NA Indicators FullVersion
NA Indicators FullVersion
NA Indicators FullVersion
Indicators
for North America
Environmental Indicators
for North America
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Production Teams
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Production and Support Team
Ashbindu Singh—Project Leader
Jane E. Barr—Writer
Erika Monnati—Research Assistant
Jaime Thissen—Research Assistant
Tejaswi Giri—Production Support
Katharina Umpfenbach—Production Support
Mamata Singh—Production Support
Kimberly Giese—Design & Layout
Cheryl Johnstone—Editor
Daniel Archambault—Research Assistance, Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Acknowledgement: Draft Review Paper on Selected Environmental Reporting and Indicator Practices, a study prepared for the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America, March 2001, by Peter Hardi, with Pumulo Muyatwa.
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
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.
Chapter One
Environmental Indicators.........................................................................................................1
The State of SOE Reporting.............................................................................................................1
What Are Environmental Indicators?................................................................................................3
Types and presentation of environmental indicators. .................................................................3
The Role of Environmental Indicators..............................................................................................9
Limitations of indicators........................................................................................................12
Organizational 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........................................................................................................18
Methods for Selecting Indicators....................................................................................................19
Criteria for selecting indicators. .............................................................................................20
Organizing indicators into sets...............................................................................................22
Chapter Two
National Indicator Initiatives in Canada and the United States......................................25
SOE Reporting and Indicator Development in Canada. ..................................................................25
Two National Indicator Reports for Canada. ..........................................................................27
Environment Canada’s Environmental Signals series................................................................ 27
The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy’s
Environment and Sustainable Development Indicators for Canada............................................. 28
SOE Reporting and Indicator Development in the United States. ................................................... 29
Two National Indicator Reports for the United States............................................................. 31
The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft Report on the Environment............................... 31
The Heinz Center’s The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States...................................... 32
A Comparison of Canadian and US National Indicators................................................................. 34
Common issues..................................................................................................................... 34
Common indicators: Notes on Table 2.................................................................................... 35
Analysis. .............................................................................................................................. 36
Canada-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
iii
Chapter Three
International Environmental Indicator Initiatives............................................................ 47
UN Commission for Sustainable Development. ............................................................................. 47
United Nations Environment Programme: GEO Indicators. ............................................................49
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development............................................................52
Other initiatives....................................................................................................................55
Common issues......................................................................................................................56
Common indicators...............................................................................................................56
Analysis. ...............................................................................................................................56
An integration of North American and international indicators. ......................................................56
Chapter Four
Developing Indicators for North America.......................................................................... 61
Lessons 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................................................................................................... 74
Conclusions. ................................................................................................................................ 75
Chapter Five
Using Indicators to Track Environmental Trends in North America....................................... 83
The Economy............................................................................................................................. 84
GDP................................................................................................................................... 84
Structure of GDP............................................................................................................... 84
Private Consumption............................................................................................................ 85
Comparative Indicator....................................................................................................... 86
Energy use.................................................................................................................................. 86
Primary energy consumption............................................................................................. 86
Energy intensity (apparent consumption)......................................................................... 87
Transportation............................................................................................................................ 88
Energy consumption by transportation............................................................................. 88
Motor vehicles.................................................................................................................... 89
Comparative Indicator....................................................................................................... 89
Population.................................................................................................................................. 90
Total population................................................................................................................. 90
Population density............................................................................................................. 90
Comparative Indicator....................................................................................................... 91
Urban Areas................................................................................................................................ 92
Urban growth..................................................................................................................... 92
Climate Change.......................................................................................................................... 92
CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions..................................................................................... 92
Comparative Indicator....................................................................................................... 93
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of percentage crown closure representing forest cover in Canada.............................. 4
Figure 2: A representative indicator showing historical trends.......................................................... 4
Figure 3: A predictive indicator showing future trends..................................................................... 4
Figure 4: A performance indicator based on a scientific benchmark................................................. 5
Figure 5: A performance indicator based on a policy target.............................................................. 5
Figure 6: An index based on equal weights...................................................................................... 6
Figure 7: A comparative index for environmental systems............................................................... 6
Figure 8: A ranking scheme based on the “state” of ecosystems........................................................ 7
Figure 9: A ranking scheme based on “pressures” on nations............................................................ 8
Figure 10: A performance index comparing trends............................................................................ 9
Figure 11: An intensity or efficiency indicator comparing trends....................................................... 9
Figure 12: The role of indicators in the policy cycle......................................................................... 10
Figure 13: The environment management cycle.............................................................................. 10
Figure 14: An indicator designed to influence decision making. Actual and projected emissions
of GHG compared to Kyoto targets, 1990-2010............................................................ 11
Figure 15: Example of the PSR framework, illustrating the issue of stratospheric ozone.................. 14
Figure 16: The DPSIR framework, illustrating the issue of transport............................................... 14
Figure 17: Material flows indicator: US flow of raw materials by weight, 1900-2000....................... 16
Figure 18: Natural resource accounting indicator (in Canadian Dollars).......................................... 17
Figure 19: Environment Canada’s meter.......................................................................................... 27
Figure 20: Indicators showing critical gaps...................................................................................... 33
Figure 21: Environment Canada’s index of drivers of environmental change.................................... 36
Figure 22: EPA’s index of drivers of environmental change.............................................................. 36
Figure 23: The Great Lakes............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 24: Beach advisories in US and Canadian Great Lakes beaches............................................. 40
Figure 25: Cumulative number of introduced species in the Great Lakes since the 1830s................ 40
Figure 26: Georgia Basin–Puget Sound........................................................................................... 41
Figure 27: Species at risk, using a standardized assessment method.................................................. 42
Figure 28: The Gulf of Maine......................................................................................................... 42
Figure 29: OECD’s PSR framework................................................................................................ 52
Figure 30: Water erosion indicators for Canada and the US............................................................ 69
Figure 31: The information pyramid............................................................................................... 72
Figure 32: Trend in GDP, 1990–2000............................................................................................. 84
Figure 33: Trends in the structure of GDP: agriculture, industry, services, 1990–2000.................... 84
Figure 34: Trend in private final consumption expenditure, 1990–2000.......................................... 85
Figure 35: Private final consumption expenditure, 1999.................................................................. 86
Figure 36: Trend in primary energy consumption, 1993–2002........................................................ 86
Figure 37: Trend in apparent consumption of energy, 1990–2001................................................... 87
Figure 38: Trends in energy consumption by transportation sector:
air, road, rail, and total, 1970–2000............................................................................... 88
Figure 39: Motor vehicles per capita, 1998...................................................................................... 89
Figure 40: Trend in total population, 1990–2000............................................................................ 90
Figure 41: Trend in population density, 1990–2000........................................................................ 90
Figure 42: Population density, 1999................................................................................................ 91
Figure 43: Trend (and projection) in total urban population, 1950–2030........................................ 92
Figure 44: Trend in total CO2 emissions, 1990–2001...................................................................... 92
Figure 45: Per capita greenhouse gas emissions, 2000...................................................................... 93
Figure 46: CO2 emissions per unit GDP, 1998................................................................................ 94
Figure 47: Trend in ozone-depleting CFC consumption, 1990–2000.............................................. 95
Figure 48: Trends in consumption of HCFCs and methyl bromide, 1988–1998............................. 95
Figure 49: Trend in total column ozone over selected cities, 1979–1999.......................................... 96
Figure 50: Trend in total emissions of SOx, 1990–1999................................................................... 96
Figure 51: Trend in total emissions of NOx, 1990–2000.................................................................. 97
Figure 52: Change in releases and transfers of pollutants, 1998–2001............................................. 98
Figure 53: Generation intensities of municipal waste per capita, late 1990s..................................... 99
Figure 54: Trend in nuclear waste: spent fuel arisings, 1982–2000................................................... 99
Figure 55: Per capita freshwater abstractions, late 1990s................................................................ 100
Figure 56: Trend in wastewater treatment connection rates, 1980–1997........................................ 100
Figure 57: Trend in total fishery production, all areas, 1990–2000................................................ 101
List of Tables
Table 1: Comparative table of Canadian and US environmental issue areas..................................... 35
Table 2: Comparative table of Canadian and US environmental indicators................................... 122
Table 3: Indicators common to at least two international initiatives................................................ 57
Table 4: Indicators common to North American and international initiatives.................................. 58
Table 5: Integration of common national and international environmental indicators..................... 59
Table 6: Feasible bilateral environmental indicators for Canada and the United States..................... 78
List of Boxes
Box 1: Trends in SOE reporting...................................................................................................... 2
Box 2: An indicator species.............................................................................................................. 3
Box 3: Criteria for performance indicators...................................................................................... 5
Box 4: A set of indicators creates a profile........................................................................................ 6
Box 5: EEA’s smiley-face scheme..................................................................................................... 8
Box 6: Use of indicators to influence the climate change policy cycle............................................ 12
Box 7: Questions addressed by the PSR approach......................................................................... 13
Box 8: DPSIR indicators............................................................................................................... 15
Box 9: Steps in a generic indicator development process................................................................ 18
Box 10: Potential criteria for environmental issue ranking............................................................... 19
Box 11: Questions to elicit the identification of potential indicators................................................ 20
Box 12: Criteria for selecting environmental indicators................................................................... 21
Box 13: Various indicator sets.......................................................................................................... 22
Box 14: Criteria for Canadian SOE reports..................................................................................... 26
Box 15: Indicator profiles in Environmental Signals......................................................................... 27
Box 16: NRTEE’s proposed environmental indicators..................................................................... 28
Box 17: Indicator profiles in the EPA draft report........................................................................... 31
Box 18: The Heinz Center’s core national indicators....................................................................... 33
Box 19: Issues selected by the bilateral indicator initiatives.............................................................. 45
Box 20: The 1992 Earth Summit called for harmonizing indicator efforts....................................... 47
Box 21: CSD environmental indicators........................................................................................... 49
Box 22: GEO Year Book indicators (2003)...................................................................................... 50
Box 23: OECD set of key environmental indicators........................................................................ 53
Box 24: OECD environmental indicators....................................................................................... 54
Box 25: International environmental issue areas.............................................................................. 56
Box 26: Measuring environmentally harmful subsidies.................................................................... 62
Box 27: Examples of response indicators......................................................................................... 64
Box 28: Indicators for decision-makers............................................................................................ 66
Box 29: CSD’s methodology sheets................................................................................................. 70
vii
Preface
The purpose of this report is to determine which indicators to show environmental
the current status of environmental indica- conditions and trends at the national scale
tors being used in Canada and the United are in current use in these two countries?
States. From assessment of these indicators and • What parallels and inconsistencies are there
analysis of current work on a variety of sets of between the national-level indicators used
indicators being used in national, regional and by the two countries, and are there com-
global environmental reporting, the author mon issues and indicators?
draws lessons about how to begin a bilateral • What organizations are working on coor-
indicators initiative and suggests ways to over-
dinated regional (Canada and the United
come key challenges.
States) or eco-regional efforts to track the
Unless specified otherwise, in this report a status of ecosystems shared by the two
“region” refers to a group of contiguous coun- countries, and what indicators are being
tries, such as Canada and the United States, used or developed by them?
rather than a group of states, provinces, or
• What organizations have experience in de-
ecosystems within national borders. Environ- veloping environmental indicators to enable
mental indicators are frequently part of broader
multilateral assessments, and what indica-
indicator initiatives that aim to measure prog- tors or sets of indicators are being used or
ress in achieving sustainability on all developed by them? What common issues
fronts, including economic, social, and do they address and what indicators do
institutional. This study looks specifically they use?
at environmental indicators.
• How can the lessons about indicators
The report aims to answer the learned from the national and multilateral
following questions:
reporting initiatives be applied to an effort
• What are environmental indicators and to report on the state of the environment in
what role do they serve? What is the the North American region?
best process to select and develop
• What indicators could form a set of “fea-
ideal indicators? sible” indicators—indicators that have
• Which organizations are using or develop- already been developed for multilateral
ing national-level environmental indica- reporting, or that could easily represent the
tors for Canada and the United States and region in an integrated fashion?
ix
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 Reporting The environment is the sum of the abiotic
The environment is all-encompassing. It is “the (physical), biotic (living), and cultural (social)
totality of surrounding conditions” (Roget 1995). factors and conditions directly or indirectly
Trying to describe the state of the environment is affecting the development, life, and activities
a monumental task. Even assessing the health of of organisms and populations, in the short and
a small part of it—a certain lake that has become long term (Dubos 1994, 208).
polluted, or air quality over a particular city—is
fraught with difficulties. This is because any part
of the environment is a subset of a larger area and
its state is not stable but in constant flux. Fur-
thermore, we still lack a complete picture of how and ecological aspects. This conceptual frame-
ecosystems work. Finally, the task is complicated by work evolved into the now widely-adopted pres-
the blurred distinction between ourselves and the sure-state-response (PSR) model and its offshoots
environment. It is not simply “out there” where we (described in more detail further on), which help to
can get a good look at it from a distant and dispas- organize the vast amount of information required
sionate vantage point. Humans are an integral part to portray environmental change and to attempt
of the environment. To report on its condition, we to reflect the dynamic relationships among human,
have to observe and interpret a complex, dynamic physical, and biological properties and processes
system of which we are an interacting component (NIRO 2003a). In addition to portraying environ-
(Dubos 1994). mental issues by political or administrative units
In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the (countries, states, municipalities, and so on), some
Human Environment urged the international com- state-of-the-environment (SOE) reports began to
munity to prepare periodic international, regional, present information based on a variety of differ-
and sub-regional reports on “the state of, and ent units, such as watersheds and other types of
outlook for, the environment” (UNEP 1972). In ecosystems, or environmental components (soil or
response, a number of governments, non-govern- vegetation type, for example) and to use different
mental organizations (NGOs), and international frameworks to organize the information, such as
organizations began to produce reports to track focusing on priority issues (habitat loss or water
environmental problems and supply needed data pollution, for example) or on economic sectors
for measuring changes in the quality and quantity and their impacts (such as agriculture or fisheries)
of the waters, air, and lands that were clearly show- (Rump 1996; US GAO 2004).
ing signs of pollution and unsustainable use. The Too frequently, however, traditional SOE
first reports typically focussed on describing current reports were based on ideas of what their produc-
environmental conditions and recent trends in ers thought were important instead of on the needs
environmental media (air, freshwater, land, ma- of users, and the comprehensive nature of the
rine resources, forests, and so on) and were aimed products made them cumbersome. They gener-
primarily at raising awareness (Rump 1996). Given ally contained a large amount of information that
the sheer size of the task, the reports were often was difficult to digest. Furthermore, they did not
encyclopaedic tomes. Much of the data required appear to have much influence on decision-makers
to note trends was only starting to be gathered, (Keating 2001).
measures were often qualitative and anecdotal, and
Today, SOE reporting increasingly attempts
the separation of the environment into discrete
to serve the needs of or to influence specific users,
media obscured the links among them and between
especially decision-makers. The trend is towards the
human activity and environmental change.
use of a select number of indicators to address a few
Canada played a key role in helping to advance issues. Indicators help translate complex data into
the field of state-of-the-environment (SOE) report- comprehensible information, can be aggregated
ing. In the late 1970s, Statistics Canada developed into indices, and can help show progress towards
an “ecosystem” approach that integrated economic
a target. SOE reporting has also broadened the Today, organizations of all types and sizes are
range of outputs and communication tools, which beginning to consider the long-term sustainability
may now encompass, for example, a background of their actions and to measure social, economic,
report, a web version, an educational package, a environmental, as well as institutional viability.
