516565_1_1_1_1,00.html,on7June2004.

———.2003.OECD env�ronmental �nd�cators: Development, measurement and use,Referencepaper.Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopmenthttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/47/24993546.pdf,on14May2004.

———.2004a.OECD env�ronmental performance rev�ews: Canada.Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment.

———.2004b.OECD key env�ronmental �nd�cators, �00�.Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevel-opmenthttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/20/31558547.pdf,on12May2004.

OFDA/CRED–EM-DAT.2004.EM-DAT:TheOFDA/CREDinternationaldisastersdatabase.WHOCollaborat-ingCentreforResearchontheEpidemiologyofDisastersEmergencyEventsDatabase:http://www.em-dat.net/,on3January2005.

PSEPC(PublicSafetyandEmergencyPreparednessCanada).2004.Disasterdatabase.PublicSafetyandEmergencyPreparednessCanadahttp://www.ocipep-bpiepc.gc.ca/disas-ter/search.asp?lang=eng,on16July2004.


Parris,ThomasM.2000.Trackingdownstateoftheenviron-mentreports.InEnv�ronmentAprilhttp://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1076/is_3_42/ai_62277263,on28October2004.

PastilleConsortium(The).2002.Ind�cators �nto act�on: Local susta�nab�l�ty �nd�cator sets �n the�r context. F�nal report.London:LondonSchoolofEconomicshttp://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/geography/Pastille/FinalReportWeb.pdf,on12May2004.

PCSD(President’sCouncilonSustainableDevelopment).1996.Susta�nable Amer�ca: A new consensus for prosper�ty, op-portun�ty and a healthy env�ronment for the future.President’sCouncilonSustainableDevelopmenthttp://clinton4.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/amer-top.html,on29October2004.

PembinaInstitute.2004.Ecolog�cal fiscal reformhttp://www.fiscallygreen.ca/efr3.html,on22September2004.

Pesch,G.G.,andP.G.Wells(eds).2004.T�des of change across the Gulf: An env�ronmental report on the Gulf of Ma�ne and Bay of Fundy.PreparedfortheGulfofMaineSummit,CommittingtoChange,GulfofMaineCouncilontheMarineEnvironmentandGlobalProgrammeofActionCo-alitionfortheGulfofMaine,26–29October,atFairmontAlgonquinHotel,St.Andrews,NewBrunswick,Canadahttp://www.gulfofmainesummit.org/docs/Tides%20of%20Change%20Across%20the%20Gulf.pdf,on27October2004.

Pidot,Lauren.2003.Tapp�ng the �nd�cators knowledge-base: “Lessons learned” by developers of env�ronmental �nd�cators.BriefingpackagefortheNorthwestAtlanticIndicatorsWorkshop.GulfofMaineCouncilontheMarineEnviron-menthttp://www.gulfofmaine.org/nciw/PDFs/Lessons-Learned.pdf,on12May2004.

Pintér,László,andDarrenSwanson.2004a.Use of �nd�cators �n pol�cy analys�s: annotated tra�n�ng module prepared for the World Bank Inst�tute.Winnipeg:InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment.

———.2004b.Strateg�c Env�ronmental Assessment: A Concept �n Progress: Annotated Tra�n�ng Module Prepared for the World Bank Inst�tute.Winnipeg:InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment.

Pintér,László,KavehZahedi,andDavidR.Cressman.2000.Capac�ty bu�ld�ng for �ntegrated env�ronmental assessment and report�ng: tra�n�ng manual.2nded.Winnipeg:InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment.

Potier,Michel.2002.Summaryandconclusions.InEnv�ron-mentally Harmful Subs�d�es Workshop,7–8November2002.Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevel-opmenthttp://www1.oecd.org/agr/ehsw/,on27September2004.

PRB(PopulationReferenceBureau).2004.Humanpopula-tion:Fundamentalsofgrowth:Populationgrowthanddistribution.PopulationReferenceBureauhttp://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Hu-man_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm,on11January2005.

Prescott-Allen,Robert.1997.Barometer of susta�nab�l�ty: Measur�ng and commun�cat�ng wellbe�ng and susta�nable development, anapproachtoassessingprogresstowardsustainability.Toolsandtrainingseries.IUCN—TheWorldConservationUnionhttp://prog2000.casaccia.enea.it/nuovo/documenti/1716.PDF,on10June2004.

Ramsar.2004.The l�st of wetlands of �nternat�onal �mportance. TheBureauoftheConventiononWetlandshttp://ramsar.org/sitelist.pdf,on15June2004.

Repetto,Robert.1994.Whatcanpolicymakerslearnfromnaturalresourceaccounting?InAss�gn�ng econom�c value to natural resources.CommissiononGeosciences,EnvironmentandResources(CGER),CommissiononBehavioralandSocialSciencesandEducation,NationalResearchCouncil.NationalAcademyPress:Washington,DC.

Roget.1995.Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Th�rd Ed�t�on.HoughtonMifflinCompany.

Rump,PaulC.1996.State-of-the-env�ronment report�ng: Source book of methods and approaches.Nairobi,Kenya:UNEP/DEIA/TR.

SCERP(SouthwestCenterforEnvironmentalResearchandPolicy).2002. US-Mex�can border reg�on and Border �0�� Program env�ronmental �nd�cators.SouthwestCenterforEnvironmentalResearchandPolicyhttp://www.scerp.org/bi/BIV/SCERP.pdfonFebruary2005.

SCOPE(ScientificCommitteeonProblemsoftheEnviron-ment).2003.Ind�cators of Susta�nable Development—The first SCOPE/UNEP project.ScientificCommitteeonProb-lemsoftheEnvironmenthttp://www.icsu-scope.org/,on13May2004.

Segura,Gerardo.2004.Forest cert�ficat�on and governments: The real and potent�al �nfluence on regulatory frameworks and forest pol�c�es.Washington,DC:ForestTrendshttp://www.forest-trends.org/resources/pdf/Certification%20and%20Governments%2011-15-04.pdf,on15January2005.

Segnestam,Lisa.2002.Ind�cators of env�ronment and sus-ta�nable development: Theor�es and pract�cal exper�ence.EnvironmentalEconomicsSeries,Paper#89.TheWorldBankEnvironmentDepartmenthttp://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/44ByDocName/IndicatorsofEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopment/$FILE/IndicatorsofEnvironmentandSustainableDevelop-ment2003.pdf,on12August2004.

Shah,Reena.2004.Assessment of susta�nab�l�ty �nd�cators (ASI): A SCOPE/UNEP/IHDP/EEA project: CSD �nd�cators of susta�nable development—Recent developments and act�v�t�es.PaperreadatASIWorkshop,10_14May,atPrague,CzechRepublichttp://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indica-tors/scopepaper_2004.pdf,on12May2004.

Shelton,I.J.,G.J.Wall,J.-M.Cossette,R.Eilers,B.Grant,D.King,G.Padbury,H.Rees,J.Tajek,andL.vanVliet.2000.Indicator:Riskofwatererosion.InEnv�ronmental susta�nab�l�ty of Canad�an agr�culture: Report of the Agr�-Env�ronmental Ind�cator Project. A summary,editedbyT.McRae,C.A.S.SmithandL.J.Gregorich,pp.6.Ottawa,Ont.:AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanadahttp://www.agr.gc.ca/policy/environment/pdfs/aei/Chap06C.pdf,andhttp://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicator_series/Excel/agri3.xlson3October2004.

Singh,Ashbindu,BedrichMoldan,andThomasLoveland.2002.Mak�ng sc�ence for susta�nable development more pol�cy relevant: New tools for analys�s.ICSUSeriesonScienceforSustainableDevelopment,no.8.InternationalCouncilforSciencehttp://grid2.cr.usgs.gov/publications/newtools.pdf,on5October2004.

��

Smith,Robert,ClaudeSimard,andAndrewSharpe.2001.A proposed approach to env�ronment and susta�nable develop-ment �nd�cators based on cap�tal.Ottawa:NationalRoundTableontheEnvironmentandtheEconomyhttp://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/programs/Current_Programs/SDIndica-tors/Program_Research/StatsCanada-SDIreport_E.pdf,on7June2004.

Speth,JamesGustave.2004.Red sky at morn�ng: Amer�ca and the cr�s�s of the global env�ronment.NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress.

SRP(SustainabilityReportingProgram).2004.The susta�n-ab�l�ty report.SustainabilityReportingProgramhttp://www.sustreport.org/home.html,on23May2004.

StatisticsCanada.2000a.Econnect�ons: L�nk�ng the env�ronment and the economy, �nd�cators and deta�led stat�st�cs.CatalogueNo.16-200-XKE:StatisticsCanada.

StatisticsCanada.2000b.North Amer�can transportat�on �n figures. 50-501-XIE.USDepartmentofTransportation,Bu-reauofTransportationStatistics;USDepartmentofCom-merce,CensusBureau;StatisticsCanada;TransportCanada;InstitutoMexicanodelTransporte;InstitutoNacionaldeEstadística,GeografíaeInformática;andSecretaríadeCo-municacionesyTransporteshttp://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/50-501-XIE/free.htm,on17June2004.

StatisticsCanada.2001a.�00� census of Canada.StatisticsCanadahttp://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/home/index.cfm,on10January2005.

StatisticsCanada.2001b.Canada’stroubledfisheries.InStat�s-t�cs Canadae-bookhttp://142.206.72.67/r000_e.htm,on13January2005.

Steenblik,RonaldP.2002.Subsidymeasurementandclas-sification:Developingacommonframework.InEnv�ron-mentally Harmful Subs�d�es Workshop,7-8November2002.Paris:http://www1.oecd.org/agr/ehsw/pubchapter3.PDF,on27September2004.

TERI(TheEnergyandResourcesInstitute).N.d.A Frame-work for energy susta�nab�l�ty assessment.TheEnergyandResourcesInstitutehttp://www.teriin.org/ee/gbr/fesa.htm,on31March2004.

Turnhout,Esther.2003.Ecolog�cal �nd�cators �n Dutch nature conservat�on: Sc�ence and pol�cy �ntertw�ned �n the class�fica-t�on and evaluat�on of nature. Ph.D.thesis.Amsterdam:VrijeUniversiteithttp://www.kun.nl/gap/seminars/gapw-sem-turnhout.doc,on6June2004.

UN(UnitedNations).1996.Ind�cators of susta�nable develop-ment: Framework and methodolog�es.NewYork:UnitedNations.

———.2004.M�llenn�um stat�st�cs database. UnitedNations,DepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairshttp://mil-lenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_goals.asp,on9December2004.

UNDESA(UnitedNationsDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairs).2001a.Ind�cators of susta�nable development: Gu�del�nes and methodolog�es. UNDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairs,DivisionforSustainableDevelopmenthttp://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/indisd/indisd-mg2001.pdf,on8April2004.

———.2001b.Ind�cators of susta�nable development: Frame-work and methodolog�es.Backgroundpapernumber3.UNDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairs,CommissiononSustainableDevelopment,NinthSession,16–27April,atNewYorkhttp://www.presidency.ro/include/nssd/docs/phpVVX02W.pdf,on27January2005.

———.2002.Johannesburg Summ�t �00�: Un�ted States coun-try profile.UnitedNationsDivisionforSustainableDevel-opmenthttp://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/wssd/usa.pdf,on20May2004.

———.2003a.Nat�onal �nd�cators of susta�nable development: Canada, �003 status report.UnitedNationsDivisionforSustainableDevelopmenthttp://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/canada/,on12May2004.

———.2003b.About the Comm�ss�on on Susta�nable Develop-ment (CSD).UNDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairshttp://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/about_csd.htm,on20May2004.

———.2004a.Ind�cators of susta�nable development.UNDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairs,DivisionforSustainableDevelopmenthttp://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/isd.htm,on14May2004.

———.2004b.M�llenn�um �nd�cators database.UnitedNa-tionsDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairs,StatisticsDivisionhttp://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_goals.asp,on29October2004.

UNDP(UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme).2003.World populat�on prospects: The �00� rev�s�on populat�on database.UnitedNationsPopulationDivisionhttp://esa.un.org/unpp/,on2June2004.

UNDP,UNEP,WorldBank,andWRI(UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme,UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme,WorldBank,andWorldResourcesInstitute).1998.World resources ��–��: Env�ronmental change and human health. WashingtonDC:WorldResourcesInstitute.

———.2000.World resources �000-�00�: People and ecosystems, the fray�ng web of l�fe.Washington,DC:WorldResourcesInstitute.

UNEP(UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme).1972.Educat�onal, �nformat�onal, soc�al and cultural aspects of env�ronmental �ssues: Recommendat�on ��.UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme,ConferenceontheHumanEnvironment,Stockholmhttp://www.unep.org/Docu-ments/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1511,on22May2004.

———.1999.GEO-�000.London:Earthscan.

———.2002a.North Amer�ca’s env�ronment: A th�rty-year state of the env�ronment and pol�cy retrospect�ve.Nairobi,Kenya:UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme.

———.2002b.GEOdataportalhome.UnitedNationsEnvi-ronmentProgrammehttp://gridca.grid.unep.ch/geoportal/,on1June2004.

———.2002c.Product�on and consumpt�on of ozone deplet-�ng substances under the Montreal Protocol, ��–�000.Nairobi,Kenya:UNEPOzoneSecretariathttp://www.unep.ch/ozone/pdfs/15-year-data-report.pdf,on14July2004.


———.2004a.GEO �nd�cators: GEO year book �003.UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme,GlobalEnvironmentOutlookhttp://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/103.htm,on18May2004.

———.2004b.MethylbromideapprovedfortemporaryusesafterMontrealProtocolphase-outdeadline.Pressrelease.UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgrammehttp://www.uscib.org/index.asp?DocumentID=2862,on22December2004.

UNEPGRIDA(UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme/GRIDArendal).2001.Actual and projected em�ss�ons of � greenhouse gases, ��0–�0�0: Canada and the Un�ted States.Arendal,Norway:GRIDArendalhttp://www.grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/canada.htmandhttp://www.grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/usa.htm,on1June2004.

UNEP-WCMC(UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme–WorldConservationMonitoringCentre).2004.Forests:NorthAmerica—Mapandstatistics.UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme,WorldConservationMonitoringCentrehttp://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html?http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/homepage.htm~main,on16June2004.

UNEP-WCMC/WWF(UnitedNationsEnvironmentPro-gramme–WorldConservationMonitoringCentre/WorldWildlifeFund).2004.GlobalFSC:Countrytotalchart,sta-tisticalgraphsandmap.PowerPointslides.UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme,WorldConservationMonitoringCentre,WorldWildlifeFundhttp://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html?http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/homepage.htm~main,on9December2004.

UNESCO(UnitedNationsEconomic,ScientificandCulturalOrganization).2003.Chapter3:Signingprogress:Indica-torsmarktheway.InThe UN world water development report: Water for people, water for l�fe,editedbyUNESCO.UnitedNationsEconomicCommissionforEuropehttp://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/pdf/chap3.pdf,on14June2004.

UNFCCC(UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange).N.d.Greenhousegasinventorydatabase(GHG):On-linesearchabledatabaseofGHGinventorydata.UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChangehttp://ghg.unfccc.int/default1.htf?time=06%3A43%3A24+PM,on2June2004.

UNHabitat(UnitedNationsHumanSettlementsPro-gramme).2001.State of the world’s c�t�es report �00�.UnitedNationsHumanSettlementsProgrammehttp://www.unchs.org/Istanbul+5/114.pdf,on15October2004.

———.2003.Urban �nd�cators tool k�t: Gu�de.UnitedNa-tionsHumanSettlementsProgrammehttp://www.unhabi-tat.org/programmes/guo/guo_guide.asp,on15October2004.

USCEQ(UnitedStatesCouncilonEnvironmentalQual-ity).1997.Env�ronmental qual�ty—The World W�de Web: The �� annual report of the Counc�l on Env�ronmental Qual�ty. Washington,DC:USCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality,ExecutiveOfficeofthePresidenthttp://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/reports/1997/,on12January2005.

USCensusBureau(UnitedStatesCensusBureau).2002.Cen-sus2000gateway.UnitedStatesCensusBureauhttp://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html,on20January2005.

USDA(UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture).2004.Nat�onal report on susta�nable forests—�003.USDepartmentofAgriculturehttp://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/docu-ments/SustainableForests.pdf,on23July2004.

———.N.d.Pos�t�on paper: Loss and fragmentat�on of open space:USDAForestServicehttp://www.fs.fed.us/publica-tions/policy-analysis/loss-of-open-space-position-paper.pdf,on16January2005.

USEPA(UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency).1996.Border XXI framework.USEnvironmentalProtec-tionAgencyhttp://yosemite1.epa.gov/oia/MexUSA.nsf/Border+XXI+-+Framework?OpenView,on3February2005.

———.1997. US-Mex�co border env�ronmental �nd�cators report. USEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyhttp://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/indica97/index.htm,on3February2005.

———.2000a.US-Mex�co Border XXI program: Progress report ��–�000.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,EPA160/R/00/001http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/prog-ress/eng/index.htm,on4February2005.

