Environmental Indicators for North America · Environmental Indicators for North America For...
Transcript of 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
� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
��
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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 ����, �.
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
��
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
��
�0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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..
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
Products and contents
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).
Conceptual and organ�zat�onal framework
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).
Products and contents
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).
Conceptual and organ�zat�onal framework
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).
Products and contents
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.
3� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
3� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
3� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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).
Conceptual and organ�zat�onal framework
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).
Products and contents
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�
�0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
Conceptual and organ�zat�onal framework
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
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
theconservationstatusofspecieswasmadepossiblebecauseofastandardizedmethoddevelopedbytheAssociationforBiodiversityInformation,whichin-cludesanetworkofconservationdatacentresacrossNorthAmerica(Figure27).Exceptforthepopula-tionindicatorsandamapshowingthepercentageofprotectedland,issuesoneachsideoftheborderareportrayedwithdifferentindicators(GBPSEI2002).
Products and contents
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.
Conceptual and organ�zat�onal framework
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.
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
Products and contents
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.
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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”.
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
Conceptual and organ�zat�onal framework
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).
Products and contents
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.
�0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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).
Conceptual and organ�zat�onal framework
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.
Products and contents
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.
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
Conceptual and organ�zat�onal framework
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.
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
Climatechange •percapitaCO2emissions
•totalannualCO2emissions
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
Fisheries •totalfishcatches
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
Climatechange •percapitaCO2emissions
•totalannualCO2emissions
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
Fisheries •totalfishcatches
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.
�0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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).
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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).
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
)
�0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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).
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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).
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
��
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
��
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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)
Issue Feasible bilateral indicators Potential sources
�0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
Issue Feasible bilateral indicators Potential sources
��
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.
Issue Feasible bilateral indicators Potential sources
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b,11.
Figure 34: Trend in private final consumption expenditure, 1990–2000
Private consumption
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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)
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
Figure 38: Trends in energy consumption by transportation sector: air, road, rail, and total, 1970–2000
Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b,21.
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.
Source:AdaptedfromOECD2001,87.
Figure 39: Motor vehicles per capita, 1998
Canada and the United States among top nations with most passenger vehicles per person
Motor vehicles
Comparat�ve �nd�cator
�0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b,7.
PopulationTotal population
Population density
��
Figure 42: Population density, 1999
Canada and the United States among the world’s least densely populated countries
Source:AdaptedfromOECD2001,74.
Thiscomparativeindicatorshowsthepopula-tiondensity(inhabitantspersquarekilometer)ofOECDcountriesin1999(Figure42).
CanadaandtheUnitedStatesareamongtheleastdenselypopulatedcountriesintheOECD.Thesettlementpatternsofseveralmuchmore
denselypopulatednations,suchastheNetherlands,Belgium,theUnitedKingdom,andGermany,aregenerallymuch“smarter”intermsofenergyex-penditureontransportationandtheenvironmentalimpactsofwateruseandwastedisposalassociatedwithurbanareas.
NewYorkCityUSA,2005 UNEP/MorgueF�le
Comparat�ve �nd�cator
��
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
Source:CompiledbyauthorfromFAOSTAT2004.
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.
Comparat�ve �nd�cator
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b,9.
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
��
�� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
��
��
Source:AdaptedfromOECD2001,37.
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
Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b,27.
Thisindicatorpresentsannualspentfuelarisingsinnuclearpowerplants(Figure54).Spentfuelaris-ingsareonepartoftheradioactivewastegeneratedatvariousstagesofthenuclearfuelcycle(uraniumminingandmilling,fuelenrichment,reactoropera-tion,spentfuelreprocessing)(OECD2002b).
Thesteadygenerationofradioactivewasteoverthepastdecadereflectsthecontinueduseofnuclear
powerbutthelackofgrowthinthenumberofnu-clearpowerplantsinNorthAmerica.Nuclearwasteisaseriousthreattohumanhealthandtheenviron-mentand,despiteeffortstoincreasetheefficientuseofnuclearfuelandtooptimizestoragecapacity,thereareconcernsabouttheregion’scapacitytostorespentfuel(Fukudaandothers,n.d.).
WasteMunicipal waste
Comparat�ve �nd�cator
Nuclear waste
�00 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
Source:AdaptedfromOECD2001,49.
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
Comparat�ve �nd�cator
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
Source:CompiledbyauthorfromFAOSTAT2004.
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
Comparat�ve �nd�cator
�03
�0� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
area in permanent grassland steady
Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b,8.
Figure 62: Trend in permanent grassland, 1990–2000
Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b,7.
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
Source:CompiledbyauthorfromOECD2002b,10.
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
�0� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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�
Source:AdaptedfromOECD2001,97.
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
Comparat�ve �nd�cator
�0� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
———.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.
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
��0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
———.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.
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�30 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�3� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
%
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
�3� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�3� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
�3� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
%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
��0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
EIA.2003.Annual Energy Rev�ew, �00�.WashingtonDC:EnergyInformationAdministration,OfficeofEnergyMarketsandEndUse,USDepartmentofEnergy:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/03842002.pdf.
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.
EIA.2003.Annual Energy Rev�ew, �00�.WashingtonDC:EnergyInformationAdministration,OfficeofEnergyMarketsandEndUse,USDepartmentofEnergy:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/03842002.pdf.
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.
��0 Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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
EIA.2003.Annual Energy Rev�ew, �00�.WashingtonDC:EnergyInformationAdministration,OfficeofEnergyMarketsandEndUse,USDepartmentofEnergy:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/03842002.pdf.
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.
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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.
��� Env�ronmental Ind�cators for North Amer�ca
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