CD-ROM, and brief, concise indicator summaries, Seattle is leading the way in the development
generally issued on a frequent and regular basis and use of SD indicators at a municipal level, for
(Box 1) (CGER 2000; EEA 2000a; Keating 2001; example, while the independent Global Report-
NIRO 2003a). ing Initiative (GRI) is providing organizations and
businesses with sustainability-reporting guidelines
The dominant trend in SOE reporting has to analyze the economic, environmental, and social
been a shift away from comprehensive re- dimensions of their activities, products, and ser-
ports towards more focused indicator reports vices (GRI 2002; US GAO 2004). In recognition
for different audiences (NIRO 2003a, 27). of the relative size of the public sector and a need
for harmonization of reporting practices to ensure
comparability and consistency amongst public sec-
tor organizations as well as private sector groups,
the GRI recently launched a process to enable the
State-of-the-environment reporting initiatives public sector to apply its reporting framework to
increasingly attempt to measure progress towards measuring progress towards sustainability (GRI
sustainability and sustainable development. This 2004). Each of these initiatives has developed envi-
concept rests on the three pillars of environmental, ronmental indicators as part of a set of indicators to
social, and economic sustainability and was clearly assess progress towards sustainable development.
articulated in 1987 by the World Commission on Finally, SOE reporting is increasingly devel-
Environment and Development in Our Common oping and using sets of indicators or aggregated
Future (WCED 1987). Subsequently, both the indices to measure progress towards environmen-
1989 G7 Economic Summit in Paris and the 1992 tal goals to complement well-known indices that
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro drew attention to portray economic development, such as GDP, and
the need for indicators to gauge progress towards social well-being, such as the Human Development
sustainable development (SD). Since then, the con- Index. Examples of such efforts, including those
struction and use of SD indicators has proceeded developed to gauge progress towards all aspects of
apace (NIRO 2003a; SCOPE 2003)2. sustainability, are: the Ecological Footprint (see
2 See Hardi and Barg 1997 for a review of practices related to sustainable development indicators.
A great blue heron waits for his dinner on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.
Tim McCabe/UNEP/NRCS
Environmental indicators can be Figure 1: Map of percentage crown closure representing
qualitative and/or quantitative, based on forest cover in Canada
physical, chemical, biological, or eco-
nomic measures, and they can portray
the parameters through a variety of vi-
sual means, including graphs, pie charts,
tables, data diamonds, maps, and re-
mote sensing from satellites and aircraft.
Quantitative representative indicators
can provide a snapshot of conditions at
a given time, as in Figure 1, which maps
the percentage of crown closure to con-
vey or represent forest cover in Canada
in 1998. Data representing the “state”
or condition of a system are also called
“descriptive” indicators.
Representative indicators using
quantitative parameters can also reveal
trends over time. A graph of time-series Source: NTREE 2003, 29
1987
1990
1993
1996
1960
1963
1966
1978
1981
1984
future scenarios (Rump 1996). Source: Compiled by author from Daberkow, Taylor, and Wen-yuan Huang 2000.
Indicators can also measure perfor-
mance by gauging progress towards a
Figure 3: A predictive indicator showing future trends
benchmark or target. In performance
indicators, the message portrayed is
Projected Population Growth in
determined by the meaning assigned to North America, by Country, 1950-2050
the variable (Gallopín 1997).
“Benchmarks” are scientifically deter- 600
mined thresholds, such as the maximum 500
level of a pollutant’s concentration in
400
the air or water deemed tolerable for hu-
man and environmental health (CSIRO
Millions
300
1999). Figure 4 gives an indicator of 200
trends in one aspect of urban air quality,
showing the percentage of monitoring 100
00
50
19
20
20
90
At Least 25 Days
Air Monitoring Stations
8.00
6.00 dence on subjective interpretation (Rump 1996;
4.00 UNESCO 2003). Indices need to be based on a
2.00
0.00
transparent and unbiased choice of individual in-
dicators, a clearly defined approach to the method
19 0
19 5
10
19 5
20
19 5
19 0
19 5
19 0
19 5
19 0
19 5
19 0
19 5
19 0
75
19 0
19 5
19 0
95
00
0
0
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
19
19
19
19
20
Figure 6: An index based on equal weights are numerous difficulties associated with condens-
1970-2000 ing many issues into a single measure, as explained
1.4
in more detail further on.
1.2 In addition to giving absolute scores, perfor-
1.0 mance indices can also measure progress with
Index (1970 = 1.0)
The 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index environmental performance over time. This index
(ESI) mentioned in relation to Figure 7, ranks shows Canada ranking 6th and the United States
146 countries according to 21 equally-weighted 45th (CIESIN 2005).
indicators of environmental sustainability, includ- Another environmental ranking scheme, used
ing natural resource endowments, past and pres- by the World Wildlife Fund in the Living Planet
ent pollution levels, environmental management Index, produces very different results from the ESI,
efforts, contributions to protection of the global however. It ranks 73 countries with populations
commons, and a society’s capacity to improve its over 1 million based on the “ecological footprint”
The busy city, Toronto, Canada. Gracey Stinson/UNEP/MorgueFile
Box 5: EEA’s smiley-face scheme of various measurements and definitions is fair and
The smiley faces in the boxes next to key transparent and it is clear what is being measured
indicators aim to give a concise assessment (Segnestam 2002).
of the indicator:
Aggregated performance indices and composite
Positive trend, moving toward indicators often employ imaginative visual means,
qualitative objectives or with barometers, meters, dashboards, dials, and
quantified targets;
even happy/sad faces portraying how well or badly
some positive development,
a nation or an issue is faring—whether it is improv-
but either insufficient to
reach qualitative objectives or ing, remaining stable, or deteriorating. Box 5 shows
quantified targets, or mixed the “smiley face” scheme used by the European En-
trends within the indicator; vironment Agency in its assessments (EEA 2003).
unfavourable trend.
More than one parameter can be presented in
the same figure when comparisons help to get a
Source: EEA 2003, 13 message across to the reader or when illustrating
the links between one system and another. One
attempt at showing the links between the environ-
ment and the economy is through the use of a
per person. This measure represents pressures performance index to measure changes in the in-
on the environment in terms of natural resource tensity of natural resource use or emissions output.
consumption, rather than the state of each nation’s Performance can be measured by plotting trends to
ecosystems as in the previous example. A country’s indicate the level of “decoupling” of environmental
footprint is the total area required to produce the harm relative to economic growth, such as pollut-
food and fibre it consumes, absorb the waste from ing emissions or waste generation per unit of gross
its energy consumption, and provide space for its domestic product (GDP). Simultaneously, perfor-
infrastructure. Figure 9 shows the 36 countries with mance is compared to an earlier time period by
the poorest ranking out of the 73 countries with showing the intensity of natural resource use over
populations over 1 million. In this ranking scheme, time, starting at a base-line level (OECD 2003).
Canada and the United States are at the bottom of
Figure 10 gives an example of a performance in-
the scale, at positions number 66 and 72 respec-
dex showing the intensity of sulphur dioxide emis-
tively (WWF 2004).
sions in Canada and the United States and how
So, as made clear by these examples of ranking they are decoupling from GDP. It also contains
systems, care must be taken in designing compara- targets in the form of national and international
tive performance indices so that the standardization objectives and shows the progress the two countries
Helsinki protocol Oslo protocol National objectives Gothenburg protocol SOx emissions Fossil fuel supply (FFS) GDP
have made in moving towards them since the base- Thus, there is a plethora of types of indicators
line year of 1980. to choose from to give a snapshot of an environ-
The performance indicator above can also be mental issue, from simple representative indica-
termed an “intensity” or “efficiency” indicator. tors, to composite indices and other more complex
Energy is often measured in terms of intensity of performance indicators. The choice will depend on
use. Energy intensity is the ratio of energy con- the author’s purpose or goal. The following section
sumption to some measure of demand for energy looks at the role of environmental indicators.
services. Energy use can be measured against units
of production or service delivery, for example, to
show progress towards more efficient operations, The Role of Environmental Indicators
or against an economic measure such as GDP, as in First used primarily to act as the “canary in the coal
Figure 11, which shows Canada’s energy consump- mine”, providing early warning signals for emerg-
tion compared to trends in GDP. In the transpor- ing environmental problems, indicators are increas-
tation sector, intensity indicators could measure ingly being recognized and used for their key role
gallons per passenger mile or gallons per vehicle in improving decision making (EC 2001; Pinter
mile (EIA 1995). and Swanson 2004a).
Note: The energy units are exajoules (EJ). An exajoule is 1018 joules. GDP is expressed as 1 000 million of 1992 Canadian dollars.
Source: Adapted from EC 2004b http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicators/Issues/Energy/Tables/ectb01_e.cfm
Environmental indicators are not an end in
themselves; rather, they should form part of an it- Indicators function inside the governance
erative policy cycle, which includes policy planning process; they are not exogenous factors
and application, the evaluation of the impacts of parachuted in, which can act like a magic
policies, and subsequent adjustment of the policy bullet causing decision-making to become
to further progress towards the desired goal. The instantly objective and scientific (Pastille
role of indicators is to incorporate environmental Consortium 2002, 90).
knowledge into decision making at the evaluation
and analysis phase (Figure 12).
This phase comprises designing and implement-
ing systems for monitoring and for data collection,
and a state-of-the-environment (SOE) programme Figure 12: The role of indicators in the
that includes indicators and their dissemination. policy cycle
Indicators help to outline policy goals in specific
terms. They also provide feedback to managers and
the public about outcomes. If and when there is a Evaluation and
Adjustment
straightforward connection between specific poli- analysis
cies and outcomes, indicators can play a key role in
the continuous cycle of policy learning and adapta- Policy Policy
Implementation Implementation
tion (Pinter and Swanson 2004a). Ideally, indica-
tors should inform decision making by helping to
Source: Adapted and modified from Pinter, Zahedi, and Cressman 2000, 79
3 See CSIRO 1999 for a description of each stage of this Source: UNEP GRIDA 2001 http://www.grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/canada.htm,
http://www.grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/usa.htm
management cycle
11
Box 6: Use of indicators to influence the climate change policy cycle
Goals and targets: A national government institutes a climate change policy to support international
efforts to curb the human influences on global warming. It sets goals and targets for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and monitors progress with the use of a set of indicators.
Strategies and instruments: It initiates financial incentives, such as energy taxes; legal instruments,
such as limits on emissions; and other strategies, such as budgetary support for public transporta-
tion, that are intended to help achieve the goals and targets.
Policy implementation: National, regional, and local governments might implement the policies by
monitoring and enforcing emission limits in industry, for example, and improving and increasing
bus, subway and train services, as well as cycling lanes and paths, among other measures.
Impact evaluation: Indicators are used to measure the effectiveness of the policy change. For exam-
ple, indicators would help evaluate the policy’s performance by comparing data about greenhouse
gas emissions before and after the policy change and comparing the rate of progress to the desired
goal. The indicators should serve to inform decision making in a cycle of adaptive learning.
Source: Adapted from Pinter and Swanson 2004b, slide 11.
by six per cent below 1990 emission levels. Box 6 tors fail to provide information about the capac-
is an example of different levels of decisions that ity of ecosystems to sustain their supply of goods
could be triggered by this indicator. and services (MFE 2000). And indicators must be
Performance and comparative indicators are deciphered by the reader, opening them up to false
particularly effective means with which to prompt interpretation, especially when links between cause
action by decision-makers. If a nation can be and effect are extrapolated. For example, abundant
shown to be lagging behind others and not making fish harvest trends do not necessarily signify abun-
progress in environmental protection, its humilia- dant fish stocks, nor do they say anything about the
tion can be a potent impetus to improve. As men- health of the fishery. In fact, history has shown the
tioned above, this is part of the rationale for using collapse of overfished stocks all over the world after
a highly aggregated index that could roll many a period of plentiful harvests (UNDP and others
aspects about the state of a nation’s environment 2000). Correlative conclusions may be drawn from
into one easily-understood performance measure indicators rather than a scientifically causal rela-
that would allow comparing and ranking nations. tionship between a trend and a pressure, or indeed,
between specific policies and programmes and
In addition to serving policy ends, indicators
changes in the state of the environment.
also have a role in informing the public. When
designed and communicated in effective ways, As intimated earlier, the design of indices is
indicators are useful as tools to illustrate concepts fraught with difficulties. Aggregation will be coun-
and scientific information, helping to change or terproductive if the index becomes too abstract or if
illuminate the understanding of an issue and draw- it hides defects in the condensing of many features
ing attention to important environmental problems of an issue into a single measure (Lealess 2002).
(Hezri 2003; NIRO 2003a). The public includes An index that aggregates “apples and oranges” or
environmental NGOs, some of which may use issues that cannot be measured in the same units
the information in indicator reports to create and has more serious limitations that should be made
disseminate their own products that help them explicit and transparent for the reader. Even profiles
pressure governments to act. that use a variety of indicators in an attempt to
cover all aspects of an issue can have gaps
(Bossel 1999).
Limitations of indicators When indicators are established but no action
There are limitations on the use of indicators, how- follows, their development process and tweak-
ever, the first being the risk of oversimplification. ing may actually be serving as a camouflage for
The complexities of ecosystems and their functions inaction, a delaying tactic, or an excuse not to act
and how well they are being managed cannot be until the science is “right”. An ulterior motive for
reduced to a set of indicators or indices, let alone introducing indicators in a policy-making process
a single representative indicator (Turnhout 2003). can include creating indicators that support a pre-
One of the key problems is that traditional indica- determined position (Hezri 2003). Sets of indica-
tors or indices may also reflect the specific expertise indicators themselves will be transformed to better
and interests of the organization that develops and reflect environmental conditions and trends and to
publishes them rather than the needs of its audi- be of more utility to users.
ence (Segnestam 2002).