———.2000b.Globalwarming—Emissions.USEnviron-mentalProtectionAgencyhttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/glo-balwarming.nsf/content/emissionsindividual.html,on15January2005.

———.2003.Draft report on the env�ronment. USEnviron-mentalProtectionAgency,EnvironmentalIndicatorsInitia-tivehttp://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/,on18June2004.

———.2004.Theglobalearthobservationsystemofsystems.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency:http://www.epa.gov/geoss/,on29October2004.

USGS(UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey).2003.H�gh pla�ns reg�onal ground-water study. Denver,CO:UnitedStatesGeologicalSurveyhttp://co.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/hpgw/factsheets/DENNEHYFS1.html,onJanuary2005.

USIWG(UnitedStatesInteragencyWorkingGrouponSustainableDevelopmentIndicators).2001.Susta�nable development �n the Un�ted States: An exper�mental set of �nd�cators.USInteragencyWorkingGrouponSustainableDevelopmentIndicatorshttp://www.sdi.gov/lpBin22/lpext.dll/Folder1/Infobase7/1?fn=main-j.htm&f=templates&2.0,on4June2004.

Venetoulis,Jason,DahliaChazan,andChristopherGaudet.2004.Ecolg�cal footpr�nt of nat�ons.RedefiningProgress,SustainabilityIndicatorsProgramhttp://www.redefining-progress.org/publications/footprintnations2004.pdf,on10June2004.

vonSchirnding,YasminE.2002.Health-and-environmentindicatorsinthecontextofsustainabledevelopment.InCanad�an journal of publ�c health93(Suppl.1,Sept/Oct):S9-S15.

Wagner,L.A.2002.Materialsintheeconomy—Materialflows,scarcity,andtheenvironment.USGeologicalSurvey,Circular1221http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2002/c1221/c1221-508.pdf,on11July20004.

WCED(TheWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevel-opment).1987.Our common future.TheWorldCommis-siononEnvironmentandDevelopment.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

��

WCMC(WorldConservationMonitoringCentre).2004.GEOprotectedareassnapshot.GEOdataportal.UNEP.net,WorldConservationMonitoringCentre,WorldData-baseofProtectedAreashttp://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/GEO/GEO_all.cfm?RegID=28&SubRegID=&ctyRecID=&year=2004&yearfreetext=&submit=Show+further+details,on13May2004.

WHO,andUNICEF(WorldHealthOrganizationandUnitedNationsChildren’sFund).2004.Meet�ng the MDG dr�nk�ng-water and san�tat�on target: A m�d-term assessment of progress. WorldHealthOrganization,WaterSanitationandHealth(WSH),andUnitedNationsChildren’sFundhttp://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/jmp2004/en/,on8December2004.

Willer,Helga,andMinouYussefi,eds.2004.The world of organ�c agr�culture: stat�st�cs and emerg�ng trends.Bonn:InternationalFederationofOrganicAgricultureMovementshttp://www.soel.de/inhalte/publikationen/s/s_74.pdf,on14October2004.

WorldwatchInstitute.2004.Featuredpublications.World-watchInstitutehttp://www.worldwatch.org/,on29Octo-ber2004.

WRI(WorldResourcesInstitute).1997.WRI project: Mater�als Flow III: Stat�st�cal analys�s and �nd�cators research.WorldResourcesInstitutehttp://materials.wri.org/project_descrip-tion2.cfm?ProjectID=108,on27June2004.

———.2004.EarthTrends:Theenvironmentalinformationportal.WorldResourcesInstitute,UNEP,TheWorldBank,TheNetherlandsMinistryofForeignAffairs,SIDA,UNDP,TheRasmussenFoundation:http://earthtrends.wri.org/mis-cell/aboutus.cfm?theme=0,on18May2004.

WWF(WorldWildlifeFund—WorldWideFundforNature).2002.L�v�ng planet �ndex �00�.WorldWildlifeFundhttp://www.panda.org/downloads/general/lpr2002.pdf,on10June2004.

———.2004.L�v�ng planet report �00�.WorldWildlifeFundhttp://www.panda.org/downloads/general/lpr2004.pdfon30December2004.

Yeung,OpheliaM.,andJohnA.Mathieson.1998.Global benchmarks: Comprehens�ve measures of development.MenloPark,CA:SRIInternational.


app

endi

x 1:

Tab

le 2

–Com

para

tive

tab

le o

f C

anad

ian

and

US

envi

ronm

enta

l ind

icat

ors

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s D

rive

rs

Dri

vers

D

rive

rs

Dri

vers

D

rive

rs

%

cha

nge

inp

opul

atio

n,

%c

hang

ein

pop

ulat

ion,

%c

hang

ein

pop

ulat

ion,

GD

Ppe

rca

pita

and

ene

rgy

GD

P,e

nerg

yco

nsum

ptio

n,

G

DP

per

capi

taa

nd

us

epe

rca

pita

sin

ce1

990

V

MT,

and

agg

rega

tee

mis

sion

s

en

ergy

use

(t

o20

00)

ofc

rite

ria

air

pollu

tant

ssi

nce

1970

(to

200

1)

Ene

rgy

and

E

nerg

y an

d

Ene

rgy

and

E

nerg

y an

d

Ene

rgy

and

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

pr

imar

yen

ergy

con

sum

ptio

n

(e

xajo

ules

[E

J]),

195

8–20

00

fo

ssil

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n(t

otal

,

crud

eoi

l,na

tura

lgas

,coa

l)

(E

J),1

958–

2000

se

cond

ary

ener

gyu

se(

EJ)

,wit

h

ac

tual

use

and

ene

rgy

save

d

th

roug

him

prov

ede

ffici

ency

,

1990

–200

0

pa

ssen

ger

trav

el(

car,

plan

e,

bu

s,tr

ain)

,(th

ousa

ndm

illio

n

pa

ssen

ger-

km),

197

6–20

00

au

tom

obile

s,v

ans,

and

ligh

t

per

capi

taa

nnua

lgas

olin

e

tren

din

gas

olin

eus

eby

truc

ksfo

ssil

fuel

use

,(th

ousa

nd

co

nsum

ptio

nfo

rm

otor

m

otor

veh

icle

s

mill

ions

litr

eso

fgas

olin

e),

ve

hicl

es,1

997

19

50–1

998

ur

ban

auto

mob

ilea

ndtr

ansi

tuse

(tho

usan

dm

illio

nsp

asse

nger

-km

),

19

76–2

000

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

Im

pact

Im

pact

Im

pact

Im

pact

Im

pact

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

ne

wv

ehic

les

fuel

effi

cien

cy

(l

/102 k

m),

197

7–20

01

��3

*defi

ned

asth

ickn

ess

of1

mm

ofo

zone

at0

ºCa

tsea

leve

lpre

ssur

e

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

Pollu

tion

Iss

ues

Pollu

tion

Iss

ues

Pollu

tion

Iss

ues

Pollu

tion

Iss

ues

Pollu

tion

Iss

ues

Cli

mat

e C

hang

e C

lim

ate

Cha

nge

Cli

mat

e C

hang

e C

lim

ate

Cha

nge

Cli

mat

e C

hang

e

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

tota

lGH

Ge

mis

sion

s

tota

lGH

Ge

mis

sion

s

(gig

aton

nes

CO

2equ

ival

ents

),

(gig

aton

nes

CO

2equ

ival

ent)

,19

80–2

000

1980

–200

0,w

ith

Kyo

tob

ench

mar

k

Stat

e

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

mea

nC

anad

ian

tem

pera

ture

vari

atio

n,1

961–

1990

(5-

yra

vgs)

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

#

wea

ther

-rel

ated

dis

aste

rs,

19

00–1

999

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

O

3 Lay

er

O3 L

ayer

O

3 Lay

er

O3 L

ayer

O

3 Lay

er

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

new

sup

plie

s:O

3-de

plet

ing

U

Spr

oduc

tion

ofs

elec

ted

tren

dsin

OD

S

su

bsta

nces

(C

FCs

and

allO

DSs

)

OD

Ss(

103 m

etri

cto

nnes

of

pr

oduc

tion

(kilo

tonn

es,C

FC-1

1eq

uiva

lent

),

CFC

-11

equi

vale

nt)

,

1979

–200

019

58–1

993

Stat

e St

ate:

St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

m

ean

annu

alO

3lev

elo

ver

O

3lev

els

over

Nor

th

tr

end

inO

3lev

els

over

Can

ada

(Dob

son

unit

s*),

A

mer

ica

(Dob

son

unit

s),

N

orth

Am

eric

a

1957

–200

119

79a

nd1

994

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

air

Qua

lity

air

Qua

lity

air

Qua

lity

air

Qua

lity

air

Qua

lity

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

SO

2em

issi

ons

for

tota

lCan

ada

se

ctor

alS

O2e

mis

sion

s

tr

end

inc

rite

ria

an

dea

ster

nC

anad

a(1

06 ton

nes)

,(1

03 sho

rtto

nnes

),

po

lluta

nts

em

issi

ons

19

80–2

000,

wit

hta

rget

s19

82–2

001


N

Oxe

mis

sion

s(1

06 ton

nes)

,se

ctor

alN

Oxe

mis

sion

s

1980

–200

0(1

06 sho

rtto

nnes

),1

982–

2001

no

n-m

etha

neV

OC

em

issi

ons

se

ctor

alV

OC

em

issi

ons

fr

oma

llso

urce

s(k

iloto

nnes

),

(103 s

hort

tonn

es),

1980

–200

019

82–2

001

sect

oral

,dir

ectP

M10

em

issi

ons

(1

03 sho

rtto

nnes

),1

985–

2001

sect

oral

dir

ectP

M2.

5em

issi

ons

(1

03 sho

rtto

nnes

),1

992–

2001

sect

oral

Pb

emis

sion

s(1

03 sho

rt

tonn

es),

198

2–20

01

crit

eria

pol

luta

nts

aggr

egat

e

emis

sion

sch

ange

(%

)co

mpa

red

to

gro

wth

mea

sure

s,1

970–

2000

108 t

oxic

air

pol

luta

nts:

nat

iona

l

ai

rto

xics

em

issi

ons

(106 t

onne

s/da

y)

1990

–199

3,1

996

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

to

tals

uspe

nded

leve

lsP

M,N

O2,

SO

2,an

dC

O(

%m

axim

um

ac

cept

able

leve

ls)

1980

–200

0

av

erag

ean

nual

am

bien

tPM

2.5

annu

ala

vera

geP

M2.

5

av

erag

ean

nual

PM

2.5

le

vels

(5

citi

es,μ

g/m

3 ),1

998,

co

ncen

trat

ions

,6c

ateg

orie

s

conc

entr

atio

ns

19

99,2

000

(μg/

m3 )

,200

1(m

ap)

na

tion

ala

mbi

entl

evel

s:g

roun

d

%

air

pol

luti

onm

onit

or-

le

velO

3(pp

b),1

990–

2000

ing

stat

ions

(ur

ban

and

subu

rban

are

as)

wit

hO

3

exce

edin

g8-

hour

mea

n

co

ncen

trat

ions

(4

rang

es)

1990

–200

2

gr

ound

-lev

elO

3mea

n

8-ho

ur0

3reg

iona

lai

rm

onit

orin

gst

atio

ns

tren

din

O3

co

ncen

trat

ions

(pp

b)fo

rea

ster

n

conc

entr

atio

ns(

ppm

),

exce

edin

g8-

hour

O3

conc

entr

atio

ns,

an

dw

este

rnp

rovi

nces

,19

82–2

001

(map

)th

resh

old

for

<4d

ays,

by

reg

ion

19

82–2

000,

wit

hC

anad

a-w

ide

and

>4d

ays,

200

2

st

anda

rda

sbe

nchm

ark

(2

map

s)

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

��

perc

entr

educ

tion

in

conc

entr

atio

nof

6c

rite

ria

ai

rpo

lluta

nts,

198

2–20

01

com

pare

dto

199

2–20

01

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

#an

d%

day

sw

/A

irQ

ualit

y

Inde

x(A

QI)

gre

ater

than

100

,

19

88–2

001

m

ean

daily

8-h

rm

axO

3

peop

le(

#)li

ving

ina

reas

w/

popu

lati

one

xpos

edto

8-h

rex

posu

reb

ypo

pula

tion

8-hr

O3a

ndP

M2.

5le

vels

O3a

bove

acc

epta

ble

leve

ls

(ppb

),1

986–

2000

abov

eN

AA

QS,

200

1

Pb(

g/dk

l)in

blo

odo

fchi

ldre

n

5an

dun

der,

1976

–198

0,

1988

–199

1,1

992–

1994

,

19

99–2

000

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

a

cid

Dep

osit

ion

aci

d D

epos

itio

n a

cid

Dep

osit

ion

aci

d D

epos

itio

n a

cid

Dep

osit

ion

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

C

anad

aan

dea

ster

nC

anad

a

sect

oral

SO

2em

issi

ons

(103

to

talS

O2e

mis

sion

s(1

06 ton

nes)

,sh

ortt

onne

s),1

982–

2001

1980

–200

0,w

ith

targ

ets

N

Oxe

mis

sion

s(1

06 ton

nes)

,se

ctor

alN

Oxe

mis

sion

s(1

03

1980

-200

0sh

ortt

onne

s),1

982–

2001

SO2p

ower

pla

nte

mis

sion

s

(106 t

onne

s),1

980–

2001

NO

xpow

erp

lant

em

issi

ons

(1

06 ton

nes)

,199

0–20

01

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

la

keS

O42 l

evel

tren

ds(

%la

kes

stud

ied

in3

reg

ions

),

19

81–1

997

la

kea

cidi

tytr

ends

198

1–19

97

(%

ofl

akes

stu

died

)

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s


w

etS

O42 d

epos

itio

n4-

year

w

etS

O42

depo

siti

on(

kg/h

a),

ch

ange

inw

etS

0 42

mea

n(k

g/ha

,7c

ateg

orie

s),

19

89–1

991

com

pare

dto

depo

siti

ond

istr

ibut

ion

19

80–1

983

com

pare

dto

19

99–2

001

(map

ofU

S)

19

96–2

000

(map

ofe

aste

rn

N

orth

Am

eric

a)

w

etN

O3d

epos

itio

n(k

g/ha

,w

etN

O3d

epos

itio

n(k

g/ha

),

ch

ange

inw

etN

O3

7

cate

gori

es)

4-ye

arm

ean,

19

89–1

991

com

pare

dto

depo

siti

ond

istr

ibut

ion

19

80–1

983

com

pare

dto

19

99–2

001

(map

ofU

S)

19

96–2

000

(map

ofe

aste

rn

N

orth

Am

eric

a)

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Indo

or a

ir Q

ualit

y In

door

air

Qua

lity

Indo

or a

ir Q

ualit

y In

door

air

Qua

lity

Indo

or a

ir Q

ualit

y

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Stat

e

Stat

e

Stat

e

Stat

e

Stat

e

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

%h

omes

w/

youn

gch

ildre

n

ex

pose

dto

env

iron

men

tal

toba

cco

smok

e,1

986–

1998

C10

H12

N2O

(μg

/ml)

inb

lood

of

child

ren

age

5an

dun

der,

19

90–1

991

and

1999

–200

0

#ho

mes

and

%n

atio

nalh

ousi

ng

unit

sab

ove

EPA

Rn

acti

on

leve

ls,1

991

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Toxi

c Su

bsta

nces

To

xic

Subs

tanc

es

Toxi

c Su

bsta

nces

To

xic

Subs

tanc

es

Toxi

c Su

bsta

nces

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

%

em

issi

ons

chan

ge(

15to

xic

to

talT

oxic

sR

elea

seI

nven

tory

subs

tanc

esw

/m

atch

edd

ata

(T

RI)

rel

ease

sac

ross

indu

stry

(NPR

I),1

995–

2000

(s

hort

tonn

es),

199

8,1

999,

20

00;y

earl

yto

tals

;and

cha

nge

by

indu

stry

199

8–20

00

H

gem

issi

ons

(103 k

ilogr

ams)

,

1990

–200

0

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

��

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

tota

lTox

ics

Rel

ease

Inv

ento

ry

(TR

I)r

elea

ses

byin

dust

ry

(%),

200

0

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

tren

dsin

toxi

cch

emic

als

(e

nerg

yre

cove

ry,q

uant

ity

re

leas

ed,q

uant

ity

trea

ted,

re

cycl

ed),

199

8–20

00

(sho

rtto

nnes

)