On their own, indicators cannot assess policy Organizational and
performance, which involves producing and com- Conceptual Frameworks
municating information about the key interactions An organizational framework helps to structure
between the natural environment and society. indicator selection and development, systemize the
Policy effectiveness—weighing the actual policy analysis and interpretation, identify gaps, and sim-
impact against the goal or desired performance of plify and make explicit the reporting process for the
a single policy—can be achieved by integrated en- target audience (Rump 1996; CEC 2003). As men-
vironmental assessment, which is done in the text tioned earlier, indicators can be organized by juris-
of an SOE report by analyzing the links between dictional or ecosystem boundaries, environmental
key driving forces and policies and the status of the medium or component, economic sector, special
environment (Pinter and Swanson 2004a). theme, emerging or priority issue, or socioeco-
Thus, indicators cannot stand alone, nor can nomic sector, among other organizing frameworks.
they disclose all aspects underlying the states or SOE and environmental indicator reports that are
changes in states they reveal: to perform the role of oriented towards sectors, issues, and environmental
providing information for decision making, indica- media, generally also organize reporting on these
tors need to be interpreted (Segnestam 2002). In- themes around an applied conceptual or analytical
terpretation is needed to help clarify their meaning framework. A variety of frameworks is used in
and provide context, but is also useful because there SOE reporting, frequently in combination
is no universally accepted set of indicators and (NIRO 2003a).
each reporting agency employs different methods
and definitions.
The PSR framework
Indicators alone do not trigger action, either. The most commonly used framework is the pres-
How to effectively ensure the messages they contain sure-state-response (PSR) model. It organizes the
are captured by decision-makers and actually kick- indicators according to how they answer the follow-
start policy change to address the problems they ing questions: “what is happening to the environ-
reveal is a challenge. The effective implementa- ment? why is it happening? and what are we doing
tion of a well-designed communication plan is an about it?” (Box 7).
important part of SOE reporting projects.
State indicators, as represented in this model,
Finally, with the emergence of new environ- describe the quantity of resource assets and the
mental problems or in response to environmental conditions and trends in the environmental media
change, it is important that indicators are flex- or their components. This includes indicators of
ible and can be revised (Bossel 1999). The field the physical size, shape, and location of ecosystems.
of environmental indicators is still evolving and Pressure indicators can portray both natural and
as knowledge and experience accumulates, so the
13
Figure 15: Example of the PSR framework, illustrating the issue of stratospheric ozone
Links to climate
Cloud cover
Ultraviolet
radiation level
at the surface
Concentration of
ozone-depleting
substances in the Stratospheric
atmosphere ozone
concentration Phasing out and
destruction of ozone-
depleting substances
Use of ozone-
depleting substances
anthropogenic pressures, and range from drivers Response indicators illustrate those polices and ac-
and underlying agents of change, such as socioeco- tions taken by governments and civil society to mit-
nomic and political conditions, to direct pressures, igate or redress environmental problems (UNDP
such as polluting emissions and resource extraction. and others 2000; Pinter and Swanson 2004b).
Figure 15 illustrates a simple indicator profile using pressures such as population growth and consump-
the PSR framework. tion. Impact indicators answer the question, “Why
The PSR approach is a dynamic and compre- are the environmental conditions and changes
hensive model that is meant to facilitate the evalua- significant?” For example, what impact do the
tion of policy responses to environmental issues. It pressures have on ecosystems, economic and social
is flexible and can be adjusted to allow for greater well-being, and human health? (NIRO 2003a). Box
detail or specific features and its advantages have re- 8 describes these categories of indicators and Figure
sulted in its wide adoption and further elaboration. 16 portrays the driving force-pressure-state-impact-
response (DPSIR) framework by illustrating poten-
tial indicators used to report on the environmental
The DPSIR framework implications of transport4.
The PSR framework has been modified over the
years to encompass additional categories of indica-
Limitations of the PSR framework
tors, including driving forces and impacts. Driving
Despite the values and popularity of the PSR
force indicators depict underlying socioeconomic
framework and its offshoots, it has been criticized
4 See EEA 2000b for DPSIR profile flow charts for 14 key environmental issues.
15
Figure 17: Material flows indicator: US flow of raw materials by weight, 1900–2000
4000
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
YEAR
Source: Wagner 2002, 4 http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2002/c1221/c1221-508.pdf
and economic data and to demonstrate that harm- the current level of national income can be sus-
ing the environment has economic repercussions tained (Statistics Canada 2000a).
(Hecht 2000).
There are multiple challenges to these systems of
Figure 18 gives an example of a natural resource environmental accounting, however, including the
accounting indicator. It shows the value of Canada’s enormous difficulties in attaching economic values
natural resources stocks—timber, energy, and min- to many important environmental factors. There is
erals—and the contribution of these resources to much controversy about the merit and viability of
national wealth between 1978 and 1997. Tracking assigning market-like values to environmental assets
wealth this way can inform nations as to whether
17
and processes (Repetto 1994). On the other hand, not a comprehensive account of frameworks for
unlike physical measurement, monetary valuation environmental indicators5. Most SOE reports do
enables comparison and aggregation across forms not use only one or another of these frameworks
of capital because it uses market value as the only but may combine a number of them, depending on
“weight” (Smith, Simard, and Sharpe 2001). the goal and the audience.
The most widely used model is the pressure-
Biogeophysical approach
state-response approach and its derivatives. This
This approach is based on the idea that, to report framework continues to be favored and efforts are
on the state of the environment, a better scientific underway to improve it so it can help express the
understanding of ecosystems and the way organ- linkages among sectors and among driving forces,
isms and their physical environment co-exist and pressures, states, impacts, and responses.
co-evolve is needed. The underlying concept is that
These efforts are in recognition of the need for
sustaining the global life-support system is a prereq-
a framework that better accounts for the interac-
uisite for sustaining human societies. The organiz-
tion between human and ecological systems and
ing framework is based on a “systems” approach.
the consequences for human well-being (Singh,
The indicators summarize individual measurements
Moldan, and Loveland 2002). SOE professionals
for different ecosystem characteristics (Hardi and
are seeking ways to improve indicators and orga-
Barg 1997). Biogeophysical measurements reflect
nizational and analytical frameworks so they can
the state of knowledge about specific ecosystem
be used more effectively to assess the viability and
properties to reveal changes in the chemical, bio-
sustainability of both natural and social systems
logical, and physical qualities of the atmosphere,
and their interactions and how to use this infor-
soils, waters, wildlife, and vegetation that comprise
mation to improve those systems at all levels of
“the environment” (Murcott 1997). Biogeophysi-
organization (Bossel 1999). For example, a frame-
cal indicators portray the state of environmental
work developed by the World Health Organiza-
media and tend to make up the majority of indica-
tion helps to select and structure indicators linking
tors in most SOE reports. A strict biogeophysicial
health and the environment. The DPSEEA (driv-
approach does not use indicators to reflect driv-
ing force, pressure, state, exposure, effect, action)
ers, pressures, and responses but rather shows the
framework recognizes that many factors determine
condition, changes, and trends in the quality and
exposure and effects. The model has been criticized
quantity of ecosystem goods and services.
as being too linear, however, neglecting the com-
In sum, environmental indicator initiatives rely plexity of multiple associations between exposure
on a variety of frameworks to organize the vast to environmental pressures and impacts on health.
amount of information necessary to portray the The MEME (multiple exposures–multiple effects)
changing state of the environment. The above is model, developed especially for children’s environ-
5 See Murcott 1997, for a detailed list of frameworks; see also Singh, Moldan, and Loveland 2002; Hardi and Barg 1997; Bossel
1999; and OECD 1999.
mental health, is more successful in revealing these versality of the indicators (UNESCO 2003). This
complex relationships, since it shows how exposure approach is appropriate for state-of-the-environ-
can lead to many different outcomes (CEC 2003). ment reporting initiatives by governments at any
Thus, frameworks are continually evolving level to track performance towards policies, laws,
to incorporate the complexity of human environ- and targets for environmental quality.
ment relationships.
The dependence of indicator development on data
can lead to the situation in which data availability
Methods for Selecting Indicators drives the selection of indicators, which, in turn,
The selection and development of indicators usu- reinforces the collection of the same data (UNES-
ally follows one of two methods. First, the bottom- CO 2003, 57).
up approach starts with the available data, then
creates the parameters, and finally aggregates the
data into indicators along a number of hierarchi-
cal levels, using intuitive and mathematical ap-
proaches. Usually used in data-rich situations, this The top-down approach is the preferred meth-
approach generally fails to adhere to many agreed- od, since its purpose is to link indicators to policy
upon criteria for indicator selection (discussed decisions. A survey of indicator initiatives shows
further on), can mask the interrelations among that there are a variety of steps in the top-down
resources and processes, and employs data that may indicator development process (Box 9).
fail to have significance beyond their measured
Generally, the first step is to identify the themes
quantity (UNESCO 2003).
and priority environmental issues to be addressed.
Second, top-down approaches start with a For a national or multilateral initiative, the selec-
vision that leads to policy goals for a real-world tion will strongly relate to important environmental
outcome, and then to a set of objectively verifi- values and visions held by society and articulated in
able indicators, followed by actions. Indicators national policies, such as the goal of environmental
are developed for all levels, from the goal down to sustainability. A tool in this step is to rank issues
activities. The lower the level in the framework, the by priority, which can be facilitated by the use of a
less importance there is for unanimity in the uni- weighted scheme such as that suggested in Box 10.
Castle Mountain in Banff National Park, Canada. UNEP/MorgueFile
19
The next step is to identify associated indica-
tors. Often, this step is accomplished with the aid Criteria for selecting indicators
of brainstorming exercises by experts, to develop Indicators must be TRUE
an initial list of candidate indicators; such a list T: Timely, targeted, and threshold-sensitive
would contain all suggested indicators regardless of
whether or not corresponding indicators and data R: Reliable, relevant, resonant, and responsive
exist (Pidot 2003). This may be achieved by listing U: Useful to the public, policy-makers, and
indicators that correspond to policies or manage- programme administrators
ment plans, or to a chosen analytical framework E: Easily accessible periodically from reputable
such as DPSIR, or by rephrasing goals as questions, sources
then creating candidate indicators to answer them. Source: Adapted from SCERP 2002, 1–2.
What contributes to outdoor air pollution? Emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and volatile organic compounds
Lead emissions
Air toxics emissions
Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
21
Saint Lawrence River - Montreal, Canada. UNEP/MorgueFile
ducing the number of measurements and parame- included in the selection process. The participants
ters that are usually required to describe a situation chosen will depend on the purpose of the indica-
or system exactly, the size of an indicator set and tor initiative, its scope, and the targeted audience
the level of detail it contains need to be limited. (Segnestam 2002).
Indicators are meant to provide an overview, so a
set with a large number of indicators will tend to Organizing indicators into sets
clutter it (OECD 2003). State-of-the-environment programmes may choose
Among the criteria for indicator selection is to develop more than one set of indicators to rep-
the requirement for transparency; ideally, a broad resent various levels of scope and scale, depending
range of stakeholders, including decision-makers on the purpose of the programme and the
and others in the management cycle, should be targeted audience (Lealess 2002). The initial
23
What gets measured, gets managed. What
gets communicated, gets understood.
—cited in Keating 2001, 1
ppdigital/UNEP/MorgueFile
25
Box 14: Criteria for Canadian SOE reports
This symbol may be displayed on reports meet-
ing specific criteria for Canada’s 5NR Vision,
which are thus considered part of the federal
SOE Reporting Program. Reports that display
the SOE reporting symbol:
• are recognized as part of a collection of federal publications that meet the SOE reporting
criteria and use the widely understood SOE reporting approach;
• reach a diverse audience of people interested in the status of key environmental issues—de-
cision-makers, educators and students, and the general public;
• are accessible through links at “The State of Canada’s Environment Infobase” (www.ec.gc.
ca/soer-ree/english/default.cfm), which provides an up-to-date listing of federal SOE re-
ports and science assessments; and
• are included in the promotion of federal SOE reporting.
Source: EC 1997.
These include a short 2001 report titled Tracking tion, and environmental protection expenditures
Key Environmental Issues, illustrating the state of (Keating 2001; NIRO 2003a; NIRO 2003b).
environmental knowledge in Canada as well as the Developing and reporting on a national set of
state of the environment (EC 2001). environmental indicators is conducted under the
In 1997, Canada adopted a vision for federal state-of-the-environment reporting program of the
state-of-the-environment reporting (called the 5NR National Indicators and Reporting Office, of Envi-
Vision), which was developed by Canada’s five ronment Canada’s Knowledge Integration Direc-
natural resource departments (responsible for Envi- torate. Apart from the indicator work by national
ronment, Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and SOE initiatives, environmental indicators are being
Oceans, Health, and Natural Resources). It stipu- developed and used at many other levels of govern-
lates that each federal lead agency is responsible for ment, from provincial to municipal, as well as by
preparing and producing its own SOE reports. The other bodies interested in improving their environ-
5NR Vision promotes the use of SOE reporting mental performance. Thus, the process of identify-
criteria in designing policy-driven, science-based ing and developing indicators in and for Canada
assessments (Box 14). The main components of has been evolving ever since the late-1980s.
the 5NR Vision are environmental monitoring, In September 2004, the Conference Board of
environmental indicators using a PSR framework, Canada, a not-for-profit, non-governmental organi-
science-based assessments, reporting on critical and zation, paid particular attention to the environment
emerging issues, an SOE Infobase, and an Internet in its annual publication, Performance and Potential.
web site for federal SOE reports (NIRO 2003b). The publication benchmarks Canada’s performance
Statistics Canada has also played a leading role against that of 23 other OECD countries, using
in SOE reporting since the late 1970s, produc- 24 environmental indicators organized according
ing the Human Activity and the Environment series to the PSR model. In previous years, the Confer-
about every five years. Today, it is a smaller publica- ence Board’s analysis focussed mainly on present
tion, released annually. Through the presentation actions and gave brief consideration to past damage
and analysis of relevant statistics, it explores the or future actions that may lessen human impact
relationships between population, socioeconomic on the environment. Use of the PSR framework in
activities, and the country’s natural systems (air, the 2004 report improved Canada’s relative ranking
water, soil, plants, and animals). The agency also (Conference Board of Canada 2004).
produced Econnections (now discontinued), which Environment Canada is now developing a strat-
adopted a natural-capital approach using indicators egy to provide more cohesion in its own SOE work
that link the environment and the economy and and to address the challenge of bringing together
track progress towards environmental sustainability. many of these indicator initiatives to contribute
It organized sets of indicators along the themes of to an integrated picture of the state of the nation’s
natural resource stocks, use of land resources, con- environment (NIRO 2003a). The strategy will
sumption of materials and energy, waste produc- respond to OECD’s 2004 recommendation that
27
points to other indicators relevant to the theme; Box 16: NRTEE’s proposed environmental
and “Challenges” underscores ongoing difficulties. indicators
A brief section looks at national and interna- • Air quality: population exposure to
tional actions dealing with each issue and a final ground-level ozone
section suggests individual actions for more sustain- • Freshwater quality: proportion of water bodies,
able living and outlines future work towards indica- classified according to major objectives
tor development in Canada. A technical supple-
• Greenhouse gas emissions: trends in
ment presents profiles of each indicator, which
aggregate emissions
include: purpose and rationale, methodology,
caveats and limitations, targets and/or benchmarks, • Extent of forests: map of forest crown closure
geographic coverage, units of measure, terminol- • Extent of wetlands: trends in total area
ogy/glossary, and web sites and/or references, as Source: Adapted from NRTEE 2003.
well as downloadable data tables including sources
and metadata (EC 2003a; NIRO 2003a).