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

PCB

san

dD

DT

Gre

atL

akes

at

mos

pher

icd

epos

itio

n(k

g/yr

),

1992

–199

8

co

ntam

inan

tlev

els

(ppm

DD

E

Gre

atL

akes

fish

tiss

ueP

CB

s

an

dPC

Bs)

ind

oubl

e-cr

este

d

(ppm

),1

972–

2000

corm

oran

tegg

sat

4s

ites

,

1970

–200

0

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

17w

aste

min

imiz

atio

npr

iori

ty

chem

ical

s(W

MPC

)re

leas

es

(106 l

bs),

199

1–19

98

Was

te

Was

te

Was

te

Was

te

Was

te

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

mun

icip

als

olid

was

te(

MSW

)

gene

rati

onr

ates

(to

talt

onne

san

d

per

capi

talb

s/da

y),1

960,

197

0,

1980

,199

0,1

995,

200

0

tota

lam

ount

rad

ioac

tive

was

te

gene

rate

d,b

yty

pea

ndu

nit,

2000

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

com

posi

tion

oft

otal

mun

icip

al

solid

was

teg

ener

ated

(%

),2

000


Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

#an

dlo

cati

ono

fMSW

land

fills

in

4r

egio

ns,2

000

#an

dlo

cati

ono

fRC

RA

ha

zard

ous

was

tem

anag

emen

t

fa

cilit

ies,

by

EPA

reg

ion,

199

9

#an

dlo

cati

ono

fSup

erfu

nd

Nat

iona

lPri

orit

ies

List

(N

PL)

si

tes

bys

tatu

san

dm

ilest

one,

19

90–2

002

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

to

taln

on-h

azar

dous

sol

idw

aste

m

unic

ipal

sol

idw

aste

(M

SW)

tr

ends

inM

SW

di

spos

ala

ndr

ecyc

ling/

reus

eby

m

anag

emen

t(co

mpo

stin

g,

m

anag

emen

t

sect

or(

meg

aton

nes)

,199

6,1

998,

re

cycl

ing,

com

bust

ion,

land

fill)

,

2000

(m

egat

onne

s),1

960–

2000

pe

rca

pita

non

-haz

ardo

uss

olid

so

urce

red

ucti

ono

fMSW

was

ted

ispo

sala

nd

(meg

aton

nes)

,199

2–20

00

re

cycl

ing/

reus

e(k

g/pe

rson

),

quan

tity

ofR

CR

Ah

azar

dous

1994

,199

6,1

998,

200

0w

aste

gen

erat

ed(

%b

yre

gion

)

an

dm

anag

ed(

%b

ym

etho

d)

#an

dlo

cati

ono

fRC

RA

co

rrec

tive

act

ion

site

s

nat

ural

res

ourc

es

nat

ural

res

ourc

es

nat

ural

res

ourc

es

nat

ural

res

ourc

es

nat

ural

res

ourc

es

and

Serv

ices

a

nd S

ervi

ces

and

Serv

ices

an

d Se

rvic

es

and

Serv

ices

Lan

d U

se

Lan

d U

se

Lan

d U

se

Lan

d U

se

Lan

d U

se

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

lo

ng-t

erm

(pr

e-se

ttle

men

t)

long

-ter

m(

pre-

sett

lem

ent)

an

dre

cent

tren

dsin

an

dre

cent

tren

dsin

ec

osys

tem

ext

ent(

%o

fall

ec

osys

tem

ext

ent(

%o

fall

land

sin

4ty

pes)

,la

nds

in4

type

s),

1950

s–19

90s

19

50s–

1990

s

lo

ng-t

erm

(pr

e-se

ttle

men

t)

ex

tent

(%

oft

otal

land

are

a)

an

d19

92e

xten

t(ac

res)

of

6

ecos

yste

mty

pes,

wit

h

ch

ange

sfr

om1

950s

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

��

ch

ange

ine

cosy

stem

are

a

co

mpa

red

to1

955

(Mac

res)

la

ndc

over

(6

cate

gori

es)

and

ocea

nde

pth

(6c

ateg

orie

s)

(m

ap)

bird

spe

cies

(ty

pes

ofb

irds

),

natu

rale

cosy

stem

ser

vice

s

as

cha

ract

eris

tics

ofl

ands

cape

co

mpo

siti

on,a

ndp

atte

rn,a

s

anin

dica

tor

ofla

ndsc

ape

co

ndit

ion,

199

5–19

96

terr

estr

ialp

lant

gro

wth

inde

x,

bye

cosy

stem

,198

9–20

00

frag

men

tati

ono

flan

dsca

pe

pa

tter

n(n

atio

nall

evel

)

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

%

ofl

and

area

and

str

eam

and

coas

tline

leng

th,

ac

cord

ing

toth

ele

velo

f

dist

urba

nce,

man

agem

ent,

orp

hysi

cala

ltera

tion

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Fres

hwat

er r

esou

rces

Fr

eshw

ater

res

ourc

es

Fres

hwat

er r

esou

rces

Fr

eshw

ater

res

ourc

es

Fres

hwat

er r

esou

rces

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

fres

hwat

erw

ithd

raw

als:

sec

tora

lto

talf

resh

wat

er

tren

dsin

mun

icip

al

sour

ces

(109 g

allo

ns/d

ay),

w

ithd

raw

als

for

irri

gati

on,

wat

ere

xtra

ctio

n

19

60–1

995

ther

moe

lect

ric,

indu

stri

al,

m

unic

ipal

and

rur

alu

se

(1

09 gal

lons

[B

g]/d

ay),

1960

–199

5

to

talw

ithd

raw

als:

sur

face

wat

era

ndg

roun

dwat

er

(B

g/da

y),1

960–

1995

da

ilym

unic

ipal

wat

er

us

e/ca

pita

(l/

pers

on)

1983

–199

9

to

tald

aily

mun

icip

alw

ater

use

(Gl/

day)

,198

3–19

99

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s


wat

era

bstr

acti

ons/

irri

gate

d

land

are

a(m

3/ha

/yea

r),1

997

culti

vate

dla

nd:%

irri

gate

d

area

ssh

are,

199

7,a

nd%

ch

ange

sin

ce1

980

sour

ces

ofa

cidi

ty(

wat

ersh

ed

sour

ces,

org

anic

or

acid

de

posi

tion

)in

aci

d-se

nsit

ive

la

kes

and

stre

ams,

198

4–19

86

Hg,

dio

xin,

PC

Bs,

PB

Tsto

xic

re

leas

eto

wat

er,2

000

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

exte

nto

fpon

ds,l

akes

,and

ex

tent

ofp

onds

,lak

es,

rese

rvoi

rs,e

xclu

ding

the

Gre

at

and

rese

rvoi

rs,e

xclu

ding

La

kes

(Mac

res)

,195

0s–1

990s

th

eG

reat

Lak

es(

Mac

res)

,

1950

s–19

90s

est.

stre

ams

and

rive

rsm

ileag

e,

leng

tho

fsm

all,

med

ium

,

19

97-2

002

and

larg

est

ream

san

d

ri

vers

exte

nto

fsub

mer

ged

aqua

tic

ri

pari

anla

ndc

over

of

vege

tati

onin

est

uari

nes

yste

ms

st

ream

san

dri

vers

(%

(a

cres

)ri

pari

anm

iles,

eac

hof

3

la

ndu

sec

ater

gori

es),

1990

’s

%

ofl

ake

and

rese

rvoi

r

ar

eaw

ith

low

-,m

ediu

m-,

and

high

-cla

rity

wat

er

st

ream

hab

itat

qua

lity

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

fres

hwat

erq

ualit

y

inde

x

%

str

eam

,pon

d,la

ke,

and

ripa

rian

zon

em

iles

and

wet

land

acr

esth

at

ha

veb

een

alte

red

gr

ound

wat

erle

vels

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

�3�

NO

3-le

vels

(m

g/l)

ins

trea

ms

of

fore

sts,

gra

ssla

nds

and

sh

rubl

ands

,far

mla

nds,

urb

an

and

subu

rban

eco

syst

ems,

19

92–1

998

NO

3-lo

adc

arri

edb

y4

maj

or

NO

3-lo

adc

arri

edb

y4

ri

vers

(ki

loto

nnes

/yr)

,m

ajor

riv

ers

(kilo

tonn

es/y

ear)

,

19

50s–

2000

19

50s–

2000

tota

lNy

ield

(lb

s/ac

re/y

ear)

to

talN

yie

ld(

lbs/

acre

/yea

r)

from

maj

orw

ater

shed

s

from

maj

orw

ater

shed

s(6

(6

cat

egor

ies)

,199

6–19

99

cate

gori

es),

199

6–19

99(

map

)

(m

ap)

annu

alm

ercu

ryw

etd

epos

itio

n

(μ

g/m

2),2

001

(map

)

num

ber

ofc

onta

min

ants

in

num

ber

ofc

onta

min

ants

in

stre

ams

and

grou

ndw

ater

(%

st

ream

s,g

roun

dw

ater

,and

of

sit

es,3

cat

egor

ies)

,st

ream

bed

sedi

men

t(%

of

1992

–199

8si

tes,

3c

ateg

orie

s),1

992–

1998

sum

mar

yof

det

ecti

ons

of1

or

m

ore

pest

icid

esin

str

eam

san

d

grou

ndw

ater

(fr

eque

ncy

of

dete

ctio

nas

%o

fsam

ples

),

1992

–199

8

wat

ersh

eds

ins

edim

entq

ualit

y

inve

ntor

y(1

980–

1999

)

cont

aini

nga

reas

ofp

arti

cula

r

conc

ern

(APC

s)(

map

)

%te

sted

sit

es(

larg

eri

vers

)

w/

tota

lPc

once

ntra

tion

s

(4r

ange

spp

b)1

991–

1996

%

all

lake

sw

ith

indi

cate

d

tota

lPc

once

ntra

tion

(4r

ange

spp

b)

%

urb

an/s

ubur

ban

stre

am

si

tes

w/

dete

cted

num

ber

ofc

onta

min

ants

(3

cata

gori

es),

199

2–19

98

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s


%

str

eam

sit

ese

xcee

ding

#

hu

man

hea

ltha

nda

quat

ic

lif

est

anda

rds

org

uide

lines

(3c

ateg

orie

s),

1992

–199

8

%

gro

undw

ater

sit

es

ex

ceed

ing

#hu

man

hea

lth

st

anda

rds

org

uide

lines

(3

cate

gori

es),

199

2–19

98

st

ream

bed

sedi

men

t:%

stre

ams

ites

exc

eedi

ng#

aqua

tic

life

stan

dard

sor

guid

elin

es(

3ca

tego

ries

),

19

92–1

998

%

urb

an/s

ubur

ban

stre

am

si

tes

w/

chem

ical

con

tam

inan

t

conc

entr

atio

nsa

bove

aqu

atic

and

hum

anh

ealth

sta

ndar

ds

an

dgu

idel

ines

,199

2–19

98

anim

alm

orta

lity

even

ts

anim

alm

orta

lity

even

ts

(#/5

yrs,

reg

iona

l),1

985–

1989

,(#

/5yr

s,r

egio

nal)

,198

5–19

89,

1990

–199

4,1

995–

1999

19

90–1

994,

199

5–19

99,

an

dby

reg

ion

(6)

trop

ics

tate

inde

xfo

rno

rthe

ast

lake

s,1

991–

1994

%

mun

icip

alp

opul

atio

non

sew

ers

wit

h2n

dary

and

/or

3tia

rytr

eatm

ent,

1983

–199

9

to

tale

stim

ated

Plo

adin

gsto

wat

ers

from

mun

icip

al

w

aste

wat

ertr

eatm

entp

lant

s

(t

onne

s/ye

ar)

#re

port

edw

ater

born

edi

seas

e

outb

reak

s(#

/yr)

att

ribu

ted

to

outb

reak

s(#

/yr)

ass

ocia

ted

wit

h

wat

erbo

rne

dise

ase-

caus

ing

drin

king

wat

er(

type

ofw

ater

o

rgan

ism

s(d

rink

ing

wat

er

syst

em),

197

1–20

00

orr

ecre

atio

nalc

onta

ct),

197

0s

to

200

0

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

�33

%

gau

ged

stre

ams/

rive

rs

w

/m

ajor

,mod

erat

e,a

nd

m

inim

allo

wfl

owa

ndh

igh

flow

cha

nges

,197

0s,1

980s

,

and

1990

s,a

gain

st

19

30–1

949

refe

renc

epe

riod

%

gau

ged

stre

ams/

rive

rs

w

/lo

wa

ndh

igh

flow

s

in

crea

se,d

ecre

ase,

or

tim

ing,

1970

s,1

980s

,199

0s,a

gain

st

19

30–1

949

refe

renc

epe

riod

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

popu

lati

on(

tota

land

%)

serv

ed

byc

omm

unit

yw

ater

sys

tem

sw

/

nor

epor

ted

nati

onal

hea

lth-b

ased

st

anda

rds

viol

atio

ns,1

993–

2002

Wet

land

s W

etla

nds

Wet

land

s W

etla

nds

Wet

land

s

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

%

wet

land

are

a(5

%

wet

land

sar

ea,1

986

est.

wet

land

ext

ent(

acre

s),

fres

hwat

erw

etla

nds

(%

tren

din

%la

nda

rea

in

cate

gori

es),

198

6

(dis

trib

utio

nm

ap)

1977

–198

2an

d19

97–2

002

land

are

a),1

950–

2000

w

etla

nds

(d

istr

ibut

ion

map

)

ex

tent

off

resh

wat

er

w

etla

nds

(Ma)

,

1950

s–19

90s,

and

hist

oric

tota

l(17

80)

A

tlant

ica

ndG

ulfC

oast

s

co

asta

lveg

etat

edw

etla

nds

(M

a),1

950–

2000

alte

red

fres

hwat

ere

cosy

stem

s

tr

ends

ins

elec

ted

fres

hwat

er

wet

land

s(

acre

s),1

954–

1997

regi

onal

non

-fed

eral

wet

land

lo

sses

and

gai

nsa

ndr

easo

ns

for

conv

ersi

on(

%),

19

92–1

997

(map

)

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s


nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

aver

age

annu

alw

etla

ndlo

ss

(acr

es),

195

4–19

74,1

974–

1983

,

19

86–1

997

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Coa

stal

res

ourc

es

Coa

stal

res

ourc

es

Coa

stal

res

ourc

es

Coa

stal

res

ourc

es

Coa

stal

res

ourc

es

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

est.

estu

arin

esu

rfac

ear

ea(

acre

s)

and

coas

tline

(m

iles)

,199

6–19

98

coas

tall

ivin

gha

bita

tse

xten

tco

asta

lliv

ing

habi

tats

ext

ent

(106 a

cres

),1

950s

–199

0s

(106 a

cres

),1

950s

–199

0s

%o

ftot

alr

egio

nals

hore

line,

in

%o

ftot

alr

egio

nals

hore

line

in

type

sof

coa

stal

sho

relin

e,b

yty

pes

ofc

oast

als

hore

line

by

regi

on,2

000

regi

on,2

000

%c

oast

ala

reas

whe

reb

enth

ic

%o

cean

bot

tom

are

a

co

mm

unit

ies

are

ing

ood,

fair,

w

here

ben

thic

com

mun

itie

s

or

poo

rco

ndit

ion,

in

are

unde

grad

ed,m

oder

ate,

M

id-A

tlant

ic,S

outh

Atla

ntic

or

deg

rade

d,b

yre

gion

,

an

dG

ulfo

fMex

ico,

200

019

90–1

997

and

1999

–200

0

wat

erc

lari

ty:%

est

uari

nea

rea

w

ith

good

,fai

r,or

poo

rlig

ht

pene

trat

ion,

199

0–19

97

estu

arin

ear

eaw

ith

poor

,fai

r,

%e

stua

rine

and

coa

stal

or

goo

ddi

ssol

ved

oxyg

en

area

sby

leve

lofd

isso

lved

co

ndit

ions

,200

0ox

ygen

%M

id-A

tlant

ice

stua

rine

ar

eas

wit

hlo

w,i

nter

med

iate

,

or

hig

hto

talo

rgan

icc

arbo

n

cont

enti

nse

dim

ents

,

19

97–1

998

chlo

roph

yllc

once

ntra

tion

sch

loro

phyl

lcon

cent

rati

ons

(p

pb)

in9

oce

anr

egio

ns,

(ppb

)in

9o

cean

reg

ions

,

19

98–2

000

1995

–200

0

�3�

%e

stua

ries

w/

high

,mod

erat

e,

%e

stua

ries

wit

hhi

gh,

orlo

we

utro

phic

con

diti

on

mod

erat

e,a

ndlo

w

leve

ls,1

998

chlo

roph

yllc

once

ntra

tion

s

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

se

dim

entc

onta

min

atio

n

of

oce

an

sedi

men

tenr

ichm

ent(

%a

rea)

co

asta

lsed

imen

t

by

met

als,

pes

tici

des,

and

PC

Bs

co

ntam

inat

ion

(%a

rea

du

eto

hum

ans

ourc

esin

ex

ceed

ing

indi

cate

d#

estu

arie

sof

5r

egio

ns,

guid

elin

es)

ine

stua

ries

of

1990

–199

75

regi

ons,

199

0–19

97

an

d19

99–2

000

(3c

ateg

orie

s)

co

asta

lsed

imen

tin

estu

arie

s

(%

are

a)e

xcee

ding

#o

f

guid

elin

es(

3ca

tego

ries

)

fo

raq

uati

clif

e,1

990–

1997

and

1999

–200

0

se

asu

rfac

ete

mpe

ratu

re

ch

ange

(W

este

rna

ndE

aste

rn

re

gion

s,a

gain

st1

4-yr

ave

rage

),

19

85–2

000

repo

rted

sou

rces

ofp

ollu

tion

(%

)th

atr

esul

ted

inb

each

cl

osin

gso

rad

viso

ries

,200

1

num

ber

ofb

each

day

sth

at

%“

beac

h-m

ile-d

ays”

be

ache

sar

ecl

osed

or

unde

r

affe

cted

by

vari

ous

leve

ls

advi

sory

,200

1of

Ent

eroc

occu

s

#un

usua

lmar

ine

mor

tait

ies,

#

unus

ualm

arin

em

orta

litie

s,

1992

–200

11

992–

2001

#

harm

fula

lgal

blo

oms

of

lo

w,m

ediu

mo

rhi

ghin

tens

ity

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

co

asta

lero

sion

man

agem

ent

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s


Fish

res

ourc

es

Fish

res

ourc

es

Fish

res

ourc

es

Fish

res

ourc

es

Fish

res

ourc

es

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

co

mm

erci

alfi

sha

nd

sh

ellfi

shla

ndin

gsb

y

re

gion

(m

egat

onne

s)

19

50–2

000

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

%

com

mer

cial

lyim

port

ant

fis

hst

ocks

w/

know

nst

atus

(inc

reas

ing

ord

ecre

asin

g

vo

lum

e),b

yre

gion

,

1981

–199

9

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

%

fish

sam

ples

exc

eedi

ng

nu

mbe

rof

sta

ndar

dso

r

gu

idel

ines

for

aqua

tic

life

(3c

ateg

orie

s),1

992–

1998

occu

rren

ce(

%o

ffish

sam

ples

)

occu

rren

ce(

%o

ffish

of

con

tam

inan

ts(

3ca

tego

ries

)

sam

ples

)of

con

tam

inan

ts

infi

shti

ssue

,199

2–19

98

(3c

ateg

orie

s)in

fish

tiss

ue,

19

92–1

998

wat

ersh

eds

w/

fish

tiss

ue

conc

entr

atio

nse

xcee

ding

he

alth

-bas

edn

atio

nalw

ater

qu

alit

yH

gcr

iter

ia,2

001

(m

ap)

wat

ersh

eds

wit

hfis

hti

ssue

co

ncen

trat

ions

exc

eedi

ng

heal

th-b

ased

nat

iona

lwat

er

qual

ity

PCB

scr

iter

ia,2

001

(map

)

fish

abno

rmal

itie

s(%

fish

co

ncen

trat

ion

ofP

CB

s,

exam

ined

),2

001

mer

cury

,and

DD

Tin

edib

leti

ssue

ofs

eafo

od

fr

omc

oast

alw

ater

s

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

%r

iver

(m

iles)

and

lake

(a

cres

)un

der

fish

cons

umpt

ion

ad

viso

ry,1

993–

2001

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

�3�

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

Fore

sts

Fore

sts

Fore

sts

Fore

sts

Fore

sts

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

to

tala

rea

harv

este

d(k

ha),

tim

ber

harv

est(

by

tren

din

tim

ber

harv

est

19

50–1

998

pr

imar

ypro

duct

cat

egor

y

an

dby

reg

ion,

Bft

3 ),

19

50–2

002

owne

rgr

oup

(pub

lic/p

riva

te)

ow

ner

grou

p

tim

ber

rem

oval

s(t

hous

and

mill

ions

(p

ublic

/pri

vate

)ti

mbe

r

squa

refe

et[

Bft

2 ]),

var

ious

yea

rs

grow

tha

ndh

arve

stb

y

fr

om1

952

to2

001

regi

on(

Bft

3 ),1

950–

2002

re

crea

tion

ina

fore

st

se

ttin

g(t

hous

and

mill

ions

ti

mes

/yr,

11c

ateg

orie

s),2

001

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

fore

stc

row

ncl

osur

e

fo

rest

land

sac

reag

ees

t.,

acre

sof

fore

sts

(Ma)

Eas

ttr

end

info

rest

cov

er

(eac

h10

2 ha)

,fro

m

19

77–1

982

and

1997

–200

2an

dW

est,

1600

–190

0sa

telli

teim

ages

,199

8

and

1950

–200

0(m

ap)

tota

lare

aof

eac

hof

12

tren

dsin

fore

stty

pes

tr

ends

info

rest

type

s

ecos

yste

ms

wit

hcr

own

(inc

reas

ing

ord

ecre

asin

g

(inc

reas

ing

ord

ecre

asin

g cl

osur

eov

er1

0%,1

998

in

are

a),b

yre

gion

(W

este

rn,

in

are

a),b

yre

gion

E

aste

rn),

196

3–19

97

(Wes

tern

,Eas

tern

)

19

63–1

997

acre

sof

fore

stla

ndo

wne

rshi

p

acre

sof

fore

stb

yla

nd

(pri

vate

and

pub

lic)

byr

egio

n

owne

rshi

pE

asta

ndW

est

(4r

egio

ns),

200

1(p

ublic

,for

esti

ndus

try,

othe

rpr

ivat

e),1

997

%

fore

stla

nds

wit

h

st

ands

ins

ever

ala

ge

cl

asse

s,1

997

fo

rest

bir

dsp

ecie

spo

pula

tion

po

pula

tion

s(#

oft

ree

and

bird

tren

din

fore

stb

ird

stat

us(

3ca

tego

ries

)in

4

spec

ies

org

roup

sof

spe

cies

)

popu

lati

ons

fo

rest

ede

cozo

nes

(num

ber

of

rep

rese

ntat

ive

fore

sts

peci

es,

of

spe

cies

),1

968–

2000

by

dia

met

erc

lass

(<-

50%

;-50

%

to0

%;0

to+

50%

;>+5

0%),

19

70–2

002


%tr

ees

ine

ach

of4

RPA

re

gion

sw

ith

dim

inis

hed

bi

olog

ical

com

pone

nt:(

%

yes

and

%n

o),1

990–

1999

(m

ap)

cont

ribu

tion

off

ores

tfo

rest

sC

sto

rage

(gi

gam

etri

c

ec

osys

tem

sto

tota

lglo

bal

tonn

es),

195

0–20

00,E

ast

carb

onb

udge

t:av

erag

eM

t/yr

an

dW

est

netc

arbo

npo

olc

hang

e,

1953

–199

6

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

fore

stc

over

and

nei

ghbo

rhoo

d

fore

stc

over

and

nei

ghbo

rhoo

d

si

ze(

%m

ostly

fore

sted

),in

the

si

ze(

%m

ostly

fore

sted

)in

the

Eas

tand

Wes

t(im

med

iate

,E

asta

ndW

est(

imm

edia

te,

loca

l,an

dla

rger

nei

ghbo

rhoo

d),

loca

l,an

dla

rger

nei

ghbo

rhoo

d),

1992

19

92

sp

ruce

bud

wor

md

efol

iati

on:

acre

sfo

rest

dis

turb

edb

y

acre

sfo

rest

dis

turb

edb

y

cons

ecut

ive

yrs

(tw

oca

tego

ries

),

inse

cts,

fore

stfi

res,

and

dis

ease

in

sect

s,fo

rest

fire

s,a

ndd

isea

se

19

80–1

996

(map

)(M

a),1

979–

2000

(M

a),1

979–

2000

fo

rest

fire

s(1

03 )a

nda

rea

%fo

rest

land

sbu

rned

by

tren

din

are

abu

rned

in

bu

rned

(M

ha),

197

0–20

00

w

ildfir

e(c

ompa

red

to

fore

stw

ildfir

es

pr

e-se

ttle

men

t)

%c

hang

ein

ann

ualh

arve

st,

annu

alg

row

th,a

ndg

row

ing

st

ock

sinc

e19

90

to

tala

rea

offo

rest

com

mun

ity

type

sw

ith

sign

ifica

ntly

red

uced

area

s(s

ince

pre

-set

tlem

ent)

nu

mbe

rof

com

mun

ity

type

sw

ith

sign

ifica

ntly

redu

ced

area

that

are

incr

easi

ngo

rde

crea

sing

ins

ize

(4c

ateg

orie

s)

ozon

ein

jury

totr

ees

(%o

f

pl

ots

in4

reg

ions

),1

994–

2000

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

�3�

freq

uenc

ydi

stri

buti

ono

f%

ofp

lota

rea

exhi

biti

nge

vide

nce

of

sur

face

com

pact

ion

onF

HM

pr

ogra

mp

lots

,199

9–20

00

%

fore

sts

trea

ms

wit

h

m

ean

NO

3-c

once

ntra

tion

s

(1

of4

ran

ges)

,199

2–19

98

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

tr

end

in%

str

ictly

pro

tect

ed

%

fore

sta

rea

inE

asta

nd

tren

din

are

aof

pro

tect

ed

ar

ea,f

or4

eco

zone

s,1

992–

2001

Wes

tin

1of

4

fore

st

m

anag

emen

tcat

egor

ies,

19

53–1

997

fo

rest

pla

nted

tim

berl

and

(%a

rea)

,195

3–19

97

%

nat

ural

/sem

i-na

tura

l

fore

stla

nda

rea,

1953

–199

7

fo

rest

nat

ural

/sem

i-na

tura

l

tim

berl

and

(%a

rea)

,195

3–19

97

agr

icul

tura

l lan

d a

gric

ultu

ral l

and

agr

icul

tura

l lan

d a

gric

ultu

ral l

and

agr

icul

tura

l lan

d

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

%

farm

land

act

ivel

yus

ed

fo

rcr

opp

rodu

ctio

n,

pa

stur

e,o

rha

ylan

ds,1

992

%

use

non

-cro

plan

d

ar

eas

offa

rmla

ndla

ndsc

ape,

1992

agri

cultu

ralp

esti

cide

sus

e

(Mlb

sac

tive

ingr

edie

nts/

yr),

19

92a

nd1

997

fert

ilize

rus

e(m

illio

nso

f

nu

trie

ntto

nnes

),1

960–

1998

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

farm

land

s(c

ropl

ands

and

cr

opla

nds

(%fa

rmla

nd

pa

stur

elan

ds)

acre

age

est.,

ar

ea),

by

regi

on,1

992

1977

–198

2an

d19

97–2

002

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s


exte

nto

fcro

plan

ds(

acre

s),

tota

lacr

esin

cro

plan

ds

1997

(m

ap)

(Ma)

,195

0–20

00

tr

ends

in%

soi

lorg

anic

mat

ter

(dry

wei

ght)

,by

%

cr

opla

nd,a

ndb

yre

gion

%

cro

plan

dsin

diff

eren

t

rang

eso

nN

emat

ode

Mat

urit

yIn

dex

(NM

I)

st

atus

ofa

nim

als

peci

es

in

farm

land

are

as

na

tive

veg

etat

ion

rem

aini

ng

in

cro

plan

dar

eas

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

chan

gein

cro

plan

d,C

PR

land

,and

pas

ture

land

ac

reag

e,1

982,

198

7,1

992,

19

97

%c

hang

e(6

cat

egor

ies)

in

crop

land

are

a,1

992–

1997

(m

ap)

de

gree

off

ragm

enta

tion

offa

rmla

ndla

ndsc

apes

byd

evel

opm

ent

%

ofn

atur

alp

atch

are

as

in

com

pact

,elo

ngat

ed,

an

din

term

edia

tep

atch

es

#w

ater

shed

sw

ith

low

,

m

oder

ate,

and

hig

hpo

tent

ial

for

sedi

men

trun

off

from

cr

opla

nds

and

past

urel

ands

,

19

90–1

995

(map

)

#w

ater

shed

sw

ith

low

,

m

oder

ate,

and

hig

hpo

tent

ial

for

pest

icid

eru

noff

from

farm

fie

lds,

199

0–19

95(

map

)

esti

mat

eso

fris

kof

nit

roge

n

expo

rtb

yw

ater

shed

,199

2

esti

mat

eso

fris

kof

pho

spho

rus

ex

port

by

wat

ersh

ed,1

992

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

��

win

dan

dw

ater

ero

sion

di

stri

buti

ono

ncr

opla

nds

an

dC

RP

land

s(t

onne

s/yr

),

19

97(

map

)

crop

land

sm

ostp

rone

to

crop

land

sm

ostp

rone

to

win

der

osio

n,(

dot=

2*1

04

win

dan

dw

ater

ero

sion

,

ac

res)

,199

7(m

ap)

(dot

=2

*104

acr

es),

199

7(m

ap)

%

sha

rea

gric

ultu

rall

and

%fa

rmla

nd,a

ccor

ding

to

%fa

rmla

nds

usce

ptib

leto

(5r

egio

ns)

subj

ectt

o

p

oten

tial

for

win

dan

d

wat

ere

rosi

on

un

sust

aina

ble

wat

ere

rosi

on,

w

ater

ero

sion

(3

1981

,199

1,1

996

ca

tego

ries

),1

982–

1997

%

cro

plan

dw

ith

diff

eren

t

leve

lso

fsal

tcon

tent

(dS

/m)

ha

bita

tqua

lity

offa

rmla

nd

st

ream

s

%

cha

nge

inr

esid

ualN

%fa

rmla

nds

trea

ms

and

leve

lso

nag

ricu

ltura

llan

d,

gr

ound

wat

ers

ites

w/

mea

n

inr

egio

ns(

3ca

tego

ries

),

N

O3-

con

cent

rati

ons

(1o

f

1981

–199

6

4r

ange

s),1

992–

1998

av

erag

e#

pest

icid

esin

farm

land

str

eam

san

dsh

allo

w

gr

ound

wat

erw

ells

,

1992

–199

8

%

str

eam

san

dsh

allo

w

gr

ound

wat

erw

ells

wit

h

pe

stic

ide

conc

entr

atio

ns

ex

ceed

ing

stan

dard

san

d

gu

idel

ines

for

hum

anh

ealth

and

aqua

tic

heal

th,1

992–

1998

%

farm

land

str

eam

sw

/m

ean

annu

alP

con

cent

rati

ons

(1o

f4r

ange

s),1

992–

1998

pest

icid

ere

sidu

esin

food

(%

ofs

ampl

es),

200

0

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

%

cha

nge

in#

bar

eso

ilda

ys

on

agr

icul

tura

llan

d,in

5

re

gion

s,b

etw

een

1981

and

1996

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s


Gra

ssla

nds

G

rass

land

s

Gra

ssla

nds

G

rass

land

s

Gra

ssla

nds

and

Shru

blan

ds

and

Shru

blan

ds

and

Shru

blan

ds

and

Shru

blan

ds

and

Shru

blan

ds

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

catt

le(

106 )

gra

zing

on

gras

slan

ds,s

hrub

land

s

an

dpa

stur

es(

rath

erth

an

fe

edlo

ts),

dur

ing

July

,

1994

to2

002

ac

res

ofg

rass

land

/shr

ubla

nd

by

land

use

(M

acre

s),

19

94–2

002

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

gras

slan

dsa

nds

hrub

land

s

gras

slan

d/sh

rubl

ands

from

ac

reag

e,e

st.1

977–

1982

and

19

92s

atel

lite

imag

e

19

97–2

002

exte

nt(

acre

s)o

fgra

ssla

nds

and

ex

tent

(ac

res)

ofg

rass

land

s

sh

rubl

ands

,199

2(l

ower

48

a

nds

hrub

land

s,1

992

st

ates

)an

d19

91(

Ala

ska)

(l

ower

48

stat

es)

and

1991

(A

lask

a)

to

talC

sto

red

ing

rass

land

s

and

shru

blan

ds(

soils

and

plan

ts)

(109 m

etri

cto

nnes

)

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

%

gra

ssla

nd/s

hrub

land

stre

ams

and

rive

rsw

ith

atle

ast1

no-

flow

day

/yr,

and

%w

here

zer

o-flo

w

du

rati

onp

erio

dsa

re

lo

nger

or

shor

ter

than

50-y

ear

mea

n,

19

50s–

1990

s

ar

eaa

nds

ize

ofg

rass

land

and

shru

blan

dpa

tche

s

(%

oft

otal

inp

atch

es–

5si

zec

ateg

orie

s)

gr

assl

and

and

shru

blan

d

gr

ound

wat

erN

O3-

(%

sit

es

te

sted

,4c

ateg

orie

s)