The main report was accompanied by Envi-
ronmental Signals: Headline Indicators, a succinct ronment. NRTEE was established to identify and
overview for a more general audience. It contains explore issues that have both environmental and
a set of 12 key indicators that provide a series of economic implications and to propose actions that
snapshots with the goal of raising public awareness will help balance economic prosperity with envi-
about progress towards environmental sustain- ronmental preservation. The indicators are meant
ability rather than providing a comprehensive view to supplement and provide context for macroeco-
of the state of Canada’s environment. The reports nomic indicators such as the GDP. NRTEE worked
are available at the following web site: http://www. closely with Environment Canada and Statistics
ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicator_series/ Canada to develop realistic and useable environ-
default.cfm. ment and sustainable development indicators
and released its report in May 2003. The report
Ongoing work includes the recommendation that Canada use an
The development and presentation of Environ- expanded System of National Accounts and that
ment Canada’s indicators is an evolving process. In the government support the implementation of an
addition to developing indicators that track trends information system for the environment to supply
in environmental issues, Environment Canada is “comprehensive, coherent, current and authorita-
increasingly working on showing the links among tive data”. NRTEE does not recommend policy
environmental, economic, and social change. Eco- issues oriented to improving environmental perfor-
logical monitoring efforts will eventually provide mance as a result of needs revealed by the indicators
indicators on the state of ecosystems in addition to (NRTEE 2003).
their component parts. The national set will
incorporate the resulting ecosystem indicators Conceptual and organizational frameworks
(EC 2004c). NRTEE adopted the capital model as the basis for
Environment Canada has also proposed the de- developing a set of national indicators of economic
velopment of a core set of indicators—a single, rec- sustainability. It focuses on tracking trends related
ognizable set using the soundest approaches from to Canada’s key capital stocks (produced, natural,
all jurisdictions. The series supports and comple- and human), which requires expanding the notion
ments the work of Canada’s National Round Table of capital to include basic ecosystem services such
on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE), as the provision of clean air, water, and a stable
which is also developing a core set of national indi- climate. According to its mandate, NRTEE’s focus
cators, as described below (NIRO 2003a). is on the long-term sustainability of Canada’s de-
velopment, so although the indicators deal mainly
with the environment, they also attempt to track
The National Round Table on the Environment stocks of produced, social, and human capital.
and the Economy’s Environment and Sustainable
Development Indicators for Canada Selection process
In its federal budget of February 2000, the Govern- NRTEE set up the Environment and Sustainable
ment of Canada requested that the National Round Development Indicators (ESDI) Initiative, which
Table on the Environment and the Economy conducted a three-year multi-stakeholder process to
(NRTEE) prepare a recommendation for a small develop a small core set of credible and understand-
set of indicators linking the economy and the envi- able indicators that could measure the environmen-
tal and social sustainability of economic activity.
29
Environmental Quality Report to Congress on the a 1996 document called Sustainable America: A
effects of federal activities on the environment. The New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was Healthy Environment for the Future (PCSD 1996).
established and reporting began in 1970; it con- It called for a collaborative effort among the federal
tinued until 1997 (US CEQ 1997; Parris 2000). government and the NGO and private sectors to
These reports provided information through indi- develop national indicators and report regularly to
cators and descriptive text on environmental media, the public (IISD 2004a). The SDI Group includes
ecosystems and biodiversity, energy and transpor- representatives from the departments of Interior,
tation, and pollution prevention, among other Agriculture, and Commerce, and from the EPA. It
themes. They included extensive appendices of data completed its report, Sustainable Development in the
tables on environmental trends. Despite the lack of United States, an Experimental Set of Indicators, in
formal SOE reports, the Environmental Protection December 1998 (US IWG 2001). This was a study
Agency (EPA) has always made data easily available of over 40 experimental social, economic, and
and accessible for use and interpretation by users. A environmental indicators to guide the development
number of environmental NGOs use these data to of national sustainable development policies and to
support environmental indicators they have devel- structure a long-term framework towards that goal
oped to inform the public about specific issues. For by presenting measures of whether economic, en-
example, using publicly available data, the Natural vironmental, and social endowments are diminish-
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) publishes an ing or improving. In 2001, the SDI Group revised
annual report on the water quality of the nation’s and updated the first report in preparation for the
vacation beaches (Dorfman 2004). World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Over the years, EPA began to develop envi- September 2002 (ISIN 2002; UN DESA 2002).
ronmental indicators, as did various other federal At the end of 2002, the Council on Environ-
agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, mental Quality (CEQ) began a new initiative to
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National enhance coordination among federal agencies and
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. More to develop policy guidelines for future environ-
recently, some private companies and corporations mental and sustainable development indicators. In
have been trying to measure and improve their part, the new orientation responds to a consensus
environmental performance with indicators and on the need to gauge the success of environmental
to put forth a “greener” image (CGER 2000). For policy by outcomes rather than by the amount of
example, a growing number of US corporations are money or number of laws and regulations de-
using the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines voted to environmental issues (US GAO 2004).
for developing annual reports about their efforts The initiative resulted in the establishment of the
towards achieving environmental as well as social Interagency Working Group on Indicator Coordi-
and economic sustainability. As in Canada, other nation. The goal is to produce interlocking sets of
levels of government, from states to municipalities, environmental and human health indicators with
also report on the state of the environment in their which to inform decisions at all levels of govern-
jurisdictions (ISIN 2002; US GAO 2004). ment. The Council plans to catalyze agreement
The Interagency Working Group on Sustain- on a set of national-level environmental indicators
able Development Indicators (SDI Group) is a that can be linked to regional and local conditions
recent initiative that developed a set of national and to better organize statistical reporting and data
sustainable development indicators, including collection. The Working Group, however, had
environmental indicators. It was set up in re- no explicit responsibility or authority to catalyze
sponse to recommendations by the President’s involvement and resources from other federal agen-
Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) in cies. In late 2004, the United States Government
Accountability Office (GAO) stressed the need for
Runoff from this livestock yard may enter a nearby stream and degrade the water quality. Tim McCabe/UNEP/NRCS
the CEQ to work on a more concerted, systematic, identify and improve measures to track environ-
and stable approach to the development, coordina- mental conditions and trends. It uses a modified
tion, and integration of environmental indicator PSR framework, comprising a “hierarchy of indica-
sets (GAO 2004). The CEQ will work in concert tors”. It reports on those indicators that illustrate
with the EPA on a long-term strategy for environ- changes in the quantity of pressures or stressors;
mental indicators. The strategy will build on EPA’s ambient conditions; exposure or body burden
Draft Report on the Environment, released in 2003 or uptake; and the ultimate impacts reflected by
as the result of its two-year process of identifying changes in human health or ecological condition.
and developing national environmental indicators. The framework does not include driving forces or
The work began in 2001, with the establishment of responses, with the indicators focusing on out-
EPA’s Environmental Indicators Initiative, man- comes rather than actions taken.
aged by EPA’s Office of Information and Office of
Research and Development (GAO 2004). In 2003,
Selection process
The Heinz Center, a private research body, pub-
lished a comprehensive report on ecological indica- A steering committee comprised of EPA officials
tors for the nation. These two reports are guided the process, and other federal agencies and
described below. tribal and state governments assisted in reviewing
drafts. EPA held a series of thematic workshops at
Two National Indicator Reports which a series of questions about the state of envi-
for the United States ronmental resources and services was formulated,
focusing on outcomes. A multi-stakeholder process
The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft
led to a set of recommended indicators respond-
Report on the Environment
ing to the questions, and then corresponding data
In November 2001, the EPA launched its Envi- sources from many federal agencies were docu-
ronmental Indicators Initiative, with the goal of mented. Expert reviewers evaluated the indicators
developing indicators that would enable the United guided by criteria related to data quality, scientific
States to measure and track the state of the nation’s reliability, utility, and limitations (US EPA 2003).
environment and support improved environmen-
tal decision making. The Indicators Initiative also
identifies where additional research, data quality Products and contents
improvements, and information are needed. The EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment 2003
initiative aims to be consistent with the EPA Sci- (ROE), intended for general consumption, is ac-
ence Advisory Board, National Research Council, companied by a technical document. The main
and the Heinz Center indicator efforts. The Draft report has an executive summary. The first three of
Report on the Environment 2003 and the accom- the report’s five chapters deal with the current state
panying technical document were released in June of air, water, and land and the pressures that affect
2003 (US EPA 2003). them. The last two chapters present indicators on
human health and ecological conditions (Box 17).
Each chapter addresses the issues through a series
Conceptual and organizational framework
of questions and answers about what is happen-
The report’s two key purposes are to describe EPA’s ing, why it is happening, and what the effects
state of knowledge about the current and changing are. They correspond to the framework outlined
state of the environment at a national level, and to above (what are the pressures or stressors, ambient
31
Pawnee Buttes on Pawnee Grasslands, USA. Gary Kramer/UNEP/NRCS
conditions, exposure or body burden or uptake, The Heinz Center’s The State of the Nation’s Eco-
and the ultimate impacts?) Each chapter includes systems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living
a section on the indicators’ limitations. Data from Resources of the United States
the work of the Heinz Center contributed to some
In 1995, the White House Office of Science and
of the indicators in this report. The Draft Technical
Technology Policy asked the H. John Heinz III
Document discusses the limitations of the currently
Center for Science, Economics, and the Environ-
available indicators and data, as well as the gaps and
ment to compile existing data to help assess the
challenges that must be overcome to provide better
health of the nation’s ecosystems. The Heinz Center
answers in the future. It also specifies that there
is a non- governmental organization established in
are two categories of indicators, according to the
December 1995 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan insti-
level of adherence to a number of criteria, and it
tution dedicated to improving the scientific and
provides additional indicators to illustrate many of
economic foundations for environmental policy
the trends noted in the text of the draft report (US
through multisectoral collaboration. The State of
EPA 2003). The reports are available at the follow-
the Nation’s Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters,
ing web site: http://www.epa.gov/indicators.
and Living Resources of the United States was pub-
lished in 2002 (Heinz Center 2002). It was preced-
Ongoing work ed by a preliminary study in 1999 entitled Design-
In the report, EPA solicits suggestions and feed- ing a Report on the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems:
back from readers about the draft, future direc- Selected Measures for Farmlands, Forests, and Coasts
tions for its Environmental Indicators Initiative, and Oceans (Clark, Jorling, and others 1999). The
how to measure results, and how to communicate report provides policy-makers and the public with
effectively. The report represents the first step in a a set of key indicators on the condition and use of
longer-term project to create a strategy for devel- ecosystems in the United States, with the goal that
oping an integrated system of indicators at local, the indicators serve as a catalyst for debate about
regional, and national levels. The long-term goal is the nation’s environmental policy (Dudley 2003;
to improve the indicators and data that guide EPA’s O’Malley, Cavender-Bares, and Clark 2004).
strategic plans, priorities, performance reports, and Conceptual and organizational framework
decision making (US EPA 2003). The next report
is scheduled for release in the summer of 2006. It The report uses the biogeophysical approach and
will include a set of regional indicators, and work focuses on six major ecosystem types rather than
is underway to link the new report to the agency’s on the whole gamut of environmental systems and
strategic planning effort (US GAO 2004). on the state of those ecosystems, leaving aside the
pressure and response categories used in the PSR
framework. It also identifies core national indica- indicator that has not yet been developed (Heinz
tors that provide a highly aggregated view of overall Center 2002; Dudley 2003; O’Malley, Cavender-
conditions. Measures of ecosystem properties and Bares, and Clark 2004).
ecosystem services help to evaluate each ecosystem
type and the country as a whole. Ten major char- Selection process
acteristics of ecosystem condition are used: extent; The indicators were selected through consultations
fragmentation and landscape pattern; nutrients/ and discussions among a large number (nearly 150)
carbon/oxygen; chemical contaminants; physical and variety of experts and stakeholders who were
conditions; plants and animals; biological com- part of several committees and working groups.
munities; ecological productivity; food/fibre/water; Participants represented the business, environ-
and recreation and other services. The approach mental, academic, and government sectors. Indi-
presents base-line spatial or productivity indicators cator selection was based on three key standards:
and indices and uses about 15 indicators of specific policy relevance, technical credibility, and politi-
ecosystem conditions for each major ecosystem cal legitimacy (nonpartisan). Three criteria were
type. It identifies critical gaps in data and monitor- used to review the data for the selected indicators:
ing programmes and indicators that have yet to be scientific credibility; adequate geographic coverage
developed, rather than only using indicators for to represent the nation; and collected through an
which data are already available. It presents these established and durable monitoring programme.
indicators in the issue profiles, with a view to filling The report’s content was steered by a number of
in the data as they become available. Figure 20 pro- other guidelines: the report should be strategic,
vides an example of an indicator for which the data not encyclopaedic, with 18 or fewer indicators per
are still inadequate for national reporting and an ecosystem; it should first determine what should
be reported, regardless of the availability of data;
it should be understandable to non-specialists; it
should include information on both the condi-
tion of ecosystems and the goods and services that
Box 18: The Heinz Center’s core people derive from them; and it should focus solely
national indicators on the ecosystem’s state and condition (O’Malley,
• Ecosystem extent Cavender-Bares, and Clark 2004; US GAO 2004).
• Fragmentation and landscape pattern
Products and contents
• Movement of nitrogen
Both a full 270-page report and a short, 24-page
• Chemical contaminants summary and highlights edition were published in
• At-risk native species 2002. The first part of the main report sets out the
• Condition of plant and animal communities intent, structure, and overall focus. Part 2 sum-
• Plant growth index marizes the findings through the use of ten core na-
tional indicators that cut across six ecosystems (Box
• Production of food and fiber and 18). The following chapters present the indicators
water withdrawals that describe the state of each ecosystem: coasts and
• Outdoor recreation oceans, farmlands, forests, fresh waters, grasslands
• Natural ecosystem services and shrublands, and urban and suburban areas.
Source: Adapted from Heinz Center 2002. For each of the 103 indicators, the text answers
the questions: What is this indicator and why is it
33
important? What do the data show? and Why can’t Environment Canada chose to provide a perfor-
this entire indicator be reported at this time? Part mance meter for each indicator profile.