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

��3

%

gra

ssla

nda

nds

hrub

land

area

sw

here

dep

thto

grou

ndw

ater

falls

wit

hin

seve

ralr

ange

s

fr

acti

ono

fgra

ssla

nda

nd

sh

rubl

and

area

sth

atb

urn

mor

eor

less

oft

ena

sbe

fore

Eur

opea

nse

ttle

men

t

ri

pari

anc

ondi

tion

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Bio

dive

rsit

y B

iodi

vers

ity

Bio

dive

rsit

y B

iodi

vers

ity

Bio

dive

rsit

y

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

%a

llw

ater

shed

sw

/di

ffer

ent

%a

llw

ater

shed

sw

/

#so

fnon

-nat

ive

fish

spec

ies

di

ffer

ent#

sof

non

-nat

ive

w/

esta

bish

edb

reed

ing

fis

hsp

ecie

sw

/es

tabi

shed

po

pula

tion

s,2

000

bree

ding

pop

ulat

ions

,200

0

di

ffer

ent#

ses

tabl

ishe

d

br

eedi

ngp

opul

atio

nso

f

non-

nati

vefi

shs

peci

es,

by

wat

ersh

ed,2

000

(map

)

po

pula

tion

tren

ds

co

mpa

riso

nbe

twee

nse

lect

ed

no

n-in

vasi

ven

ativ

ean

d

in

vasi

veg

rass

land

/shr

ubla

nd

bi

rds

peci

es,1

966–

2000

%

fore

st,a

nd%

gras

slan

d/sh

rubl

and

area

cove

red

byn

on-n

ativ

epl

ants

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

popu

lati

ontr

ends

(%

spe

cies

po

pula

tion

tren

ds(

%

incr

easi

ng)

ofin

vasi

vea

nd

spec

ies

incr

easi

ng)

of

nati

ve,n

on-i

nvas

ive

bird

s,

inva

sive

and

nat

ive,

19

66–2

000

non

-inv

asiv

ebi

rds,

1966

–200

0

%

ofa

llsi

tes

(fish

and

bent

hic

anim

als)

wit

h

di

ffer

entl

evel

sof

dis

turb

ance

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s


pl

antg

row

thin

dex,

(re

gion

al),

base

don

11-

yra

vera

ge,b

y

ec

osys

tem

and

reg

iona

l,

19

88–2

000,

and

200

0m

ap

fish

dive

rsit

y:#

fish

spe

cies

(l

owo

rhi

ghd

iver

sity

),

1997

–199

8(m

ap)

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

en

dang

ered

and

thre

aten

ed

at-r

isk

land

and

fres

hwat

er

at-r

isk

land

and

#s

thre

aten

eds

peci

eso

r

sp

ecie

san

dsu

bspe

cies

,and

pl

anta

nda

nim

aln

ativ

e

fres

hwat

erp

lant

and

%

ofa

llsp

ecie

s20

00

po

pula

tion

s(#

s)in

eac

hof

3

spec

ies,

by

risk

cat

egor

ies

anim

aln

ativ

esp

ecie

s,

ecoz

ones

,200

1(m

ap)

(%a

llsp

ecie

s),2

000

byr

isk

cate

gori

es

st

atus

cha

nge

inr

eass

esed

%

impe

rile

dsp

ecie

s

%la

ndp

lant

san

d

sp

ecie

sat

ris

k(4

CO

SEW

IC

(eco

syst

em),

200

0fr

eshw

ater

spe

cies

atr

isk,

cate

gori

es),

198

5–20

02

(r

egio

nal)

200

0

at-r

isk

nati

vefo

rest

spe

cies

at

-ris

kna

tive

fore

sts

peci

es

(%o

fall

fore

sts

peci

es),

by

(%

ofa

llfo

rest

spe

cies

),

risk

cat

egor

y,2

000

byr

isk

cate

gory

,and

at-

risk

spec

ies

byr

egio

n,2

000

at-r

isk

nati

veg

rass

land

and

at

-ris

kna

tive

gra

ssla

nd

shru

blan

dsp

ecie

s(%

ofa

ll

and

shru

blan

dsp

ecie

s(%

gr

assl

and

and

shru

blan

d

ofa

llgr

assl

and

and

sp

ecie

s),b

yri

skc

ateg

ory,

200

0sh

rubl

and

spec

ies)

,by

risk

cate

gory

,200

0

%

wet

land

pla

nt

co

mm

unit

ies

(4d

egre

esr

isk

elim

inat

ion,

reg

iona

l),2

000

%

nat

ive

mar

ine

spec

ies

ate

xtin

ctio

n

ri

sk(

5ca

tego

ries

,reg

iona

l),2

000

de

gree

tow

hich

“or

igin

al”

plan

tsa

nda

nim

als

are

eith

er

ab

sent

ent

irel

yor

are

atr

isk

ofb

eing

lost

from

met

ropo

litan

are

as

Res

pons

e Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

st

rict

lyp

rote

cted

are

as

(I

UC

NI

–III

)an

dto

talp

rote

cted

area

s(a

llcl

asse

s),a

s%

Can

ada’s

tota

lare

a,1

900–

2000

,sho

win

g

inte

rnat

iona

ltar

get

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

��

%

str

ictly

pro

tect

ede

core

gion

s

(4

cat

egor

ies)

,200

1(m

ap)

#

stri

ctly

pro

tect

eds

ites

in

ea

chs

ize

rang

e(7

cat

egor

ies,

km2 )

Urb

an a

reas

U

rban

are

as

Urb

an a

reas

U

rban

are

as

Urb

an a

reas

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

%

urb

an/s

ubur

ban

area

that

isim

perv

ious

(4c

ateg

orie

s)

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

exte

nto

fnon

-fed

eral

dev

elop

ed

acre

sof

urb

ana

nd

land

(m

etro

polit

ana

rea

su

burb

ana

reas

,by

regi

on

boun

dari

es),

199

7(m

ap)

(Ma)

,199

2

ur

ban/

subu

rban

are

a

as

%o

ftot

alr

egio

n’s

land

,199

2

%

ofu

rban

/sub

urba

n

la

ndc

ompo

sed

ofw

etla

nds,

crop

land

s,g

rass

/shr

ubla

nds,

and

fore

sts,

by

regi

on,1

992

patc

hes

offo

rest

,gra

ssla

nd,

shru

blan

d,a

ndw

etla

ndin

ur

ban

and

subu

rban

are

as,

byr

egio

n(%

ofa

llna

tura

l

la

nds)

,199

2

to

talp

atch

eso

ffor

est,

gr

assl

and,

shr

ubla

nd,a

nd

w

etla

nd,i

nur

ban

and

subu

rban

are

as,a

ndb

y

re

gion

(%

ofa

llna

tura

l

land

s),1

992

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

chan

gein

acr

eso

fdev

elop

ed

subu

rban

/rur

alla

nd

land

(ur

ban

and

subu

rban

us

ech

ange

ar

eas

and

rura

ltra

nspo

rtat

ion

la

nd),

by

wat

ersh

ed,

1982

–199

7(m

ap)

nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s


nr

Te

e (

Can

ada)

e

nvir

onm

ent

Can

ada

Uni

ted

Stat

es e

Pa

The

hei

nz C

ente

r (U

Sa)

Com

mon

Ind

icat

ors

Env�

ronm

ent a

nd

Env�

ronm

enta

l S�g

nals:

D

raft

Repo

rt o

n T

he S

tate

of t

he

Gen

er�c

�nd�

cato

rsSu

sta�n

able

Dev

elop

men

t C

anad

a’s N

at�o

nal

the

Env�

ronm

ent �

003

Nat

�on’s

Eco

syste

ms

com

mon

to b

oth

coun

tr�e

sIn

d�ca

tors

for

Can

ada

Env�

ronm

enta

l Ind

�cat

ors S

er�e

s

%

urb

an/s

ubur

ban

land

that

isu

ndev

elop

ed(

5

ca

tego

ries

,reg

iona

l),1

992

%

all

natu

rala

reas

w/i

n

ur

ban

and

subu

rban

land

s

w

/va

ryin

gsi

zep

atch

es

(5

cat

agor

ies,

reg

iona

l),1

992

%

str

eam

sdr

aini

ngu

rban

wat

ersh

eds

wit

hav

erag

e

N

O3 -

con

cent

rati

ons

in1

of4

ran

ges,

199

2–19

98

%

str

eam

sdr

aini

ngu

rban

wat

ersh

eds

wit

hav

erag

e

an

nual

Pc

once

ntra

tion

s

in

1o

f4r

ange

s,1

992–

1998

av

erag

edi

ffer

ence

bet

wee

n

ur

ban

and

rura

lair

tem

pera

ture

(%m

etro

polit

ana

rea

in1

of3

cat

egor

ies)

#

and

type

of“

disr

upti

ve”

spec

ies

foun

din

met

ropo

litan

area

s,a

ndb

yre

gion

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

nat

ural

Dis

aste

rs

nat

ural

Dis

aste

rs

nat

ural

Dis

aste

rs

nat

ural

Dis

aste

rs

nat

ural

Dis

aste

rs

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Pr

essu

re

Pres

sure

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e St

ate

Stat

e

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

Re

spon

se

Resp

onse

nat

iona

l res

pons

es

nat

iona

l res

pons

es

nat

iona

l res

pons

es

nat

iona

l res

pons

es

nat

iona

l res

pons

es

(e

xpen

ditu

res)

(e

xpen

ditu

res)

(

expe

ndit

ures

)(e

xpen

ditu

res)

(e

xpen

ditu

res)

��

appendix 2: Data Sources for Selected Issues

General

Internat�onal

OECD.2002.OECD Env�ronmental Data—Compend�um �00�.Paris:EnvironmentalPerformanceandInfor-mationDivision,OECDEnvironmentDirectorate,WorkingGrouponEnvironmentalInformationandOutlooks(WGEIO):http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,2340,en_2649_34303_2516565_1_1_1_1,00.html.

OECD.2001.OECD Env�ronmental Ind�cators: Towards Susta�nable Development.Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment.

WRI.2004.EarthTrends: The Env�ronmental Informat�on Portal.WorldResourcesInstitute,UNEP,TheWorldBank,TheNetherlandsMinistryofForeignAffairs,SIDA,UNDP,TheRasmussenFoundation:http://earthtrends.wri.org/miscell/aboutus.cfm?theme=0.Viewed18May2004.

UNEP.2002.GEO Data Portal Home.UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme:http://gridca.grid.unep.ch/geoportal/.

FAOSTAT.2004.FAO Stat�st�cal Databases.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations:http://apps.fao.org/default.jsp.

Canada

EC.2003.Env�ronmental S�gnals: Canada’s Nat�onal Env�ronmental Ind�cator Ser�es �003.EnvironmentCanada:http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indica-tor_series/default.cfm#pic.Viewed8June2004.

NRTEE.2003.Env�ronment and Susta�nable Development Ind�cators for Canada.NationalRoundTableontheEnvironmentandtheEconomy:http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/programs/Current_Programs/SDIndica-tors/ESDI-Report/ESDI-Report_IntroPage_E.htm.

StatisticsCanada.2003.Human Act�v�ty and the Env�ron-ment: Annual Stat�st�cs �003.Catalogueno.16-201-XIE.StatisticsCanada:http://www.statcan.ca/eng-lish/ads/16-201-XPE/index.htm.

GovernmentofCanada.2002.Susta�nable Develop-ment: A Canad�an Perspect�ve.TheEarthSum-mit2002.CanadianSecretariat:http://www.canada2002earthsummit.gc.ca/canada_at_wssd/cana-dian_perspective_e.pdf.

OECD.2004.OECD Env�ronmental Performance Rev�ews: Canada.Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCo-opera-tionandDevelopment.

EC.2001.Track�ng Key Env�ronmental Issues. EnvironmentCanada:Http://Www.Ec.Gc.Ca/TKEI/Eng_Final.Pdf.

Boyd,DavidR.2001.Canada vs. the OECD: An Env�ron-mental Compar�son.UniversityofVictoria:Eco-ResearchChairofEnvironmentalLawandPolicy,http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htdocs/PDF/Pgs1-10.pdf.

EC.1996.TheStateofCanada’sEnvironment—1996.In:Conserv�ng Canada’s Natural Legacy.CD-ROM:En21-54-1996-MRC.EnvironmentCanada.

EC.SOE Infobase.EnvironmentCanada,NationalIndica-torsandReportingOffice:http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/default.cfm.

Un�ted States

USEPA.2003.Draft Report on the Env�ronment.Envi-ronmentalIndicatorsInitiative,USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency:http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/,Viewed18June2004.

HeinzCenter.2002.The State of the Nat�on’s Ecosystems: Measur�ng the Lands, Waters, and L�v�ng Resources of the Un�ted States.H.JohnHeinzIIICenterforSci-ence,EconomicsandtheEnvironment:http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/intro/toc.shtml.

USCensusBureau.2002.Stat�st�cal Abstracts of the Un�ted States, �00� and �003:http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-02.html.

CGER(CommitteetoEvaluateIndicatorsforMonitor-ingAquaticandTerrestrialEnvironments,BoardonEnvironmentalStudiesandToxicology,WaterScienceandTechnologyBoard,CommissiononGeosciences,Environment,andResources).NationalResearchCouncil.2000. Ecolog�cal Ind�cators for the Nat�on.WashingtonDC:NationalAcademyPress,http://books.nap.edu/books/0309068452/html/1.html#pagetop.

USCensusBureau.2004.Stat�st�cal Abstracts of the Un�ted States: Uncle Sam’s reference shelf, m�n� h�stor�cal stat�s-t�cs:http://www.census.gov/statab/www/minihs.html.

CEQ.1997.Env�ronmental Qual�ty, The World W�de Web: The �� Report of the Counc�l on Env�ronmental Qual�ty. WashingtonDC:TheWhiteHouse,CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality.

USEPA.EnvironmentalIndicatorsInitiative.USEn-vironmentalProtectionAgency:http://www.epa.gov/indicators/.

Drivers

Population

Internat�onal

UNDESA.2003.World Populat�on Prospects: The �00� Rev�s�on Populat�on Database.UnitedNationsPopula-tionDivision:http://esa.un.org/unpp/.

PRB.2004.PopulationReferenceBureau.HomePage:http://www.prb.org/.

Canada

StatisticsCanada.2001.2001Census of Canada:http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/home/index.cfm.

Un�ted States

USCensusBureau.2002.Census2000Gateway:http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.


GDP and Consumption

Internat�onal

WB.2004.World Development Ind�cators.WDI2004CD-ROM.WorldBankGroup:http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2004/cdrom/.

EIU.2004.Country Reports.EconomistIntelligenceUnit:http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=ps_country_reports&entry1=psNav&infositelayout=site_info_nav_ha,Viewed17June2004.

Canada

StatisticsCanada.2004.Canada: Econom�c and F�nanc�al Data:http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/dsbbcan.htm.

Un�ted States

BEA.2004.US Econom�c Accounts.USDepartmentofCommerce,BureauofEconomicAnalysis:http://www.bea.gov/.

Wagner,L.A.2002.Mater�als �n the Economy—Mater�al Flows, Scarc�ty, and the Env�ronment.USGeologicalSurvey,Circular1221:http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2002/c1221/c1221-508.pdf.

Matthewsandothers2000.We�ght of Nat�ons: Mater�al Outflows From Industr�al Econom�es.WorldRe-sourcesInstitute:http://materials.wri.org/pubs_pdf.cfm?PubID=3023.

energy and Minerals

Internat�onal

IEA:Key World Energy Stat�st�cs—�00� Ed�t�on:http://li-brary.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/bookshop/add.aspx?id=144.

EIA.2004.Internat�onal Total Pr�mary Energy and Related Informat�on. Energy Informat�on Adm�n�strat�on, Na-t�onal Energy Informat�on Center: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/total.html#IntlConsumption.

North Amer�ca

EIA.2004.Country Analys�s Br�ef—North Amer�ca.EnergyInformationAdministration:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/cabsna.html.

EIA.2002.North Amer�ca: The Energy P�cture: EnergyInformationAdministration,NorthAmericanEnergyWorkingGroup:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/engindex.htm#_VPID_1.

Canada

StatisticsCanada.2004.CanadianSystemofEnvironmen-talandResourceAccounts:MaterialandEnergyFlowAccounts.InThe Da�ly,8December:http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/041208/d041208d.htm.

NRCan.2004.Energy Use Data Handbook, ��0 and �� to �00�.NaturalResourcesCanada,OfficeofEnergyEfficiency,DataandAnalysis:http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/neud/dpa/datae/Handbook04/Datahand-book2004.pdf.

NRCan.2004.Energy Effic�ency Trends �n Canada, ��0–�00�. NaturalResourcesCanadahttp://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/neud/dpa/datae/Trends04/Trends2004.pdf.

StatisticsCanada.2003.Energy Stat�st�cs Handbook.http://www.statcan.ca/english/ads/57-601-XIE/.

StatisticsCanada.2002.Report on Energy Supply-De-mand �n Canada.http://www.statcan.ca:8096/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=57-003-X.

Un�ted States

EIA.2003.Annual Energy Rev�ew, �00�.WashingtonDC:EnergyInformationAdministration,OfficeofEnergyMarketsandEndUse,USDepartmentofEnergy:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/03842002.pdf.

EIA.1995.Energy-IntensityIndicatorsfortheUSEconomy,bySector.InMeasur�ng Energy Effic�ency In The Un�ted States’ Economy: A Beg�nn�ng.En-ergyInformationAdministration,OfficeofEnergyMarketsandEndUse,USDepartmentofEnergy:Washington,DC:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ef-ficiency/eefig_exsum.htm.

SMR.2003.F�rst Approx�mat�on Report of the Susta�nable M�nerals Roundtable.SustainableMineralsRound-table:http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/Report.html.

Transportation

Internat�onal

IRF.2004.World Road Stat�st�cs.WashingtonDC:Inter-nationalRoadFederation:http://www.irfnet.org/wrs.asp.

North Amer�ca

StatisticsCanada.2000.North Amer�can Transportat�on �n F�gures(50-501-XIE).USDepartmentofTrans-portation,BureauofTransportationStatistics,USDepartmentofCommerce,CensusBureau;Statis-ticsCanada;TransportCanada;InstitutoMexicanodelTransporte;InstitutoNacionaldeEstadística,GeografíaeInformática;andSecretaríadeComuni-cacionesyTransportes:http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/50-501-XIE/free.htm.

GRIMES.2004.Automob�le Mob�l�ty Data Compend�um.UniversitéLaval,InterdisciplinaryResearchGrouponMobility,EnvironmentandSafety(GRIMES):http://www.grimes.ulaval.ca/anglais/.

APTA.2003.�003 Publ�c Transportat�on Fact Book.54thEdition.WashingtonDC:AmericanPublicTranspor-tationAssociation.

Canada

TransportCanada.2004.Susta�nable Development Strategy, �00�–�00�.http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environ-ment/SD/sds0406/keyissues.htm.

NRCan.2003.Energy Use Data Handbook, ��0 and �� to �00�.http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/neud/dpa/data_e/Datahandbook2003.pdf.

��

Schingh,Marie,ÉrikBrunet,andPatrickGosselin.2003.Motor Veh�cle Fuel Effic�ency In�t�at�ve: Canad�an New L�ght-Duty Veh�c�les: Trends �n fuel consumpt�on and character�st�cs (��–��).NaturalResourcesCanada,OfficeofEnergyEfficiency:http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/english/programs/Doc5e.cfm#06.

Kohn,HaroldM.N.d.Factors Affect�ng Urban Tran-s�t R�dersh�p.StatisticsCanadacataloguenumber53F0003-XIE:http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/53F0003XIE/53F0003XIE.pdf.

Gilbert,Richard,NealIrwin,BrianHollingworth,andPamelaBlais.2002.Susta�nable Transportat�on Performance Ind�cators (STPI): Report on Phase 3:TheCentreforSustainableTransportation:http://www.cstctd.org/CSTadobefiles/STPI%20Phase%203%20final%20report.pdf.

StatisticsCanada.2004.Canad�an Veh�cle Survey, Annual, �003.StatisticsCanada,TransportationDivision:http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/53-223-XIE/53-223-XIE2003000.pdf.

CUTA.2004.Canad�an Urban Transport Assoc�at�on “Fact Book”.http://www.cutaactu.on.ca/.

CentreforSustainableTransportation.2002.SustainableTransportationMonitor.http://www.cstctd.org/CSTadobefiles/STM7%20English.pdf,andhttp://www.cstctd.org/CSTadobefiles/STM7%20English.pdf.

Un�ted States


APTA.2003.�003 Publ�c Transportat�on Fact Book.54thEdition.WashintgonDC:AmericanPublicTranspor-tationAssociation.

APTA.2004.Trans�t Stat�st�cs.AmericanPublicTranspor-tationAssociation:http://www.apta.com/research/stats/#A2.

APTA.n.d.The Benefits of Publ�c Transportat�on Mob�l�ty for Amer�ca’s Small Urban and Rural Commun�t�es.AmericanPublicTransportationAssociation,:http://www.publictransportation.org/pdf/rural.pdf.

FTA.2002.Nat�onal Trans�t Database: Nat�onal Trans�t Summar�es and Trends for the �00� Report Year:Fed-eralTransitAdministration:http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/NTST/2002/PDFFiles2002%20National%20Transit%20Summaries%20and%20Trends%20(NTST).pdf.

USEPA.1999.Ind�cators of the Env�ronmental Impacts of Transportat�on, Updated Second Ed�t�on(EPA230-R-001).WashingtonDC:USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/99indict.pdf.

BTS.2004.Nat�onal Transportat�on Stat�st�cs �003. WashingtonDC:BureauofTransportationStatistics:http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transporta-tion_statistics/2003/index.html.

Pollution Issues

Climate Change

Internat�onal

UNFCCC.N.d.Greenhouse Gas Inventory Database (GHG): On-l�ne searchable database of GHG �nven-tory data. UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange:http://ghg.unfccc.int/default1.htf?time=06%3A43%3A24+PM.

Marland,G.,T.A.Boden,andR.J.Andres.2003.Global,Regional,andNationalFossilFuelCO

2Emissions.

InTrends: A Compend�um of Data on Global Change. OakRidgeNationalLaboratory,USDepartmentofEnergy,OakRidge,Tenn.,USA:CarbonDioxideInformationAnalysisCenter,http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/trends.htm.

IEA.2004.CO� Em�ss�ons from Fuel Combust�on ��-

�00�—�00� Ed�t�on:http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/bookshop/add.aspx?id=36.

Canada

EC.2003.Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory ��0–�00�.InformationonGreenhouseGasSourcesandSinks,GreenhouseGasDivision,EnvironmentCanada:http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/1990_01_report/fore-word_e.cfm.

NRCan.2004.Energy Effic�ency Trends �n Canada, ��0–�00�.NaturalResourcesCanada:http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/neud/dpa/datae/Trends04/Trends2004.pdf.

CCME.2003.Cl�mate, Nature, People: Ind�cators of Canada’s Chang�ng Cl�mate.Winnipeg,Manitoba:CanadianCouncilofMinistersoftheEnvironment:http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/cc_ind_full_doc_e.pdf.

EC.2002.Adjusted H�stor�cal Canad�an Cl�mate Data (AHCCD): VersionDecember2002.EnvironmentCanada2002:http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/hccd/.

EC.2004.Temperature & Prec�p�tat�on �n H�stor�cal Perspect�ve, Spr�ng �00�.EnvironmentCanada,Cli-mateMonitoringandDataInterpretationDivision(CCRM):ClimateTrendsandVariationsBulletin,NationalSummary:http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/national_e.cfm.

Un�ted States

USEPA.2004.Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Em�ss�ons and S�nks: ��0–�00�.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency:http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsGHGEmis-sionsUSEmissionsInventory2004.html.


NCDC,andNOAA.2004.Un�ted States: Cl�mate Sum-mary.June2004.Ashville,NC:NationalClimaticDataCenter,NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cli-mate/research/cag3/NA.html.


Ozone Layer

Internat�onal

UNEP.2004.The Ozone Secretar�at.Nairobi,Kenya:UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme:http://www.unep.org/ozone/index.asp.

UNEP.2002.Product�on and Consumpt�on of Ozone-Deplet�ng Substances under the Montreal Protocol, ��—�000. Nairobi,Kenya:UNEPOzoneSecre-tariat:http://www.unep.ch/ozone/pdfs/15-year-data-report.pdf.

WOUDC.N.d.Global Atmosphere Watch.WorldOzoneandUltravioletRadiationDataCentre:http://www.wmo.ch/web/arep/gaw/wourdc.html.

WMO.2002.Sc�ent�fic Assessment of Ozone Deplet�on: �00�.Geneva:WorldMeteorologicalOrganization,GlobalOzoneResearchandMonitoringProject—Re-portNo.47:http://www.wmo.ch/web/arep/reports/o3_assess_rep_2002_front_page.html.

Canada

EC.1999.Nat�onal Env�ronmental Ind�cator Ser�es: Strato-spher�c Ozone Deplet�on (SOEBulletinNo.99-2).EnvironmentCanada,StateoftheEnvironmentInfobase:http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indi-cators/Issues/Ozone/default.cfm.

MSC.2002.Exper�mental Stud�es D�v�s�on, World Ozone and Ultrav�olet Rad�at�on Data Centre (WOUDC).ExperimentalStudiesDivisionoftheAirQual-ityBranchoftheMeteorlogicalServiceofCanada(MSC).Toronto,ON:http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/woudc/expstudies_e.html.

Un�ted States


CMDL.2004.Cl�mate Mon�tor�ng & D�agnost�cs Labora-tory. USDepartmentofCommerce/NOAA/OAR/CMDL:Boulder,CO:http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/.

USEPA.2004.Myth: Ozone Deplet�on Occurs Only In Ant-arct�ca.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OzoneDepletionwebsite:http://www.epa.gov/ozone/sci-ence/glob_dep.html.

air Quality and acid Deposition

Internat�onal

RIVM.2001.Em�ss�on Database for Global Atmospher�c Research - EDGAR.Bilthoven:TheNetherlandsNationalInstituteofPublicHealthandtheEnviron-ment:http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/coredata/edgar/.

North Amer�ca

EC.2004.Canada - Un�ted States A�r Qual�ty Agree-ment: �00� Progress Report.EnvironmentCanada,TheGreenLane:http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/can_us/2004CanUs/intro_e.html.

Canada

EC.2004.A�r Pollutant Em�ss�ons: Cr�ter�a A�r Contam�-nants, Em�ss�on Summar�es. EnvironmentCanada,TheGreenLane,CriteriaAirPollutantEmissions(CAPE):http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ape/cape_home_e.cfm.

EC.1999.Nat�onal Env�ronmental Ind�cator Ser�es: Urban A�r Qual�ty (SOEBulletinNo.99-1).Environ-mentCanada,StateoftheEnvironmentInfobase:http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicators/Is-sues/Urb_Air/.

EC.2003.Nat�onal A�r Pollut�on Surve�llance (NAPS) Network Annual Data Summary for �00�,Envi-ronmentalProtectionSeries,ReportEPS7/AP/35.EnvironmentalTechnologyAdvancementDirector-ate,EnvironmentalProtectionService,EnvironmentCanada:http://www.etcentre.org/publications/naps/naps2002_annual.pdf.

Janzen,H.H.,R.L.Desjardins,andJ.M.R.Asselin,andB.Grace.1998.The Health of Our A�r: Toward Susta�nable Agr�culture �n Canada.ResearchBranch,AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanada:http://res2.agr.gc.ca/publications/ha/pdf_e.htm.

NAtChem.2003.The Canad�an Nat�onal Atmospher�c Chem�stry (NAtChem) Database and Analys�s System.EnvironmentCanada:http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/natchem/index_e.html.

Un�ted States

USEPA.2004.The Ozone Report—Measur�ng Progress through �003.ResearchTrianglePark,NorthCaro-lina:USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandardsEmissions,Monitoring,andAnalysisDivision:http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone.html.

USEPA.2003.Nat�onal Em�ss�on Inventory (NEI): A�r Pollutant Em�ss�on Trends.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,TechnologyTransferNetworkClearinghouseforInventories&EmissionFactors:http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/.

USEPA.2004.System Overv�ew.TechnologyTransferNetwork,AirQualitySystem(AQS):http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/sysoverview.htm,Viewed4August2004.

USEPA.2000.Nat�onal A�r Pollutant Em�ss�on Trends Report, ��00–��.ResearchTrianglePark,NC:USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofAirQualityandStandards:http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/trends98/.

USEPA.2003.Latest F�nd�ngs on Nat�onal A�r Qual-�ty �00�: Status and Trends,EPA454/K-03-001.ResearchTrianglePark,NC:USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandardsEmissions,Monitoring,andAnalysisDivision:http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2002_airtrends_final.pdf.

USEPA.2002.The EPA Ac�d Ra�n Program �00� Progress Report.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,CleanAirMarkets—ProgressandResults:http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp01/index.html.

��

EnvironmentalDefense.2004.Pollut�on Locator: Nat�onal Report.EnvironmentalDefenseScorecard:http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/us.tcl#exposures_pollutants,Viewed6July2004.

Indoor air Quality

Canada

US

USEPA.1992.Nat�onal Res�dent�al Radon Survey: Sum-mary Report.EPA402-R-92-001.WashingtonDC:OfficeofAirandRadiation.

NCHS.2001.Healthy People �000: Nat�onal Health Promot�on and D�sease Prevent�on Object�ves.NationalCenterforHealthStatistics.Hyattsville,Maryland:PublicHealthService:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hp2000/hp2k01.pdf.

Toxic Substances

Internat�onal

North Amer�ca

CEC.2004.Tak�ng Stock �00�: Execut�ve Summary.Mon-treal:CommissionforEnvironmentalCooperationofNorthAmerica:http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POL-LUTANTS/TS2001-Executive-Summary_en.pdf.

AMAP.1997.Arct�c Pollut�on Issues: A State of the Arct�c Env�ronment Report.Oslo,Norway:ArcticMonitoringandAssessmentProgramme:http://www.amap.no/.

Canada

EC.2002.Use Patterns and Controls Implementat�on Sect�on.EnvironmentCanada,NationalOfficeofPollutionPrevention,ChemicalsControlDivision:http://www.ec.gc.ca/NOPP/ccd/upcis/en/UPinfo.cfm.

EC.2004.2002Nat�onal Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) Data:EnvironmentCanada,NPRIDataandReports,http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_dat_rep_e.cfm#highlights.

Un�ted States

USEPA.2004.Tox�cs Release Inventory (TRI) Program:http://www.epa.gov/tri/.

USEPA.2004.NPL S�te Totals by Status and M�lestone.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofSolidWasteandEmergencyResponse:http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/npltotal.htm.

USEPA.2004.Number of NPL S�te Act�ons and M�lestones by F�scal Year.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofSolidWasteandEmergencyResponse:http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfy.htm.

USEPA.2004.CERCLIS Database.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,SuperfundInformationSystems:http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm.

USEPA.2002.R�sk-Screen�ng Env�ronmental Ind�cators (RSEI).USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency:http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/.

ThomasE.Natan,Jr.,JohnStanton,andMarthaKeating.2003.Tox�c Ne�ghbors.CleanTheAir:WashingtonDC:http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=25161&PROACTIVE_ID=cecfcfc8ccccc6c9cec5cecfcfcfc5cececbc6c6c8ccc6c6c9c5cf.

Waste

Internat�onal

Canada

StatisticsCanada.2003.Waste Management Industry Survey Bus�ness and Government Sectors: 16F0023XIE:http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/16F0023XIE/free.htm.

Un�ted States

USEPA.2001.�00� Nat�onal B�enn�al Report.USEnvi-ronmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofSolidWaste:http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/index.htm.

USEPA.2001.Mun�c�pal Sol�d Waste �n the Un�ted States: �00� Facts and F�gures.USEnvironmentalProtec-tionAgency,OfficeofSolidWaste:http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm.

Kaufman,ScottM.,NoraGoldstein,KarstenMillrath,andNickolasJ.Themelis.2004.ThestateofgarbageinAmerica.B�oCycle45(1):31:http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/000089.html,viewed7June2004.

DOE.N.d.Central Internet Database.USDepartmentofEnergy,OfficeofEnvironmentalManagement:http://cid.em.doe.gov.

Wagner,L.A.2002.Mater�als �n the Economy—Mater�al Flows, Scarc�ty, and the Env�ronment.USGeologicalSurvey,Circular1221:http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2002/c1221/c1221-508.pdf.

USEPA.2004.Hazardous Waste Data.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofSolidWaste:http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/index.htm.

WISE.2003.Waste Ind�cator System for the Env�ronment (WISE) Project Work�ng Document F�nal Rev�s�on.InstituteofScienceandPublicAffairs:http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/WISE/.

natural resources/ecosystems

Land Use

Internat�onal

EarthObservatory.2002.NASA’s Terra Satell�te Refines Map of Global Land Cover:http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/LCC/,viewed22September2004.

North Amer�ca

Loveland,T.R.,B.C.Reed,J.F.Brown,D.OOhlen,Z.Zhu,L.Yang,andJ.Merchant.2000.Global Land Cover Character�st�cs Data Base Vers�on �.0.LandProcessesDistributedActiveArchiveCenter:http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/na_int.asp.


Canada

CGDI.2003.AVHRR Land Cover Data, Canada.Cana-dianGeospatialDataInfrastructure:GeoConnectionsDiscoveryPortal,GovernmentofCanada,NaturalResourcesCanada,CanadaCentreforRemoteSens-ing,GeoAccessDivision:http://geodiscover.cgdi.ca/gdp/search?action=entrySummary&entryType=productCollection&entryId=99&language=en&entryLang=en.

Un�ted States

MRLC.2004.Nat�onal Land Cover Database (NLDC).Multi-ResolutionLandCharacterizationConsortium:http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html.

USGS.NationalLandCoverData1992(NLCD92).USGeologicalSurvey,EROSDataCenter:http://edc-www.cr.usgs.gov/products/landcover/nlcd.html.

NRCS.2004.Nat�onal Resources Inventory �00� Annual NRI.USDepartmentofAgriculture,NaturalRe-sourcesConservationService:http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/nri02/.

ERS/USDA.2001.Data: Major Land Uses.EconomicResearchService,USDepartmentofAgriculture:http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/majorlanduses/.