3 is an appendix. It outlines data availability and The approaches, frameworks, choice of indica-
gaps and the criteria used to select the indicator for tors, and types of products reflect the visions and
inclusion. It also contains a technical notes section goals of their creators. All four reports are clear and
that provides definitions, metadata, and references. understandable, making them accessible to deci-
The first annual update was released on the organi- sion-makers and the public. They present, describe,
zation’s web site in 2003. It includes new data for and interpret the indicators but are not prescrip-
26 indicators and first-time data for one indicator tive, leaving policy decisions to politicians and
for which no data were previously available (Heinz other decision-makers. The Heinz Center, which
Center 2002; Heinz Center 2003; O’Malley, is not a government agency, is explicitly oriented
Cavender-Bares, and Clark 2004). The reports are to being politically legitimate or nonpartisan
available at the following web site: http://www. (O’Malley, Cavender-Bares, and Clark 2004), while
heinzctr.org/ecosystems/intro/updates.shtml. the NRTEE’s report makes recommendations to
the federal government about expanding the system
Ongoing work of national accounts to include natural and
The Heinz Center is actively soliciting feedback social capital.
and technical comments on the current version. An
The EPA and Environment Canada reports
updated, revised edition of the report is expected
are the most comprehensive, addressing a wide
to be published every five years, with the next issue
audience and attempting to cover most aspects of
planned for 2007. In the interim, the data and
each nation’s environmental goods and services.
indicators are updated annually on the Center’s
The issues they include and the associated indica-
web site. One of the results of the publication of
tors resemble each other most. NRTEE explicitly
the indicator set is its use to inform the design of
reports on a very small set of indicators that link
the ecological portion of the international Global
the environment and the economy and it focuses
Ocean Observing System (US GAO 2004).
on the long-term sustainability of Canada’s devel-
opment, not exclusively on the environment. The
A Comparison of Canadian and US
focus on biological and chemical properties in the
National Indicators
Heinz Center’s report reflects its goal to exclusively
All four agencies developed the indicators through report on the condition and use of US ecosystems.
a transparent, multi-stakeholder process, and The Heinz Center makes a unique contribution by
adopted a set of criteria for indicator approval. The identifying ideal indicators and by underscoring
reports each include a succinct summary and are where they need further development and more
fully accessible online, and the organizations all adequate data. NRTEE supports Environment
continue to improve upon the indicators for better Canada’s indicator work, just as the Heinz Center
reporting in the future. The technical supplements supports that of the EPA. There is thus a great deal
or appendices that accompany the reports provide of correspondence between the two Canadian and
extensive detail about the rationale, methodology, the two US sets of issues and indicators.
and data for each indicator. Each agency employed
a conceptual framework: the EPA and Environ-
ment Canada chose modified PSR approaches; Common issues
NRTEE adopted a natural capital model; and the Table 1 presents a list of the issue areas addressed
Heinz Center restricted reporting to the by each country in their respective reports and
condition and use of ecosystems, using highlights in blue the 11 issues covered by both
biogeophysical indicators. countries (even if the issue was found in only one
The EPA approached indicator selection by of the two reports surveyed for each nation). These
identifying those that could answer a series of common issues are the following: drivers of change,
questions posed by experts during multi-stake- the ozone layer, acid deposition, air quality, toxic
holder workshops. The Heinz Center wished to substances, waste, freshwater, wetlands, forests,
develop indicators to accurately reflect ecosystem agricultural land, and biodiversity.
conditions, whether or not indicators, monitoring Not included in the Canadian reports are
programmes, and data already existed. It identified indicators for the issues of coastal and marine
critical gaps in these areas by identifying ideal indi- ecosystems, indoor air quality, national land use,
cators and by underscoring where they need further fisheries, grasslands and shrublands, urban areas,
development and more-adequate data. NRTEE also and the impact of environmental change on human
selected a set of ideal indicators, some of which are health. The US reports do not include indicators
still under development. Unlike the other agencies, for climate change, protected areas, energy, and
Source: Compiled by author from EC 2003a; NRTEE 2003; US EPA 2003; Heinz Center 2002.
transportation. Most gaps in issue selection reflect in the EPA report) were not included. A number
the different mandates and foci of the authors. The of the unique aggregated indices or meters, such
absence of indicators representing certain issues as Environment Canada’s meters and some indices
does not mean the nations do not monitor and used by the Heinz Center, were also not included.
gather data about these issues or report on them in Some other indicators were omitted if they were
other ways; it may be that the data are not adequate not deemed relevant to this study, such as those
for national reporting, for example. There are many representing global trends, comparing trends or
other challenges to developing suitable indicators, conditions within the country, or focusing on il-
apart from the important issue of data, however, as lustrative case studies.
discussed further in Chapter 4. The table lists the indicators as well as the data
and time-coverage, even though some indicators are
Common indicators: Notes on Table 2 still being developed and some data represent what
is available at present pending better and more
Table 2 (see Appendix 1, pages 122-148) is a chart
complete national coverage. Thus, indicators that
that provides details on the indicators in each of
are not yet fully developed (such as a number of
the reports, allowing for comparison and contrast
those suggested by the Heinz Center) are also list-
among them and for the identification of common
ed. Although the PSR and DPSIR frameworks have
indicators. In general, the table provides a list of
drawbacks related to analysis, the latter is used to
national-level indicators. In some places, however,
organize the indicators for easier cross-referencing
it also includes ecosystem and sub-regional-level
among the tables presented in this report. Cross-
indicators to illustrate environmental trends or
referencing is also facilitated by reserving each row
conditions where national data or indicators were
in Table 2 for similar or “generic” indicators.
absent or inadequate. Indicators reflecting social,
institutional, and economic conditions and trends The last column lists only the generic indicators
that were not explicitly linked to environmental used by both countries, regardless of the methodol-
issues (such as a number of the health indicators ogy and data used to develop them. These similar
35
Figure 21: Environment Canada’s index of drivers of environmental change
indicators are the most comparable and those most The Canadian reports contain a restricted
likely to be easily integrated. As such, they are can- number of indicators and, where possible and
didates as regional indicators for North America. relevant, used internationally standard measures
In Chapter 4, these common indicators will be (such as IUCN categories for protected areas and
complemented by others drawn from the reports UNFCCC methods for greenhouse gas emissions).
examined in this study, to form a list of feasible The US reports contain large numbers of indicators
environmental indicators for North America. and, for the most part, use methods or parameters
and standards established nationally.
Analysis Table 2 shows that a total of 20 similar indica-
tors are used by both countries and that the issues
Most of the indicators in Table 2 represent states
of air quality and forests are represented by the
and impacts, with fewer indicators expressing pres-
most indicators, which together form small PSIR
sures and very few that are indicative of responses.
profiles. With a few exceptions, each country has
Both Canada and the United States acknowledge
adopted different methods for calculating and
three overall drivers (population, GDP, and energy
presenting the data, and indicators refer to differ-
use), with Canada showing the per cent change
ent time periods and definitions. For example, both
since 1990 and the United States reporting on
countries report on timber harvests, but Canada
changes since 1970 (Figures 21 and 22). The
uses area harvested to portray the amount produced
reports do not present indicators of drivers specific
while the United States reports on the volume
to each issue.
harvested. Chapter Four explores such inconsisten-
Figure 22: EPA’s index of drivers of cies further.
environmental change
These conclusions are based on a survey of
only four reports, however, and the small number
of common indicators and their variations does
not suggest the impossibility of finding a way for
accomplishing integrated bilateral reporting with
standard indicators. Appendix 2, which provides
data sources for potential indicators for North
America, reveals that comparable data are avail-
able for many generic indicators not represented in
these reports.
The two countries are already involved in efforts
to harmonize environmental indicators in order to
enable reporting on the state of several shared eco-
systems. To learn more lessons about potential envi-
ronmental indicators for North America, the next
section looks at a number of Canada-US binational
Source: US EPA 2003, 1–2. SOE reporting initiatives and the indicators they
are developing.
Canada-US Bilateral Environmental and Ecosys- developing environment and health indicators to
tem Indicator Initiatives measure progress towards its sustainability goals
Canada and the United States cooperate in inter- (US EPA 2000a).
national and regional SOE reporting and indica- At the trilateral level, the Commission for
tors programmes in recognition that ecosystems, Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North
air- and watersheds, and migratory species traverse America, set up to oversee the NAFTA environ-
political boundaries and that both countries often mental accord, is mandated to produce periodic
share the driving forces and pressures that affect state-of-the-environment reports for the NAFTA
them. For example, Canada and the United States region. In 2002, it published its first SOE report,
participate in the Circumpolar Council, which The North American Mosaic. The CEC anticipates
sponsors an Arctic state-of-the-environment report. that the next SOE report will introduce a set of
The first such report, which focussed on pollution, environmental indicators that will inform future
was released in 1997. Two subsequent editions North American regional environmental assess-
looked at human health and persistent organic ments (CEC 2001). The CEC also published a
pollutants (AMAP 2003; AMAP 2004; NIRO report on available indicators of children’s health
2003b). Canada and the United States also cooper- and the North American environment in 2006
ate to manage and produce environmental indica- (CEC 2006). In addition, the CEC’s Pollutant
tor reports on the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Maine, Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) project
and the Georgia Basin–Puget Sound region. These tracks, analyzes, and publishes available data about
three initiatives are highlighted as case studies in the source, release, and transfer of toxic pollutants
this section. from industrial activity in Canada and the United
The Border XXI Program (1996–2000), set up States. The CEC’s annual report Taking Stock will
to address environmental issues at the US-Mexico integrate Mexico’s data for 2004, creating a North
border, has produced a set of environmental indica- American perspective of pollutant releases for the
tors for the border region (US-Mexico Border XXI first time. This project enhances the comparability
Program 1997). Based on this work, the ten-year among the separate national reporting systems and
Border 2012 Program, launched in 2002, is now provides a unique regional picture by way of pollut-
ant indicators and data (CEC 2004a).
37
The CEC is a forum for many other projects The State of the Great Lakes
that bring scientists and experts together in inter- The Great Lakes lie within eight US states and the
national working groups to cooperate on protecting Canadian province of Ontario (Figure 23). Half the
the North American environment; many of these trade between the two countries crosses the region,
efforts provide lessons about how to achieve con-
sensus among different stakeholders from the three
countries in taking a common region-wide ecologi- The Parties to the Great Lakes Water Qual-
cal perspective and adopting a common language ity Agreement (GLWQA) want to establish a
for classification systems. One example is the North consistent, easily understood suite of indica-
American eco-region mapping initiative, which tors that will objectively represent the state
succeeded in producing a continent-wide definition of major ecosystem components across all
and maps of three levels of nested eco-regions (see Great Lakes basins... . This suite of indicators
CEC 1997). will also be used to assess the Parties’ prog-
ress towards achievement of the purpose and
Another trinational-level effort related to general objectives of the GLWQA (Bertram
producing comparable environmental data is the and Stadler-Salt 2000, 4).
North American Transportation Statistics Inter-
change (NATS). Under this initiative, a trilateral
group works on the production of transportation,
energy, and environment indicators (TEEI). Can-
ada, the United States, and Mexico cooperate to and the countries share the lakes’ abundant resourc-
adopt a common list of indicators and are working es and services as well as the pollution and disrup-
to compile the statistical data according to a com- tion the ecosystem is experiencing (UNEP 2002a).
mon TEEI framework. They are also working on In 1972, Canada and the United States signed the
the opportunities and limitations of the elaborated Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA),
indicators in terms of their consistency, harmoniza- committing the two countries to controlling and
tion, updating, and comparability. cleaning up pollution in the Great Lakes and
Governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders reporting on their progress. The amended agree-
in Canadian provinces and territories and US states ment includes the goal to develop a set of compre-
are also working together to develop and use envi- hensive indicators on the health of the Great Lakes.
ronmental indicators to assess the state of a number To periodically assess the condition of the Lakes
of shared ecosystems. and to discuss further action, the US Environmen-
1000 ft. Laker approaching the Blue Water Bridge at the mouth of the St. Clair River, Michigan USA. UNEP/USACE
39
which includes summaries of separate indicator re- Figure 25: Cumulative number of introduced
ports and a status report on each of the Great Lakes species in the Great Lakes since the 1830s
and connecting channels (EC and US EPA 2003).
It provides assessments of 43 of the indicators
proposed by the Parties. These particular indicators
were included because data were available. They are
presented in the report under the headings of State,
Pressure, and Response indicators (EC and US
EPA 2003).
Implementing Indicators 2003 is a technical
report that compiles all the indicator reports that
were circulated for review at SOLEC 2002 and
provides full references for the information pre- Source: EC and US EPA 2003, 76.
Source: GBPSEI 2002. Scenic view from Port Townsend, Washington USA.
Gary Wilson /UNEP/NRCS
a need to address the environmental, social, which uses six indicators to look at several aspects
and economic implications of that growth (GB- of the state of the environment in the transbound-
PSEI 2002). ary region.
Government officials, scientists, and other
stakeholders from both countries increasingly work Conceptual and organizational framework
closely to find cooperative solutions to shared
The report does not explicitly refer to the PSR or
environmental issues in the region. For example,
any other framework. Each indicator is presented
Environment Canada and the US Environmental
in terms of what is happening, why it is happening,
Protection Agency recently issued a joint report
why it is important, how it compares with other
on the characterization of the Georgia Basin/Puget
regions or locations, and what is being done to ad-
Sound airshed. The two countries have been
dress the issues of concern.
working together to develop regional indicators
since 2000. The Canada–United States Working
Group on Environmental Indicators was formed Selection process
with the view of developing and using a suite of Work began in 1999 to identify key indicators
indicators to report on sustainability in the region. for which data were available on both sides of the
It grew out of the British Columbia–Washington boundary. Data specialists started by compiling all
Environmental Cooperation Council, which began applicable monitoring data collected in the region
in 1992, and the Joint Statement of Coopera- to identify the best and most readily available and
tion by Environment Canada and the US EPA comparable data with which to develop a suite of
in 2000. The latter commits the two countries to indicators for the region (Pidot 2003). Only six
work together at the federal level on transboundary indicators were initially selected, since differences
issues. The Working Group is also improving the in purpose, definition, measurement, and classifica-
transfer of knowledge and best practices, develop- tion of data from different jurisdictions, as well as
ing shared goals and strategies, and implementing differences in the variety of regulatory and adminis-
joint action programmes (GBPSEI 2002). In 2002, trative frameworks presented challenges to develop-
the Working Group released its Georgia Bay–Puget ing harmonized indicators and an integrated basin-
Sound Ecosystem Indicators Report (GBPSEI 2002), wide picture. The bilateral indicator for assessing
41
Figure 27: Species at risk, using a standardized Figure 28: The Gulf of Maine
assessment method
(GBPSEI 2002).
A bilateral effort is underway to maintain and en-
hance environmental quality in the Gulf of Maine.
Products and contents It is led by The Gulf of Maine Council on the Ma-
The report presents six indicators: population, air rine Environment, a US-Canadian partnership of
quality, solid waste, persistent organic pollutants governmental and non-governmental organizations.
(POPs), species at risk, and protected areas. As the The Council stresses the importance of viewing the
key pressure on the shared ecosystem, the popu- Gulf of Maine as a single ecosystem and promoting
lation indicator is the first in the report. It also cross-boundary collaboration to help manage the
portrays population distribution across the region region’s resources and address environmental con-
through a series of maps. Technical backgrounders cerns. One of its long-term aims is to identify and
are provided for the indicators, which include data, track a set of regional environmental indicators
data sources, methodology, references, contacts, and produce a “State of the Gulf ” report (GM-
and supplementary information. The organization CME 2004a).
and presentation of the technical information is not
consistent across the two reporting jurisdictions. The Gulf of Maine is shared by Canada and
The reports are available online at: hhttp://www. the United States and is considered among
env.gov.bc.ca/spd/gbpsei/index.html. the most biologically productive marine
systems in the world.
Ongoing work
The initiative is ongoing, with new indicators being
developed and the original indicators modified as
new data become available. For example, the PM10 Discussion about potential indicators began in
indicator may be modified or replaced in the future December 2002 at the Atlantic Northeast Coastal
by an indicator showing trends in PM2.5 concentra- Monitoring Summit, which also explored the
tion (GBPSEI 2002). potential for integrated regional monitoring. It
was followed in January 2004 by the Northeast
Gulf of Maine Coastal Indicators Workshop, where the initial
The Gulf of Maine is bordered by the states of selection process for regional indicators began
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine and (GMCME 2002; GMCME 2004b). Finally, the
by two provinces, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Gulf of Maine Summit was held in October 2004,
(Figure 28). This shared ecosystem is considered to bringing together and integrating the work of the
be among the most biologically productive marine many agencies, organizations, and institutions in
systems in the world: its waters and shoreline habi- the Gulf. The Summit was organized by the Gulf
tats host some 2,000 species of plants and animals. of Maine Council on the Marine Environment and
43
Rock, foam, and fog. Captain Albert E. ThebergeUNEP/NOAA
Products and contents change were also prepared. Tides of Change ex-
The State of the Gulf Report: Nutrient Indicators amines how environmental, economic, and social
was published in 2003, providing information trends are influencing land use, contaminants (in-
on potential nutrient indicators for inclusion in cluding sewage, nutrients, pathogens and mercury),
the Gulf of Maine Council’s “State of the Gulf of and fisheries and aquaculture. Indicators for these
Maine” report. It surveys nutrient indicators used trends provide historical context, reveal current
in existing reports from organizations within the conditions, and track progress. Bilateral or regional
US and internationally and provides a list of the indicators include indicators of historical change
most prevalent ones used. It then suggests potential in population density and rural/urban mix in the
indicators in the categories listed above and out- region; species at risk; beaches with closures; aver-
lines some general principles to guide the process age mercury concentrations; landing of all species;
of selecting and developing a suite of nutrient finfish aquaculture; and community composition of
indicators for the Gulf of Maine (Mills 2003). The fish. The report includes an overview of recent suc-
Regional Ecosystem Indicators for the Gulf of Maine: cesses in addressing regional environmental issues,
Pre-Summit Draft (Gulf of Maine Summit 2004b) and a report summary (Pesch and Wells 2004).
presents 12 fishery indicators, 8 coastal develop- The reports can be viewed online at: http://www.
ment indicators, and 12 contaminant indicators. gulfofmainesummit.org/docs/index.html.
Each indicator is accompanied by technical notes
that describe the following: purpose, ecosystem Ongoing work
objective, measure, outcome, illustration, fea-
The goal of the Gulf of Maine Summit is to set
tures, limitations, interpretation, comments, and
the stage for the preparation of a “State of the
references. In addition, draft indicators related to
Gulf of Maine” report. The aims of the report are
aquatic habitats, nutrients (see above), and climate
to provide structure for an integrated monitoring
programme; identify information gaps, problem cator set is small and the indicators are more closely
areas, and research needs; compile information associated with the important human population
on standard protocols and quality assurance; help and its impacts (Box 19). The latter initiative relied
inform and engage the public on environmental on indicators for which data were available, while
issues; and advocate for enhanced science, policy- the other two sought indicators that would
making and management (Nedeau 2003). After answer questions about the state of the shared
the 2004 Summit, the suggested indicators were water bodies.
to go through a period of review and refinement, All three initiatives are based on multi-stake-
followed by work to integrate them into regional holder participation for the indicator selection,
strategies (GMCME 2004c). attempt to develop compatible and standardized
indicators, and include ongoing indicators review
Analysis and refinement. The Great Lakes and the Georgia
Basin–Puget Sound reports include technical docu-
The development of bilateral indicators for ecosys-
ments that describe and explain each of the indica-
tems shared by Canada and the United States is a
tors. The Gulf of Maine project has not released its
fairly recent undertaking. Several initiatives, such as
final set of indicators at the time of writing.
the CEC’s indicator development work for environ-
mental reporting in North America and the Gulf Given the focus on specific ecosystems and
of Maine indicator initiative, are still in the initial the fact that many ecosystem-level indicators may
stages of development. The three case studies pre- not easily serve as nation-wide indicators, lessons
sented above represent important ecosystems shared learned from these bilateral initiatives have more to
by Canada and the United States. All three indica- do with the process of collaborating across borders
tor initiatives grew out of bilateral agreements and to construct compatible environmental indicators
previous cooperative action to protect the shared than the actual content of the indicator sets. More
ecosystems, with one of the major goals of the information about the process of cross-border col-
State of the Great Lakes work explicitly oriented to laboration could be gleaned from a more in-depth
reporting on progress in achieving the purpose and study of these initiatives through interviews and
general objectives of the GLWQA. Given the large other means.
extent of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the high To develop a more comprehensive list of basic
degree of pressures upon it, it requires a larger set indicators that could help form the basis for
of indicators. Two of the case studies are focussed regional reporting for North America, the next
on shared water bodies and the important resources chapter looks at indicators used or prescribed by
and ecosystem services they provide, with the international agencies that report on the state of the
majority of indicators representing their physical, global environment. In some cases, these organiza-
chemical, and biological aspects. The indicators for tions have already harmonized or standardized data
Georgia Basin–Puget Sound, a densely populated across nations.
region, represent a wider variety of issues. The indi-
45
K. Giese/UNEP
47
XXI and all aspects of sustainable development.
Countries are encouraged to adopt and use Using these criteria, the CSD and its Secretariat
this set as a starting point for their national worked in close cooperation with a large number of
indicator programs international governmental and non-governmental
organizations and national governments to select
the indicators. It was guided by three principles:
the development and use of indicators at a national
Conceptual and organizational framework
level; building on existing national and interna-
The CSD approved its five-year Work Programme tional indicator work undertaken by other organi-
on Indicators of Sustainable Development in 1995. zations and countries; and the cooperation and col-
It included strategies for defining SD indicators, laboration of a wide range of experts. Methodology
making them accessible to decision-makers at the sheets were developed for each indicator through a
national level, elucidating their methodologies, broad international consultation process (Gallopín
and providing training and other capacity-building 1997; Luxem and Bryld 1997).
initiatives (Mortensen 1997). Coordinated by the
UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs
(DESA), Division for Sustainable Development, Products and contents
the Programme organized the chapters of Agenda The final product, published in 2001—Indicators
XXI under four major themes—social, economic, of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Method-
environmental, and institutional (Shah 2004). A ologies—is a detailed description of 15 sustainable
preliminary working list of 134 indicators pub- development themes and 38 sub-themes, a final
lished in 1996 used the driving force–state-response proposed framework, and a core set of 58 indica-
(DSR) framework and was subjected to voluntary tors with their methodology sheets. Nineteen of the
national testing and expert-group consultation. The 58 are environmental indicators. The methodol-
framework evolved into one focusing on themes ogy sheets describe policy relevance, underlying
and sub-themes of sustainable development rather methodology, data availability, and sources for each
than exclusively on the Agenda XXI chapters. Rea- indicator (UN DESA 2001a). Governments began
sons for the change include the fact that the DSR preparing national reports in 1993 and in 1997 the
framework is less suited to social and economic results of submissions between 1994 and 1996 were
indicators than to environmental ones and that published in a series of country profiles, on the oc-
the theme framework better assists national policy casion of the five-year review of the Earth Summit
decision-making and performance measurement (Rio + 5). A second series of country profiles was
(Luxem and Bryld 1997; Shah 2004; UN DESA released for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
2004a). Development in Johannesburg. This 2002 country
profile series provides a comprehensive overview
of the status of national-level Agenda XXI imple-
Selection process
mentation (Luxem and Bryld 1997; Shah 2004;
The Programme selected indicators in accordance UN DESA 2003b; UN DESA 2004a). This series
with a number of criteria that are similar to those report is available at: http://www.un.org/esa/sust-
used by other organizations, differing only in dev/natlinfo/indicators/indisd/indisd-mg2001.pdf.
their particular focus on the relevance to Agenda
Toronto, Canada. UNEP/MorgueFile.com
49
Box 22: GEO Year Book indicators (2003)
Climate change • CO2 emissions
• global average glacier mass balance
Ozone layer depletion • CFC consumption
Forests • global forest cover
Oceans and marine • living marine resources catch
Freshwater • total and per capita water use
• population with access to improved sanitation
• population with access to improved water supply
Biodiversity • threatened species
• protected areas
Energy and consumption • energy use
Natural disasters • number people killed and number affected by natural disasters
Source: Adapted from UNEP 2004a.
relevant socioeconomic driving forces, and assess- socioeconomic, environmental, and policy issues,
ment of policy responses in all the world’s regions. as well as producing and communicating policy-
They also identify emerging issues and look at relevant information on those key interactions. The
potential future scenarios. The next comprehensive reports also identify emerging issues and attempt to
GEO report (GEO-4) is due in 2007. envision future policy options and priorities, based
Until recently, the GEO reports did not include on current and past experience and using a scenario
a standard set of indicators, although they made approach to examine a range of future outcomes
use of indicators as a reporting tool. In 2003, a new related to possible policy decisions taken today
series was launched with the release of a year book, (Pinter, Zahedi, and Cressman 2000). In the GEO
which includes a set of indicators that will be used Year Book, UNEP continues to rely on the PSR
in the annual publication. This will allow for the model, with the conviction that despite the model’s
tracking of trends in these issues over time. The full drawbacks, key trends in pressure, state, and
comprehensive GEO reports will no longer be pub- response dynamics for major environmental issues
lished biennially but rather at five-year intervals. can still be captured successfully. It notes that, not
surprisingly, several of the indicators in the report
Separate national and regional or sub-regional
coincide with those selected for monitoring inter-
assessments are also published, as are technical and
other background reports. In 2002, UNEP released
North America’s Environment: A Thirty-Year State of The GEO Indicators are a set of selected
the Environment and Policy Retrospective, a data- quantitative parameters which reflect head-
rich integrated environmental assessment of North line trends for the major global and regional
America emphasizing the linkages between policy environmental issues addressed under the
and the environment. Most of the data that under- GEO reporting process (UNEP 2004, 66).
pin the GEO reports are available on the Internet
through the GEO Data Portal. Some 400 different
variables, as national, sub-regional, regional and
global statistics or as geospatial data sets (maps),
nationally agreed-upon environmental goals and
can be accessed and downloaded (UNEP
targets, including those in the Millennium Declara-
2002a; 2002b).
tion (Millennium Development Goals—MDGs)
and the World Summit on Sustainable Develop-
Conceptual and organizational framework ment (WSSD) Plan of Implementation (UN DESA
GEO analyzes environmental issues using the 2004b; UNEP 2004a).
DPSIR framework and focuses on integrated
reporting—that is, revealing the links among
Selection process mental issues over the years. The GEO indicators
GEO is produced through a participatory process are grouped by environmental thematic areas and
in each region of the world, involving stakeholders issues. For each issue, only one or two indicators, or
and experts in disciplines related to environment a few at most, are presented. These are considered
and development issues, especially policy-makers, to be the most suitable and reliable indicators cur-
regional organizations, and NGOs (Pinter, Zahedi, rently available to illustrate the particular issue. The
and Cressman 2000). In keeping with the partici- year books include an overview section that looks
patory orientation of the GEO process, the selec- at the major issues, a section devoted to a special
tion of themes and indicators for the GEO year theme, and one that looks at the future; the 2003
books are based upon a collaborative/comprehen- edition, for example, contains a short section on
sive tracking and stocktaking process established key issues for “Small Island Developing States” and
with many partners. includes a feature section focusing on freshwater
and one on emerging challenges and new findings.
The feature focus of the 2004/5 edition is “Gender,
Products and contents Poverty, and Environment”. Definitions of terms
The first GEO Year Book was released in March used, data sources, and technical notes are provided
2003 and the second (2004/5) at the beginning of in an Annex. The indicators are presented at the
2005. This new annual series highlights significant global, regional and, in a few cases, sub-regional
environmental events and achievements during the level, based on the regional classification used in
year, with the aim of raising awareness of emerging the GEO-3 report. All data and documentation
issues from scientific research and other sources. were extracted from the GEO Data Portal (UNEP
It includes a selected set of trend indicators (Box 2002b; UNEP 2004a). The year book can be ac-
22 shows the indicators used in the 2003 edition), cessed at: http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/103.
providing a consistent and harmonized oversight htm.
of major environmental changes on an annual
basis, which makes it easy to track major environ-
51
Ongoing work economic and policy considerations. It is designed
Future annual statements will be released at the to help integrate environmental concerns into
beginning of every year in between the comprehen- sectoral policies, with each set focusing on a specific
sive GEO reports. sector (transport, energy, household consumption,
tourism, agriculture). A third set is derived from
Organisation for Economic Co-operation the OECD work on natural resource and environ-
and Development mental expenditure accounts and focuses on the
The OECD’s indicator initiative began in 1991 efficiency and productivity of material resource use.
in response to an OECD Council Recommenda- In addition, a small set of key indicators—10 to 13
tion on Environmental Indicators and Informa- of them—selected from the core set, is published to
tion requesting it to “further develop core sets of help raise public awareness, compare environmental
reliable, readable, measurable and policy-relevant performance across OECD nations, and focus at-
environmental indicators”. This advice was reiter- tention on key issues of common concern (Lealess
ated in 1998 with another Recommendation to 2002; OECD 2003; OECD 2004b).