Freshwater

Internat�onal

FAO.2004.AQUASTAT.FoodandAgricultureOrganiza-tionoftheUnitedNations,LandandWaterDevelop-mentDivision:http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/aglw/aquastat/main/index.stm.

FAO.2003.Rev�ew of World Water Resources by Country.WaterReports23.Rome:FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations:ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/aglw/docs/wr23e.pdf.

GemsWater.2004.Gems/Water: About Us.GlobalEnviron-mentMonitoringSystem:http://www.gemswater.org/aboutus/index-e.html.

Gleick,PeterH.2000.The World’s Water, �000–�00�: The B�enn�al Report on Freshwater Resources.WashingtonDC:IslandPress.

WHO.2000.Global Water Supply and San�tat�on As-sessment �000 Report.WorldHealthOrganization:http://www.who.int/docstore/watersanitationhealth/Globassessment/GlobalTOC.htm.

UNESCO.1999.Internat�onal Hydrolog�cal Programme: World Water Resources and The�r Use:UnitedNationsEducation,Scientific,andCulturalOrganization:http://webworld.unesco.org/water/ihp/db/.[accessed12January2005].

Canada

EC.2004.Water Use Data.EnvironmentCanada,Fresh-waterWebSite:http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/man-age/use/edata.htm.

Coote,D.R.,andL.J.Gregorich,eds.2000.The Health of Our Water: Toward Susta�nable Agr�culture �n Canada. AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanada,ResearchBranch:http://res2.agr.ca/research-recherche/science/Healthy_Water/e07d.html.

NRCan.2004.The Nat�onal Atlas of Canada: Water Con-sumpt�on.NaturalResourcesCanadaonlinemaps:http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/freshwater/con-sumption.

EC.2002.Freshwater Web S�te: Water Qual�ty.Environ-mentCanada:http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/qual/e_qual.htm.

EC.1998.Canada and Freshwater: Monograph No. �.Ot-tawa:EnvironmentCanada,MinisterofPublicWorksandGovernmentServicesCanada:http://www.sdinfo.gc.ca/reports/en/monograph6/splash.cfm.

EC.2002.Nutr�ents and The�r Impacts on the Canad�an Env�ronment: Report�ng on the State of Canada’s Env�-ronment. IndicatorsandAssessmentOffice,Ecosys-temScienceDirectorate,EnvironmentalConserva-tionService,EnvironmentCanada:http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/soer/nutrientseng.pdf.

EC.2001.Urban Water Ind�cators: Mun�c�pal Water Use and Wastewater Treatment,NationalEnvironmentalIndicatorSeries,SOEBulletinNo.2001-1:Environ-mentCanada:http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicators/Issues/Urb_H2O/default.cfm.

EC.Mun�c�pal Water Use Database[underconstruc-tion].EnvironmentCanada,MunicipalWaterUseDatabase:http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/mud/.

Un�ted States

USGS.2004.Water Resources of the Un�ted States.USGeologicalSurvey:http://water.usgs.gov/.

Hutson,SusanS.,NancyL.Barber,JoanF.Kenny,KristinS.Linsey,DeborahS.Lumia,andMollyA.Maupin.2004.Est�mated Use of Water �n the Un�ted States �n �000.UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey:http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/text-intro.html#ack.

Hamilton,PixieA.,TimothyL.Miller,andDonnaN.Myers.2004.WaterQualityintheNation’sStreamsandAquifers:OverviewofSelectedFindings,1991–2001.US Geolog�cal C�rcular ��.USGeologicalSurvey:http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/1265/.

USGS.1999.TheQualityofOurNation’sWaters:Nu-trientsandPesticides.US Geolog�cal Survey, C�rcular ��. USGeologicalSurvey:http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1225/.

USEPA.1999.Overall Watershed Character�zat�on - Nat�onal Maps: September �� IWI Release.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Wetlands,OceansandWatersheds,WatershedInformationNetwork:http://www.epa.gov/iwi/1999sept/catalog.html.

IWI.2002.Index of Watershed Ind�cators, Rev�sed �00�. USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofWetlands,Oceans,andWatersheds:http://www.epa.gov/iwi/iwi-overview.pdf.

NWQAP.2004.USGS Nat�onal Water Qual�ty Assessment Data Warehouse.NationalWaterQualityAssessmentProgram:http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/servlet/page?_pageid=543&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30.

��3

Larson,StevenJ.,RobertJ.Gilliom,andPaulD.Capel.1999.Pest�c�des �n Streams of the Un�ted States--In�t�al Results from the Nat�onal Water-Qual�ty Assessment Program, Water-ResourcesInvestigationsReport98-4222.Sacramento,California:USGeologicalSurvey:http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/wrir984222/occur.html.

Kolpin,DanaW.,andJeffreyD.Martin.2003.Pest�c�des �n Ground Water: Summary Stat�st�cs; Prel�m�nary Re-sults from Cycle I of the Nat�onal Water Qual�ty Assess-ment Program (NAWQA), ��-�00�.USGeologicalSurvey:http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestgw/Pest-GW_2001_Text.html.

Ferguson,Jill,LindaPettit-Waldner,TimRoach,andDanEngelberg.2004.EPA Cla�ms to Meet Dr�nk�ng Water Goals Desp�te Pers�stent Data Qual�ty Shortcom�ngs,MemorandumReport#2004-P-0008:EPAOfficeofInspectorGeneral:http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/re-ports/2004/20040305-2004-P-0008.pdf.

USEPA.2004.STORET Legacy Data Center.EPAOfficeofWater:http://www.epa.gov/storpubl/legacy/gate-way.htm.

USEPA.2004.Nat�onal Contam�nant Occurrence Data-base (NCOD).USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency:http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/ncod.html.

USGS.2004.NationalHydrographyDataset(NHD).USDepartmentoftheInterior,USGeologicalSurvery:http://nhd.usgs.gov/.

USEPA.2001.Draft Report on the Inc�dence and Sever�ty of Sed�ment Contam�nat�on �n Surface Waters of the Un�ted States, Nat�onal Sed�ment Qual�ty Survey.EPA823-R-01-01.WashingtonDC.:EPAOfficeofWa-ter:http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/draft/survey.html.

USEPA.2003.The Safe Dr�nk�ng Water Informat�on System / Federal Vers�on (SDWIS/FED).Environmen-talProtectionAgency,TheOfficeofGroundWaterandDrinkingWater(OGWDW):http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm.

Wetlands

Internat�onal

Ramsar.2004.The L�st of Wetlands of Internat�onal Impor-tance.TheBureauoftheConventiononWetlands:http://ramsar.org/sitelist.pdf.

Canada

EC.2003.Freshwater Web S�te: Wetlands.EnvironmentCanada:http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/nature/wetlan/e_wetlan.htm.

NRCan.2004.The Nat�onal Atlas of Canada: Wetlands.NaturalResourcesCanadaonlinemaps:http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/ecology/compo-nents/wetlanddiversity.

Un�ted States

NRCS.2004.Nat�onal Resources Inventory �00� Annual NRI. USDepartmentofAgriculture,NaturalRe-sourcesConservationService:http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/nri02/.

USEPA.2003.America’sWetlands:OurVitalLinkBetweenLandandWater.EPA,OfficeofWetlands,Oceans,andWatersheds:http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/vital/status.html.

FWS.2004.NationalWetlandsInventory.USFishandWildlifeService:http://wetlands.fws.gov/.

Dahl,T.E.2000.Status and Trends of Wetlands �n the Conterm�nous Un�ted States �� to ��.Wash-ingtonD.C.:DepartmentoftheInterior,FishandWildlifeService:http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html,andhttp://wetlands.fws.gov/sta-tusandtrends.htm.

Dahl,ThomasE.,andCraigE.Johnson.1991.Wetlands Status and Trends �n the Conterm�nous Un�ted States, m�d -��0 to m�d-��0s: F�rst Update of the Nat�onal Wetlands Status Report, ��.USDepartmentoftheInterior,USFishandWildlifeService:http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/others/wetstatus.pdf.

Dahl,ThomasE.1990.Wetlands Losses �n the Un�ted States: ��0’s to ��0’s.Washington,DC,James-town,ND:USDepartmentoftheInterior,FishandWildlifeService,NorthernPrairieWildlifeResearchCenterHomePage,http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/re-source/othrdata/wetloss/wetloss.htm.

USGS.1999.Nat�onal Water Summary on Wetland Resources. USGeologicalSurvey:http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/.

Frayeretal.1983.Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Hab�tats �n the Conterm�nous Un�ted States, ��0s to ��0s.Houghton,MI:MichiganTechno-logicalUniversity.

USGS.2004.Non�nd�genous Aquat�c Spec�es.USGeologi-calService,CenterforAquaticResourceStudies:http://nas.er.usgs.gov/.

Coastal and Marine

Internat�onal

GreatBarrierReefMarineParkAuthority,TheWorldBank,andTheWorldConservationUnion(IUCN).1995.A Global Representat�ve System of Mar�ne Pro-tected Areas. AustralianGovernment,DepartmentoftheEnvironmentandHeritage:http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/global/.

Canada

TheOceansDirectorate,underthemandateoftheOceans Act,willdeliverindicatorsandstateoftheenvironment(SOE)reporting.FisheriesandOceansCanadaiscurrentlyimplementinganewlong-termprogrammeformonitoring,developingindicators,andreportingontheStateofOceansandMarineEnvironmentalQuality(MEQ)(EC2004a).

Un�ted States

EMAP.2001. Nat�onal Coastal Cond�t�on Report. EPA ��0-R-0�-00�.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofResearchandDevelopmentandOfficeofWater,EnvironmentalMonitoringandAssessmentProgram:http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html.


EMAP.2004.Nat�onal Coastal Cond�t�on Report II. EPA ��0-R-0�-00�.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofResearchandDevelopmentandOfficeofWater,EnvironmentalMonitoringandAssessmentProgram:http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr2/in-dex.html.

USEPA.2004.Nat�onal Coastal Assessment: Data.USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,EnvironmentalMonitoringandAssessmentProgram(EMAP):http://www.epa.gov/emap/nca/html/data/index.html.

NOAA.2004.Our Nat�onal Mar�ne Sanctuar�es: State of the Sanctuar�es Report �003-�00�:NOAA’sNationalOceanService:http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/library/national/sots04.pdf.

NERRS.2004.Nat�onal Estuar�ne Research Reserve System. NOAA,OceanandCoastalResourceManagement:http://nerrs.noaa.gov/Reserves.html.

USEPA.1998.USEPA Nat�onal Sed�ment Inventory (NSI) Vers�on �.� for the Conterm�nous U.S:http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/metadata/nsi.htm.

Bricker,S.,C.Clement,D.Pirhalla,S.P.Orlando,andD.R.G.Farrow.1999.Nat�onal Estuar�ne Eutroph�ca-t�on Assessment: Effects of Nutr�ent Enr�chment �n the Nat�on’s Estuar�es: NationalOceanService,NOAA.

PewOceansCommission.2003.America’sLivingOceans:http://www.pewoceans.org/oceans/index.asp.

Palumbi,StephenR.2002.Mar�ne Reserves: A Tool for Ecosystem Management and Conservat�on:PewOceansCommission:http://www.pewoceans.org/reports/pew_marine_reserves.pdf.

USCommissiononOceanPolicy.2004.Prel�m�nary Re-port of the US Comm�ss�on on Ocean Pol�cy - Governors’ Draft. http://oceancommission.gov/documents/pre-limreport/welcome.html.

NCCOS.2004.Nat�onal Center for Coastal Mon�tor�ng and Assessment.NOAA,NationalOceanService:http://ccmaserver.nos.noaa.gov/.

Turgeon,D.D.etal.2002.The State of Coral Reef Ecosys-tems of the Un�ted States and Pac�fic Freely Assoc�ated States: �00�. SilverSpring,MD.:NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration/NationalOceanService/NationalCentersforCoastalOceanScience:http://www.nccos.noaa.gov/publications/notables.html#ch;http://nsandt.noaa.gov/.

Dorfman,Mark.2003.Test�ng the Waters �003: A Gu�de to Water Qual�ty at Vacat�on Beaches:NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil(NRDC):http://www.nrdc.org/wa-ter/oceans/ttw/titinx.asp.

SurfriderFoundation.2004.StateoftheBeach2004:http://www.beach.com/stateofthebeach2004/home.asp.

Fish

Internat�onal

FAO.2004.FISHSTAT Plus: Un�versal software for fishery stat�st�cal t�me ser�es.FoodandAgricultureOrganiza-tionoftheUnitedNations,FisheriesInformationCenter:http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/FISOFT/FISH-PLUS.asp.

Canada

DFO.2004.Canad�an Sc�ence Adv�sory Secretar�at: Stock Status Reports.FisheriesandOceansCanada:http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/CSAS/English/Publica-tions/Stock_Report_e.htm.

DFO.2003.Stat�st�cal Serv�ces. FisheriesandOceansCanada:http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/statis-tics/main_e.htm.

FAO.2001.F�shery Country Profile - Canada:FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations.http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/CAN/profile.htm.

Un�ted States

NMFS.2003.Commerc�al F�sher�es.FisheriesStatistics&EconomicsDivisionoftheNationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS):http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/com-mercial/index.html.

NMFS.2004.Susta�n�ng and Rebu�ld�ng: Nat�onal Mar�ne F�sher�es Serv�ce �003- ReporttoCongress-TheSta-tusofUSFisheries.SilverSpring,MD:USDepart-mentofCommerce,NationalOceanicandAtmo-sphericAdministration,NationalMarineFisheriesService,OfficeofSustainableFisheries:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/statusostocks03/Report_Text.pdf.

FAO.2001.F�shery Country Profile - Un�ted States:FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations.http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/USA/profile.htm.

Forests

Internat�onal

FAO.2004.Forest Resources Assessment Programme.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,ForestryDepartment:http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=101&langId=1.

FAO.2001.Global Forest Resources Assessment �000: Ma�n Report.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations:http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/we-bview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=101&langId=1.

FAO.2003.The State of the World’s Forests �003.Rome:FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,ForestryDepartment:http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/005/Y7581E/y7581e00.htm.

UN-ECE,andFAO.2000.Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North Amer�ca, Austral�a, Japan and New Zealand (�n-dustr�al�zed temperate/boreal count�es). Vol.UN-ECE/FAOContributiontotheGlobalForestResourcesAssessment2000;GenevaTimberandForestStudyPapers,No.17.NewYorkandGeneva:UnitedNa-tions.http://www.unece.org/trade/timber/fra/.

UNEP-WCMC.2004.Forests: North Amer�ca -- Map and Stat�st�cs.UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme,WorldConservationMonitoringCentre:http://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html?http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/homepage.htm~main.

��

Canada

NFDP.2004.Nat�onal Forestry Database Program:http://nfdp.ccfm.org/index_e.php.

NRCan.2004.Canada’s Nat�onal Forest Inventory.NaturalResourcesCanada,CanadianForestService:http://www.pfc.forestry.ca/monitoring/inventory/in-dex_e.html.

NRCan.2003.The State of Canada’s Forests, �00�-�003:LookingAhead.NaturalResourcesCanada:http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/cfs-scf/national/what-quoi/sof/latest_e.html.

NRCan.1998.Forest Health �n Canada.NaturalRe-sourcesCanada:http://www.health.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/1998Report/introduction_e.html.

NRCan.2004.Canada’s Nat�onal Forest Inventory.NaturalResourcesCanada:http://www.pfc.forestry.ca/moni-toring/inventory/,Viewed16June2004.

CCFM.2004.Compend�um of Canad�an Forestry Stat�st�cs.CanadianCouncilofForestMinisters:http://nfdp.ccfm.org/framescontents_e.htm.

CCFM.2000.Cr�ter�a and Ind�cators of Susta�nable Forest Management �n Canada: Nat�onal Status, �000, Cana-dianCouncilofForestMinisters.Ottawa,Ontario:CanadianForestService,NaturalResourcesCanada:http://www.ccfm.org/ci/2000_e.html.

NRCan.2004.The Nat�onal Atlas of Canada: Product�ve Forest Land Use.NaturalResourcesCanadaonlinemaps:http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environ-ment/ecology/humanactivities/productiveforestlan-duse.

GFW.2000.Canada’s Forests at a Crossroads: An Assess-ment �n the Year �000,GlobalForestWatchCanada.Washington,DC:WorldResourcesInstitute:http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/canada/maps.htm#publications.

Un�ted States

USDA.2004.Nat�onal Report on Susta�nable Forests -- �003.USDepartmentofAgriculture:http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/documents/SustainableFor-ests.pdf.

Darr,DavidR.2003.Data Report: A Supplement to the Nat�onal Report on Susta�nable Forests -- �003.USDepartmentofAgriculture:http://www.fs.fed.us/re-search/sustain/contents.htm,Viewed23July200.

USDAForestService.2003.Forest Inventory and Analys�s Database Retr�eval Systems.ForestInventoryandAnalysis(FIA)NationalProgramOffice:http://ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/rpa_tabler/Draft_RPA_2002_Forest_Resource_Tables.pdf.

USDA.2003.USDA-NASS Agr�cultural Stat�st�cs �003.USDANationalAgriculturalStatisticsService:http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr03/acro03.htm.

USDA.2003. Amer�ca’s Forests: �003 Health Update.USDepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService:http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/documents/forest-health-update2003.pdf.

USDAForestService.2001.US Forest Facts and H�stor�-cal Trends FS-696-M.ForestInventoryandAnalysis(FIA)NationalProgramOffice:http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/ForestFactsMetric.pdf.

Smith,W.Brad,JohnS.Vissage,DavidR.Darr,andRaymondM.Sheffield.2002.Forest Resources of the Un�ted States, ��:metricunits.St.Paul,MN:USDept.ofAgriculture,ForestService,NorthCentralResearchStation:http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/viewpub.asp?key=845.

USDA.n.d.Nat�onal Forest Health Mon�tor�ng Program.USDepartmentofAgricultreForestService,North-easternArea:http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/fhm/.

USDA.2003.Landscape Analys�s and Assessment: For-est Fragmentat�on Homepage.USDepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService:http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/4803/landscapes/.

NIFC.n.d. W�ldland F�re Stat�st�cs: Total F�res and Acres ��0 - �00�.NationalInteragencyFireCenter:http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html.

FSC-US.2001.FSC-USNationalIndicatorsforForestStewardship.ForestStewardshipCouncilUnitedStates:http://www.fscstandards.org/.

agricultural Land

Internat�onal

IFA.2004.N�trogen, phosphate and potash stat�st�cs: ��3-��3/�� to �00�-�00�/0�.InternationalFertilizerIndustryAssociation:http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/sta-tistics/ifadata/summary.asp.

Willer,Helga,andMinouYussefi,eds.2004.The World of Organ�c Agr�culture: Stat�st�cs and Emerg�ng Trends.Bonn:InternationalFederationofOrganicAgricul-tureMovements:http://www.soel.de/inhalte/publika-tionen/s/s_74.pdf.

Canada

StatisticsCanada.Census of Agr�culture �00�:http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/95F0301XIE/tables.htm.

McRae,T.,C.A.S.Smith,andL.J.Gregorich,eds.2000.Env�ronmental Susta�nab�l�ty of Canad�an Agr�culture: Report of the Agr�-Env�ronmental Ind�cator Project. Ottawa:AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanada,http://www.agr.gc.ca/policy/environment/pdfs/aei/fullre-port.pdf.

Acton,D.F.,andL.J.Gregorich,eds.1995.The Health of Our So�ls: Toward Susta�nable Agr�culture �n Canada, Publ�cat�on ��0�/E:CentreforLandandBiologicalResourcesResearch,ResearchBranch,AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanada:http://res2.agr.gc.ca/publica-tions/hs/index_e.htm.

Korol,Maurice.2002.Canad�an Fert�l�zer Consumpt�on, Sh�pments and Trade �00�/�00�:AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanada,StrategicPolicyBranch:http://www.agr.gc.ca/spb/fiap-dpraa/publications/canfert/canfert0102/cf01_02_e.pdf.[accessed17January2005].

AAFC.The Nat�onal So�l DataBase (NSDB):AgricultureandAgri-FoodCanada:http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/intro.html.


Un�ted States

USDA.2004.USDAEconom�cs and Stat�st�cs System:http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/.

MRLC.2004.Nat�onal Land Cover Database (NLDC).Multi-ResolutionLandCharacterizationConsortium:http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html.

NRCS.2004.Nat�onal Resources Inventory �00� Annual NRI.USDepartmentofAgriculture,NaturalRe-sourcesConservationService:http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/nri02/.

NRCS.n.d.State So�l Geograph�c (STATSGO) Database.NationalCartographyandGeospatialCenter:http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/branch/ssb/products/statsgo/index.html.

USDA.2003.USDA-NASSAgr�cultural Stat�st�cs �003.USDANationalAgriculturalStatisticsService:http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr03/acro03.htm.

USDA-NASS.2003.Stat�st�cal H�ghl�ghts �00� and �003 of US Agr�culture.USDepartmentofAgriculture,NationalAgriculturalStatisticsService:http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/stathigh/content.htm.

USDA-NASS.2002.Census of Agr�culture.USDepart-mentofAgriculture,NationalAgricultureStatisticalService:http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/st991009010.pdf.

USDA.2003.USDA-NASS Agr�cultural Stat�st�cs �003.USDANationalAgriculturalStatisticsService:http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr03/acro03.htm.

USDA-NASS.2002.Census of Agr�culture.USDepart-mentofAgriculture,NationalAgricultureStatisticalService:http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/st991009010.pdf.

TFI.n.d.US Fert�l�zer Use:TheFertilizerInstitute:http://www.tfi.org/Statistics/USfertuse2.asp.

ERS.2001.Harmony Between Agr�culture and the Env�ron-ment: CurrentIssues.USDepartmentofAgriculture,EconomicResearchService,TheEconomicsofFood,Farming,NaturalResources,andRuralAmerica:http://www.ers.usda.gov/Emphases/Harmony/.

USGS.1999.The Qual�ty of Our Nat�on’s Waters: Nutr�ents and Pest�c�des.USDepartmentoftheInterior,USGeologicalSurvey,Circular1225:http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1225/pdf/front.pdf.

NCFAP.n.d.Nat�onal Center for Food and Agr�cultural Pol�cy: NationalPesticideUseDatabase:http://www.ncfap.org/.

Gianessi,LeonardP.,andMonicaB.Marcelli.2000.Pest�c�de use �n US Crop Product�on: ��. Nat�onal Summary Report.WashingtonD.C.:NationalCenterforFoodandAgriculturalPolicy,http://www.ncfap.org/ncfap/nationalsummary1997.pdf.

USDA.n.d.Pest�c�de Data Program (PDP).USDepart-mentofAgriculture,AgriculturalMarketingService,ScienceandTechnologyPrograms:http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/.

Howarth,RobertW.,ElizabethW.Boyer,WendyJ.Pabich,andJamesN.Galloway.2002.NitrogenUseintheUnitedStatesfrom1961–2000andPotentialFutureTrends.AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Env�ronment 31(2):88-96.

USDA.Trends �n US Agr�culture: Farm Numbers and Land �n Farms.USDA,NationalAgriculturalStatisticsService:http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/trends/index.htm;andhttp://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/zfl-bb/.

Heimlich,Ralph.2003.Agr�cultural Resources and Env�ron-mental Ind�cators.WashingtonD.C.:DepartmentofAgriculture,EconomicResearchService:http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/ah722/.

Grasslands and Shrublands

Internat�onal

Un�ted States

Bachand,RichardR.2001.The Amer�can Pra�r�e: Go-�ng, Go�ng, Gone? A Status Report on the Amer�can Pra�r�e. NationalWildlifeFederation:http://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/americanprairie.pdf?CFID=5106498&CFTOKEN=87980161f4d0ae22-90F9082E-65BF-09FE-B5FBB07D7A4C0EA7.

Conner,Richard,AndrewSeidl,LarryVanTassel,andNealWilkins.n.d.Un�ted States Grasslands and Related Re-sources: An Econom�c and B�olog�cal Trends Assessment. LandInformationSystems:https://landinfo.tamu.edu/presentations/ExecSummaryTOC_high.pdf.

SustainableRangelandsRoundtable.2003.2003Susta�n-able Rangelands Roundtable: F�rst Approx�mat�on Report:http://sustainablerangelands.cnr.colostate.edu/2003Report/2003Report.htm.

Canada

Biodiversity

Internat�onal

IUCN.2003.�003 IUCN Red L�st of Threatened Spec�es.Gland,Switzerland:IUCN-TheWorldConserva-tionUnion,IUCNSpeciesSurvivalCommission:http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/RedList2003/Eng-lish/backgroundEn.htm.

Sauer,J.R.,J.E.Hines,andJ.Fallon.2003.The North Amer�can Breed�ng B�rd Survey Results and Analys�s, �� - �00�.Version2003.1.Laurel,MD:USGSPatuxentWildlifeResearchCenter:http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/.

North Amer�ca

NatureServe.2004.NatureServe Explorer Database: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/.

Canada

COSEWIC.2002.Status Reports.CommitteeontheEndangeredWildlifeinCanada(COSEWIC):http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/index_e.cfm.

��

CESCC.2000.W�ld Spec�es �000: The General Status of Spec�es �n Canada. CanadianEndangeredSpeciesConservationCouncil:Ottawa:MinisterofPublicWorksandGovernmentServicesCanada.http://www.wildspecies.ca/wildspecies2000/en/Report.pdf.

NRCan.2004.The Nat�onal Atlas of Canada: Spec�es at R�sk. NaturalResourcesCanadaonlinemaps:http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/ecology/threats/speciesatrisk.

Un�ted States

TESS.2003.Threatened and Endangered Spec�es System.USFishandWildlifeService,EnvironmentalCon-servationOnlineSystem(ECOS):http://ecos.fws.gov/tesspublic/TESSWebpage.

Stein,BruceA.2002.States of the Un�on: Rank�ng Amer�ca’s B�od�vers�ty.Arlington,Virginia:Nature-Serve:http://nature.org/earthday/files/states_of_the_union_report.pdf.

Stein,BruceA.,LynnS.Kutner,andJonathanS.Adams,eds.2000.PreciousHeritage:The Status of B�od�ver-s�ty �n the Un�ted States.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,TheNatureConservancyandtheAssociationforBiodiversityInformation:http://www.oup-usa.org/sc/0195125193/summary.pdf.Accessed24Janu-ary2004.

Protected areas

Internat�onal

Chape,Stuart,SimonBlyth,LucyFish,PhillipFox,andMarkSpalding(compilers).2003.2003Un�ted Na-t�ons L�st of Protected Areas. IUCN,Gland,Swit-zerlandandCambridge,UKandUNEPWorldConservationMonitoringCentre,Cambridge,UK:http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/unlist/2003_UN_LIST.pdf.

WCPA.2004.World Database of Protected Areas.WorldCommissiononProtectedAreas:http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/.

WCMC.2004.GEO Protected Areas Snapshot.GEODataPortal,UNEP.net,WorldConservationMonitoringCentre,WorldDatabaseofProtectedAreas:http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/GEO/GEO_all.cfm?RegID=28&SubRegID=&ctyRecID=&year=2004&yearfreetext=&submit=Show+further+details.

GreatBarrierReefMarineParkAuthority,TheWorldBank,andTheWorldConservationUnion(IUCN).1995.A Global Representat�ve System of Mar�ne Pro-tected Areas. AustralianGovernment,DepartmentoftheEnvironmentandHeritage:http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/global/.

North Amer�ca

GeoGratis.2004.NCAD-North Amer�can Conservat�on Areas Database.NaturalResourcesCanada:http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/clf/en?action=entrySummary&entryId=3719&entryType=productCollection&context=&keymap=outlineCanada.

Canada

NRCan.2004.The Atlas of Canada: Protected Areas.NaturalResourcesCanadaonlinemaps:http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/ecology/protect-ing/protectedareas.

CCEA.1998.Canad�an Conservat�on Areas Database.CanadianCouncilonEcologicalAreas:http://www.ccea.org/ccad.html.

ParksCanada.1997.State of The Parks �� Report.CanadianHeritage,ParksCanada:http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/rpts/etat-state/SOP_e.pdf.

ParksCanada.1999.State of Protected Her�tage Areas.ParksCanadaAgency:http://www.parkscanada.gc.ca/docs/pc/rpts/heritage/prot1e.asp.

ParksCanadaAgency.2000.Un�mpa�red for future genera-t�ons? Conserv�ng Ecolog�cal Integr�ty w�th Canada’s Nat�onal Parks, Vol. I A Call to Act�on, Volume II: Sett�ng a New D�rect�on for Canada’s Nat�onal Parks. Ottawa, ON: Panel on the Ecolog�cal Integr�ty of Canada’s Nat�onal Parks: http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200/301/parkscanada/reportofthepanel-e/Li-brary/DownloadDocuments/DocumentsArchive/EI-IE/English/Volume2e.pdf.

DFO.2003.Oceans Program Act�v�ty Track�ng (OPAT) Sys-tem.FisheriesandOceansCanada:http://canoceans.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index_e.htm.

Un�ted States

NPCA.n.d.Across The Nat�on.NationalParksCon-servationAssociation:http://www.npca.org/across%5Fthe%5Fnation/park%5Fpulse/.

MPA.2003.Mar�ne Protected Areas of the Un�ted States. MarineProtectedAreas,USDepartmentofCom-merce/NOAAandtheUSDepartmentoftheInte-rior:http://www.mpa.gov/.

Urban areas

Internat�onal

UNDESA.2003.World Urban�zat�on Prospects: The �003 Rev�s�on.UnitedNationsDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairs,PopulationDivision:http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2003/2003WUP.htm.

Canada

StatisticsCanada.2001.�00� Census of Canada: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/popdwell/Table-CSD-N.cfm?T=2&SR=1&S=20&O=A,Viewed29October2004.

StatisticsCanada.2001.Urban Consumpt�on of Agr�cul-tural Land: Rural and Small Town Canada Analys�s Bullet�n:http://www.statcan.ca:8096/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=21-006-X2001002,Viewed29October2004.


Un�ted States

Johnson,KennethM.1999.Theruralrebound.Reports on Amer�ca 1(3):http://www.luc.edu/depts/sociology/johnson/rebound.pdf,Viewed16October2004.

AmericanFarmlandTrust.2002.Farm�ng on the Edge: Sprawl�ng Development Threatens Amer�ca’s Best Farm-land.WashingtonD.C.:AmericanFarmlandTrust:http://www.farmland.org/farmingontheedge/index.htm.

human health and the environment

Internat�onal

Canada

Oostdam,JayVan,andNeilTremblay.2003.Chapter5:BiologicalMonitoring:HumanTissueLevelsofEnvironmentalContaminants.InAMAP Assessment �00�: Human Health �n the Arct�c,editedbyAMAP.Oslo,Norway:ArcticMonitoringandAssessmentProgramme,pp31-51:http://www.amap.no/.

Un�ted States

ALA.2004.State of the A�r: �00�.AmericanLungAssocia-tion:http://lungaction.org/reports/sota04_full.html,Viewed31May2004.

Schneider,ConradG.2004.D�rty A�r, D�rty Power: Mor-tal�ty and Health Damage Due to A�r Pollut�on from Power Plants.CleanAirTaskForce:www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower.

Craun,G.F.,andR.L.Calderon.2003.WaterborneOutbreaksintheUnitedStates,1971-2000.In Safe Dr�nk�ng Water Act Compl�ance,editedbyF.Pontius,pp.3-18.

CDC.2003.Second Nat�onal Report on Human Exposure to Env�ronmental Chem�cals.CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention:http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/2nd/.

ThomasBurke.2004.Identifyingpriorityhealthcondi-tions,environmentaldata,andinfrastructureneeds:asynopsisofthePewEnvironmentalHealthTrack-ingProject.EHP Onl�ne: Publ�c Health Track�ng, M�n�-Monograph: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/mem-bers/2004/7147/7147.pdf.

RTIInternational.n.d.Nat�onal Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS):http://www.rti.org/page.cfm?objectid=A892862B-0DB0-4405-BB30056DB2611983,Viewed21July2004.

CAPRM.n.d.CAPRMIIF�nal Ind�cators:ChemicalandPesticidesResultsMeasures:http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/CAPRM/.

USEPA.2003.Amer�ca’s Ch�ldren and the Env�ronment: Measures of Contam�nants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses (EPA240R03001).USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency:http://www.epa.gov/envirohealth/children/.

CDC.2004.Env�ronmental Publ�c Health Ind�cators Project:CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention:http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/indicators/default.htm.

natural Disasters

Canada

PSEPC.2004.D�saster Database.PublicSafetyandEmergencyPreparednessCanada:http://www.ocipep-bpiepc.gc.ca/disaster/search.asp?lang=eng.

Un�ted States

NCDC.2005.BillionDollarUSWeatherDisasters,1980–2004.NOAA,NationalClimaticDataCenter:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html.[accessed20January2005].

UNEP/DEWA/RS.06-1

Environmental Indicatorsfor North America

For further information

Division of Early Warning and AssessmentUnited Nations Environment Programme

P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi 00100, KenyaTel: (+254) 20 7624028 Fax: (+254) 20 7623943 Email: dewa.direc [email protected]

Web: www.unep.org

United Nations Environment ProgrammeP.O. Box 30552, Nairobi 00100, Kenya

Tel: (+254) 20 7621234Fax: (+254) 20 7623927

E-mail: [email protected]: www.unep.org

North America’s environment—air currents, watersheds, and wildlife and their habitat —is not dissected by political borders. But Canada and the United States often measure environmental conditions and report on them using di�erent indicators. This report examines the environmental indicators used by both nations, suggests a way develop a set of North American indicators, and using a number of common indictors, provides a snapshot of the level of progress being made in protecting the environmental assets and services that underpin North America’s economy.

DEW/0791/WA