“further develop and use indicators to measure Data largely come from the OECD Envi-
environmental performance” and again with the ronmental Data—Compendium, which has been
OECD’s environmental strategy for the first decade published every two years since 1985. These data
of the 21st century, which laid out the goal of are the result of a biennial data collection and treat-
measuring progress through indicators and fur- ment process that includes a detailed questionnaire
ther developing and using indicators and targets sent to member countries. Data are harmonized
to measure environmental progress at the national through the work of the OECD Working Group
level (NIRO 2003b). Environmental indicators on Environmental Information and Outlooks
work at the OECD is conducted as part of its (OECD 2004b).
three-year programme, which began in April 1998,
OECD environmental indicators are regularly
to help member countries measure progress towards
published and used in the OECD’s work in review-
sustainable development.
ing countries’ environmental performance and in
The OECD has developed a number of sets of monitoring the implementation of the OECD
indicators, using harmonized concepts and defini- Environmental Strategy.
tions that respond to different needs: A core set
of environmental indicators measures progress on
the environmental front and includes some 50 Conceptual and organizational framework
indicators that reflect the main concerns in OECD One of the OECD’s major contributions to the
countries. Another set of indicators focuses on field of environmental indicators is its efforts to
sectoral trends of environmental significance, their harmonize individual member initiatives by devel-
interaction with the environment, and related oping a common approach and conceptual frame-
53
Box 24: OECD environmental indicators
Drivers • GDP
• population growth and density
Climate change • CO2 emission intensities
• GHG concentrations
Ozone layer depletion • ozone-depleting substances
• stratospheric ozone
Air quality • air emission intensities
• urban air quality
Waste • waste generation
• waste recycling
Agricultural land • intensity of use of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers
• nitrogen balances
• livestock densities
• intensity of use of pesticides
Forests • intensity of use of forest resources
• forest and wooded land
Fisheries • fish catches and consumption
Freshwater • river quality
• waste water treatment
• intensity of use of water resources
• public water supply and price
Biodiversity • threatened species
• protected areas
Energy and consumption • energy intensities
• energy mix
• energy prices
• private consumption
• government consumption
Transportation • road traffic and vehicle intensities
• road infrastructure densities
• road fuel prices and taxes
National responses (expenditures) • pollution abatement and control expenditures
• trends in official development assistance as % GNP
Source: Adapted from OECD 2001.
to more ample and detailed information if desired indicators selected from the OECD core set,
(Lealess 2002). Key Environmental Indicators is some socioeconomic and sectoral indicators with
available online at: http://www.oecd.org/datao- environmental significance, and others that were
ecd/32/20/31558547.pdf. endorsed by OECD environment ministers at their
A special document combines indicators from meeting in May 2001. There are nine environmen-
the four sets described above to produce a set of tal themes in one section, and in another section
environmental indicators. The first Environmental are six socio-economic themes related to environ-
Indicators: Towards Sustainable Development was mental issues, most of which act as pressures. Each
published in 1994, followed by two other edi- thematic sub-section includes a statement about the
tions, in 1998 and 2001 (OECD 2001). The 2001 issue it covers and its importance; an overview of
edition of the OECD Environmental Indicators related OECD work; how it fits in the PSR frame-
report is an update of the 1998 edition. It includes work; references; and a summary of major trends. It
55
inclusion of many driver and response indicators
that are usually lacking in many other indicator Box 25: International environmental issue areas
initiatives. These indicators show trends in issues • Drivers (GDP, population, consumption)
such as perverse subsidies to activities that harm the • Climate change
environment and the shift to taxing these activities.
• Ozone layer
Other examples of driver indicators include trends
in automobile production, meat consumption, • Air quality
and agricultural subsidies. Examples of response • Waste
indicators include those that track trends in wind- • Freshwater
generating capacity and solar-cell production, the
• Coastal and marine ecosystems
market in pollution controls, bicycle production,
and biomass energy use. • Fisheries
• Forests
Common issues • Agricultural land
A glance at the boxes listing the indicators in each • Biodiversity
of the reports surveyed above (Boxes 21–24) makes • Protected areas
plain the similarity in the choice of issues selected
• Energy and transportation
by international agencies involved in creating sets
of indicators for environmental reporting at the • Natural disasters
global level. Box 25 shows the issues or themes ad- • National responses (expenditures)
dressed by the reports. Source: Compiled by author from UN DESA 2004a; UNEP 2004a;
OECD 2004b; OECD 2001.
Common indicators
It follows that there should also be considerable
similarity in the environmental indicators that
have been developed for the issue areas in all three hierarchy ranging from international to ecosystem-
international initiatives. Table 3 lists the issue areas, level issues and indicators, it is obvious that the
with the corresponding indicators that are generic lower the level, the more the indicators focus on
to at least two of the three initiatives described in characteristics specific to the area and the greater
this chapter. the differences in the issues and indicators selected
to portray the regions. Such was the case in the
Analysis cross-border case studies in Chapter 2 (see Box 19).
As also noted about the North American reports,
UNEP and OECD populate the indicators with response indicators among the international indica-
data and publish these, but the CSD’s list of indica- tor initiatives are fewer in number, with impact and
tors functions as a “menu” for individual nations, pressure indicators the most represented.
so there is no common data set, and no central
agency that collects and reports on the indicators.
OECD’s issues reflect the concerns of member An integration of North American and interna-
countries, while those identified by UNEP and tional indicators
the CSD are more inclusive, since they also reflect Table 4 (page 58) compares generic indicators
those of developing nations. The CSD and OECD common to North America with those most used
include population and economic growth as well in the international reports. It reveals that there is
as development assistance in their sets of indica- a good deal of overlap between them, with similar
tors, since the CSD’s mandate extends to all aspects indicators for a number of issues. There are gaps,
of sustainability and the OECD measures envi- however: indicators for indoor air, toxic substances,
ronmental sustainability in relation to economic land use, coastal and marine ecosystems, grasslands
growth. The OECD also provides indicators of and shrublands, and urban areas are not commonly
pollution abatement and control expenditures and found in either the North American or internation-
official development assistance to show national al reports. OECD confirms the gaps in a number
responses to both national and global environmen- of these indicators, including pollution from toxic
tal and sustainability problems. substances (toxic metals, organic compounds, and
Table 3 shows that there are a total of 21 similar fibres); population and area exposed to air pollut-
or common indicators found in all the internation- ants; effects of air pollutants on human health and
al reports, reflecting a much greater correspondence on the environment; and indoor air pollution. As
among them than found when comparing the will be seen in Chapter 4, lack of data is often the
indicators in the four North American reports. In a main reason for these gaps (OECD 2002b).
Issues common to the North American re- The results of this exercise in identifying
ports but not represented by most international common indicators among national and interna-
initiatives include acid deposition and wetlands. tional indicator initiatives is confirmed by recent
Although not exclusively North American issues work conducted by Environment Canada during
of concern, they are of particular significance to its deliberations on a strategy for environmental
Canada and the United States. Internationally im- indicators and state-of-the-environment reporting
portant issues that some of the North American re- in Canada. A background paper notes the need to
ports surveyed neglect include climate change, fish work on improving the overlap between national
resources, protected areas, natural disasters, and ex- and international issues and indicators (NIRO
penditures. Neither the Heinz report nor the EPA 2003b). Table 5 (page 59) integrates the most com-
draft report includes indicators of climate change. monly used indicators from both the national and
The ecosystem focus of the former precludes this is- the international initiatives as a starting point in
sue and the EPA chose not to report on greenhouse compiling a list of candidate indicators for North
gas emissions due to the “complexities of this issue” America.
(US EPA 2003, 1–11). Some indicators important Based on the lessons learned from this study,
for developing countries have less significance in the following section examines the challenges in
Canada and the United States, such as population developing multilateral indicators and makes some
with access to improved sanitation and population recommendations for future environmental indica-
with access to improved water supply. tor initiatives for the North American region.
57
Table 4: Indicators common to North American and international initiatives
Issues Common North American Common international
indicators indicators
Drivers • % change in population, GDP • per capita GDP
(population, GDP, consumption) per capita, and energy use
Energy and transportation • trend in gasoline use by • per capita energy use
motor vehicle • energy use/GDP
Climate change • per capita CO2 emissions
• total annual CO2 emissions
Ozone layer • ODS production
• O3 levels over North America • ODS consumption
Air quality • criteria pollutants emissions • ambient concentrations of
• concentrations in average annual SO2 and NO2
PM2.5 levels
• O3 concentrations by region
Acid deposition • change in wet sulphate deposition
• change in wet nitrate deposition
Indoor air
Toxic substances
Waste • municipal solid waste (MSW) • generation of industrial,
management hazardous, and radioactive
waste, and municipal solid waste
(MSW) recycling and reuse
Land use
Freshwater • municipal water extraction • water use as % of annual
renewable water
• % total population with access
to improved sanitation
• % population with access to
improved water supply
Wetlands • % land area in wetlands
Coastal and marine
Fisheries • total fish catches
Forests • timber harvest • forest harvests as % of annual
• area of forest cover growth
• forest bird populations • forest area as % of total land area
• area burned in forest wildfires
• area of protected forest
59
UNEP/MorgueFile
61
Early morning shot of a local farm in Colebrook, Ontario Canada. UNEP/MorgueFile.com
some initiatives have not yet finalized their sets of subsidies that provide incentives for unsustainable
indicators, the mandate of others restricts the scope practices.
of reporting to pressures, states, and impacts, and If governments want to promote sustainable
one of the goals of effective reporting is to limit the development, they have to make sure that prices
number of indicators to a small set. Worldwatch and incentives are right. That job requires identify-
Institute, which was mentioned but was not part of ing subsidies, measuring them and assessing their
the detailed study, includes many response indica- impact (de Moor and Calamai 1997, 2).
tors in its State of the World and Vital Signs reports
There are many types of subsidies, including
and these make a valuable contribution that could
direct budgetary grants and payments to consumers
provide model response indicators for other SOE
or producers; tax policies such as credits, exemp-
initiatives.
tions, and other preferential tax treatments; the
The EPA and Environment Canada reports public provision of goods and services below cost;
both include a graph depicting overarching indi- capital cost subsidies such as preferential loans and
cators that act as drivers of change in most envi- debt forgiveness; and policies that create transfers
ronmental media. None of the reports, however, through market mechanisms (de Moor and Cala-
isolates drivers specific to each of the issue areas. mai 1997). Without acknowledging and measuring
Examples of such drivers are trends in subsidies to drivers such as these subsidies and including them
agriculture, fisheries, fossil fuels, water provision, alongside indicators of environmental conditions,
waste collection and disposal, and other perverse decision-makers can easily overlook the connec-
63
Box 27: Examples of response indicators
Issue Examples of response indicators
Population growth Indicators that measure incentives for population control, such as the percentage of GNP
spent on funding national and international population programmes.
Poverty Indicators that measure poverty alleviation, such as the percentage of GNP that goes
towards funding Official Development Assistance (ODA). Others could include the
contribution to the Global Environmental Facility and other environmentally targeted
development aid; exports or transfers of cost-effective and environmentally sound tech-
nologies to developing countries; indicators of fair trade, debt relief, opening of markets
to developing countries; and so forth.
Market failures Indicators to measure progress in adopting ecological fiscal reform to correct the market,
such as full-cost pricing (making prices reflect the full environmental costs), the elimina-
tion of perverse subsidies, and tax incentives. Indicators could measure investments and
subsidy programmes in environmentally benign technologies and alternative energy,
such as green-building incentives. They could be developed to measure tradable emission
permits; pollution taxes (carbon, sulphur, and other emissions, and taxes on landfilling,
incineration, and municipal garbage collection); user fees; congestion taxes; taxes on mo-
tor fuel, electricity, and water; product charges levied on pesticides, chlorinated solvents,
batteries, beverage containers, plastic bags, disposable cameras and razors, industrial
packaging; and so forth. Other indicators could relate to tax exemptions or credits for
environmentally-friendly activities, such as purchasing a hybrid car. A possible indicator
is revenue from environmentally-related taxes as a percentage of GDP.
Consumption Response indicators could measure sustainable consumption. Indicators related to green-
labeling product certification could include the number of acres or percentage of forests
certified as sustainably managed (under the Forest Stewardship Council, for example); the
number of fisheries certified as sustainable (under the Marine Stewardship Council’s pro-
gramme); the numbers or percentage of cropland area certified as organic; the percentage
of sales in fair trade, organic, and shade-grown coffee and cocoa and other goods, such as
certified organic cotton; the number of tourism companies and hotels (and other service
providers) certified as sustainable; and certified sustainable investments in environmen-
tally and socially responsible stocks. Other possible indicators that show responses to
consumption include the number of programmes for recycling consumer durables; the
percentage of government purchasing budgets devoted to green goods and services; indi-
cators of dematerialization and intensity of use (measuring consumption against trends in
GDP); trends in composting (number of composting facilities); percentage of waste water
re-used as “grey water” for industrial processes; the number of companies issuing “sustain-
ability reports” recommended by the GRI; and so on.
Ecosystem degradation Indicators that measure actions related to ecosystem conservation and restoration, (“free-
ing rivers, restoring wetlands, replanting forests, recharging groundwaters, regenerating
wastelands, reclaiming urban brownfields, reintroducing species, removing invasives”
(Speth 2004, 200). Examples of indicators include the number of acres in conservation
easements and land trusts; number of acres of erodable cropland retired; acres under soil
conservation practices and Integrated Pest Management (IPM); and others.
Energy use Indicators to measure responses to energy use and transportation issues include trends
in wind, solar, and geothermal energy (such as the percentage of electricity supply; the
annual rate of growth; or trends in generating capacity); trends in the factory price for
photovoltaic modules; trends in solar cell shipments; sales of compact fluorescent bulbs;
sales of hybrid electric vehicles; sales of bicycles; miles of bicycle routes; trends in compa-
nies and corporations adopting GHG emission reduction commitments; and others.
Environmental awareness Indicators that show progress in delivering environmental education. For example: the
number of advanced degrees in environmental science, engineering, conservation, natural
resources management, and so on; the number of curricula, materials, and training op-
portunities that teach the principles of sustainable development; the number of school
systems that have adopted K–12 voluntary standards for learning about sustainable devel-
opment similar to standards developed under the US National Goals 2000 initiative; and
others.
Source: Compiled by author from PCSD 1996; Pembina Institute 2004; Speth 2004; Worldwatch Institute 2004.
65
make the connections between the elements of the
Indicators prove valuable only if they are
DPSIR model.
publicized and used by citizens’ groups, the
In addition to the methodological difficulties media, government, and development agen-
to explain or establish links between economic cies (Brown, Flavin, and Postel 1991, 130).
and environmental processes expressed in differ-
ent space and time scales, there are other elements
of inter-sectoral characteristics that also lack clear
linkages: for example, different policies—urban,
environmental, agricultural, communications, and series, for example, is an effective way of linking
so forth—have synergic effects that are difficult to environmental change to policy decisions.
explain through indicators.
A way of showing links between pressures and Informing policy
responses is to compare closely-related activities in Perhaps the most challenging task in developing
the same sector, such as timber-harvesting rates and and using environmental indicators is to ensure
regeneration and replanting rates. Another example they enter the policy cycle and influence decisions.
is showing the use of non-renewables relative to In a recent survey of a number of indicator projects
investments in a renewable substitute, such as oil in North America, the author relates that according
extraction versus tree planting for wood alcohol to one of her interviewees, a recent national indica-
(Speth 2004). And as mentioned above, assigning tor report “... did not garner any perceptible notice
a monetary value to the environment helps to link from the policy-makers for whom it was intended”
the environment and the economy. (Pidot 2003, 15). Environmental problems need
The OECD has developed “intensity” indica- long-term investments and politicians are often fo-
tors that are useful to linking indicators that help cussed on their own short political terms. Without
show the decoupling of energy use and economic political will, environmental budgets remain small.
growth as a sign of progress. Developing inter- Financial constraints can curtail monitoring and
nationally comparable intensity or energy effi- data collection and so affect inputs to indicator and
ciency indicators is made difficult, however, by the SOE programmes (Segnestam 2002).
structural, behavioural, and economic differences In addition to improving the development and
among countries. As well, each country has its use of driver and response indicators, using indi-
own measures, definitions, currencies, income ac- cators that show linkages, and including assess-
counting, and monitoring techniques (EIA 1995). ment in the text, as underscored above, Chapter 1
Canada and the United States have similar-enough suggested the use of performance and comparative
economies, however, that some types of intensity indicators to get the attention of policy-makers and
indicators could feasibly be harmonized to give a spur the will to act (Box 28).
bi-national picture.
While more linking indicators and frameworks
Policy targets, guidelines, and standards
that help recognize links are being developed,
indicator reports must continue to rely on inter- The national indicator reports surveyed use rela-
pretation provided by accompanying text. UNEP’s tively few indicators that measure progress against
integrated assessment method used in the GEO international policy targets. More commonly, they
use parameters related to national standards or
guidelines that gauge progress against thresholds for
environmental and human health. Targets, guide-
Box 28: Indicators for decision-makers lines, and standards as well as the level of enforce-
ment vary among countries, however. Canada and
1. Performance indicators with policy targets the United States are working together at several
or standards that clearly show where poli- levels to improve the comparability of some of
cies and regulations need to be improved their standards and guidelines, especially with
or enforced. respect to water and air standards and especially in
2. Comparative indicators or indices that border regions.
show progress relative to other nations. National criteria for maximum levels of drink-
3. Highly aggregated indices that give visual ing water contaminants are comparable in Canada
snapshots of performance. and the United States, with standards and norms
varying among states and provinces. Canada’s
Source: Compiled by author.
national objectives are provided as guidelines,
however, while US standards are legally enforce-
67
On the other hand, as noted earlier, easy-to-under- jurisdiction and monitoring techniques and meth-
stand indices can attract the attention ods of data analysis for inhalable particles differ
of policy-makers. somewhat between them. “The British Columbia
PM10 indicator measures the percentage of moni-
tored communities in which PM10 levels exceed 25
Lack of comparability
μg/m3 more than 5 per cent of the time annually,
The issue of incompatible standards illustrates or 18 days per year. The Washington State PM10
one of the most challenging aspects of developing indicator for the Puget Sound region measures the
indicators to portray a region. To be meaningful number of days PM10 concentrations at sample sta-
for decision-makers and to allow for performance tions in monitored communities fall into ranges of
evaluation and international comparison, it is es- 0–24 μg/ m3, 25–49 μg/ m3, 50–74 μg/ m3, and 75
sential to have coherence or comparability among μg/ m3 and over” (GBPSEI 2002, 5, 8).
countries through harmonization (OECD 2003).
Even among the agencies that have achieved
some success in harmonizing data across nations,
The European Environment Agency sums up users need to be aware of the caveats provided in
the common goal of multilateral indicator technical notes that explain remaining disparities.
initiatives: “The overriding objective would For example, the OECD’s data for the concentra-
be to develop as far as possible a common tion of particulates reflects different measurement
set supported by a shared system of relevant methods for Canada from those for the United
environmental data information in which all States and different definitions of the size of the
interested parties would co-operate and play a particulates (OECD 2002b). Canada’s National
role” (EEA 2003, 10). Indicators and Reporting Office (NIRO) suggests
that standardizing the steps in air quality monitor-
ing and reporting would ensure that national and
international data are the same (NIRO 2003b).
Some more examples from the indicator proj-
Although many Canadian and US indicators
ects surveyed above serve to illustrate the challenge
highlighted in this survey appear similar, there are
related to the lack of comparability. The conserva-
varying degrees of differences in definitions and
tion status of species is an important indicator for
methodologies, making the standardization of
assessing biodiversity. Canada’s Committee on the
environmental variables across the countries very
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSE-
difficult. The Georgia Basin–Puget Sound indica-
WIC) determines the status of wildlife species
tor project provides a good example of the types
whose future may be in doubt and determines the
of challenges faced by two countries attempting
status designation. COSEWIC assesses species us-
to report on the environmental state of a shared
ing a standardized process adapted from the World
ecosystem: solid waste is defined differently in each
Conservation Union (IUCN) criteria and classifies
A ferryboat plying Puget Sound in the late afternoon. Mary Hollinger/UNEP/NOAA
species into seven categories: Extinct, Extirpated, ficial lists of endangered or threatened species have
Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, Not at different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes,
Risk, and Data Deficient (Government of Canada and taxonomic coverage. For these reasons, they
2004). Environment Canada’s Environmental normally do not coincide completely with the of-
Signals report uses a biodiversity indicator that ficial designation of “rare and endangered” species
shows the numbers of endangered and threatened (US EPA 2003). The bilateral indicator for assess-
species, subspecies, and populations according to ing the conservation status of species in the com-
these COSEWIC designations. In 2000, the Ca- bined Georgia Basin–Puget Sound region was made
nadian Endangered Species Conservation Council possible because of NatureServe’s standardized
(CESCC) published a report that provides a more method (see Figure 27 in Chapter 2).
general status assessment of species in Canada that In another example, both countries report on
is not meant to replace the in-depth and targeted water erosion but express the parameters using
COSEWIC evaluations or provincial and territorial different methods (Figure 30). The US indicator
equivalents. It uses somewhat different categories, above in Figure 30 shows the percentage of crop-
classifying species as one of Extirpated/Extinct; At land falling in three categories of water erosion
Risk; May Be At Risk; Sensitive; Secure; Unde- potential: most prone, moderately prone, and least
termined; or Not Assessed, Exotic, or Accidental prone. Canada, on the other hand, expresses the
(CESCC 2000). risk of water erosion in five classes only, the lowest
In the United States, formal at-risk species of which (tolerable) is considered sustainable since
status reviews are conducted through distinct state it is offset by sufficient soil building. The indicator
and/or federal administrative processes. The US (below) shows the per cent of land by region that
indicator reports (US EPA and the Heinz Center) is subject to the other four classes of water erosion
use a biodiversity indicator for threatened spe- (Shelton 2000; EC 2003a). Both Canada and the
cies based on a scheme developed by NatureServe, United States use parameters related to the uni-
which uses five categories: Critically Imperiled; versal soil loss equation (USLE) to develop these
Imperiled; Vulnerable to Extirpation or Extinction; water erosion indicators. It is thus feasible that an
Apparently Secure; and Demonstrably Widespread, indicator could be devised to use data from both
Abundant, and Secure. NatureServe represents an countries using the same methodology and express-
international network of biological inventories— ing the results in a comparable way.
known as natural heritage programmes or conserva- Despite the differences between the two coun-
tion data centres—operating in all 50 US states, tries in the way they report on these two issues,
Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The the two examples above show that internation-
system uses standard criteria and rank definitions ally-accepted methodologies exist. Other examples
so that conservation status ranks are comparable include the protocols and statistical treatments for
across organism types and political boundaries. But measuring mean annual O3 level over each country,
Natural Heritage lists of vulnerable species and of- and guidelines for reporting to the United Nations
69
Box 29: CSD’s methodology sheets health (see Briggs 2003). As mentioned before,
1. Indicator the Commission for Environmental Coopera-
(a) Name tion coordinated North American efforts to select
(b) Brief Definition and publish a core set of children’s environmental
(c) Unit of Measurement: %. health indicators (CEC 2006). Both countries
(d) Placement in the CSD Indicator Set report on the sustainability of their forests using
indicators established by the Montreal Process (See
2. Policy Relevance CCFM 2000 and USDA 2004)10.
(a) Purpose Protocols and guidelines are often drawn up by
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable multilateral indicator initiatives to ensure a degree
Development (theme/sub-theme) of comparability among the nations involved; they
(c) International Conventions and Agreements frequently stipulate the use of internationally ac-
(d) International Targets/Recommended Stan- cepted methods and provide guidelines for how to
dards express results in a comparable manner. The Com-
mission for Sustainable Development’s very useful
3. Methodological Description system of methodology sheets is an example (Box
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts 29) (UN DESA 2001a; UN DESA 2001b).
(b) Measurement Methods
Satellite remote sensing is a scientific method of
(c) Limitations of the Indicator
reporting on environmental conditions that over-
(d) Status of the Methodology
comes the problem of comparability across nations.
(e) Alternative Definitions/Indicators
It is a promising way to provide overall, integrated
views of the extent of ecosystems and certain
4. Assessment of Data
aspects of their condition even when they cross
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator
political borders. Another advantage is that photos
(b) National and International Data Availability
are excellent visual tools. However, they are often
and Sources
only available at the appropriate scale for one time
(c) Data References
period. In 2005, UNEP released One Planet Many
People: Atlas of Our Changing Environment, which
5. Agencies Involved in the Development
uses paired images as an effective tool to portray
of the Indicator
environmental change.
(a) Lead Agency
(b) Other Contributing Organizations
Spatial and temporal scales
6. References Spatial scale
(a) Readings Information needs vary at local, regional, and
(b) Internet sites global levels. Indicators developed for local-level is-
Source: Adapted from UN DESA 2001.
sues or to portray properties of a specific ecosystem
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN- may not be useful for another spatial scale or lend
FCCC) on GHG emissions. themselves to aggregation for a higher spatial level.
Apart from indicator work conducted by the Deciding on the trade-off between the simplicity
Commission for Sustainable Development, the of aggregation and the loss of detail it entails is one
OECD, and UNEP, described in Chapter 3, a of the challenges of developing national and global
number of other international indicator initiatives level indicators. Different indicators may be needed
provide guidelines for using standardized indica- for each scale (CSIRO 1999; UNESCO 2003).
tors. The United Nation’s Habitat programme has Most indicators are developed for use at the na-
developed an indicators system for reporting on tional level. Finding meaningful indicators to repre-
urban issues. Its Urban Indicators Tool Kit provides sent conditions within the various sub-regions and
a quantitative, comparative base for assessing the ecosystems of a country is a challenge. This is espe-
condition of the world’s cities and for measuring cially the case with large countries with high levels
progress towards achieving urban objectives (UN of heterogeneity such as Canada and the United
Habitat 2003). The World Health Organization’s States (Gallopín 1997). Air and water quality indi-
report Environmental Health Indicators: Framework cators are particularly difficult to develop at higher
and Methodologies establishes a set of indicators levels of synthesis or aggregation since international
for monitoring trends in environment and health and national air- and watersheds do not exist and
(Briggs 1999). Another WHO report provides lists political boundaries usually define both data collec-
of potential indicators for children’s environmental
Canada’s framework is 80 per cent compatible with the Montreal Process (CCFM 2000).
10
71
Figure 31: The information pyramid
56 per cent). Forty-five indicators (or 44 per cent) protected areas, natural disasters, and expenditures.
do not include data, either because of the lack of Data limitations contribute to the lack of adequate
available data for national reporting or because the indicators for these issues.
indicator itself needs further development (Heinz The temptation is to use indicators for which
Center 2003). Seventy per cent of the indicators in data are readily available, but the literature notes
the EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment suf- the importance of not narrowing the options when
fered from insufficient data (US GAO 2004). developing indicator sets (Gallopín 1997). The
SOLEC developed monitoring programmes to Heinz Center’s initiative in defining ideal indica-
fill data gaps, but often lacked the budget to create tors provides a model of how to stimulate efforts
data sets for all indicators of interest (Pidot 2003). to gather needed data. Not only are data lacking,
but frequently, available data are not suitable for
populating indicators because of variable quality.
A sobering and recurring theme throughout
Data timeliness also affects the success of indica-
many of these reports is the lack of suitable data
tors. By the time indicators are released, even the
to quantify important aspects of the state of the
most current environmental data are often out of
environment in ways that are comparable across
date by several years, limiting the effectiveness of
the geographic extent and time-horizon of the
their impact on policy (OECD 2003).
report (Parris 2000).
UNEP notes this lack of high-quality, com-
prehensive, and timely data on the environment,
especially in the areas of freshwater quality, marine
pollution, waste generation and management, and
Canada’s National Round Table on the Environ- land degradation. These gaps limit the ability to
ment and the Economy (NRTEE) and the EPA accurately assess the extent of problems associated
both noted two major data problems: the lack of with these issues (UNEP 2004a). At the North
comparable data across each country, limiting the American level, the issues for which the amount
ability to provide a national snapshot, and gaps and quality of data are lacking include coastal and
in spatial and time-series data (NRTEE 2003; marine ecosystems; grasslands and shrublands;
US EPA 2003). In theory, indicators and indices indoor air quality; numbers of species; invasive spe-
should be informed by a broad base of reliable pri- cies; wetlands; and urban areas.
mary data, as in the pyramid on the left in Figure
The comparability and compatibility of data
31; in reality, the information pyramid is upside
across nations is another important issue. As noted
down (Singh, Moldan, and Loveland 2002).
elsewhere, without data that refer to the same defi-
As noted in Chapter 3, there are few indicators nition, standards, and dates, aggregation to regional
for indoor air, toxic substances, land use, coastal and global levels is very difficult (UNEP 1999).
and marine ecosystems, grasslands and shrublands,
Both Canada and the United States are at-
and urban areas in both the North American and
tempting to address issues related to data acquisi-
international reports. The North American ini-
tion, compatibility, and timeliness within their
tiatives are weak in reporting on fish resources,
73
improve and expand data structures and informa- environmental indicator sets that inform decisions
tion systems required to report on national capital (US GAO 2004). The EPA and the Heinz Center
and to invest in improved monitoring and informa- in the United States are also collaborating in their
tion systems to overcome the paucity of good-qual- respective indicator initiatives. The three cross-bor-
ity, national-level information on environmental der ecosystem initiatives highlighted in Chapter 2
issues (NRTEE 2003). are examples of successful collaboration between
Frequently there is a lack of coordination Canada and the United States, with the participa-
among monitoring networks and between moni- tion of a wide range of stakeholders, including
toring and indicator initiatives. Chapter 1 noted many levels of government. At the binational level,
the need for both these systems to be embedded however, the two countries have not yet established
in an iterative policy cycle with long-term goals an ongoing collaborative effort to develop and use
and objectives. Ideally, indicator professionals and indicators to portray the conditions and trends of
scientists involved in monitoring, along with other their larger shared environment.
stakeholders, should collaborate in designing SOE
programmes and indicators. Summary of lessons learned
During deliberations about indicators for the • The PSR and DPSIR frameworks are sound
Gulf of Maine, participants agreed that an integrat- tools: they are used and understood interna-
ed monitoring network would enable the region to tionally; they are still being perfected and can
compare data on a regional basis and would allow be adapted to the needs of each user.
for future status and early warning assessments. A
• The better use of driver and response indi-
united approach would help to provide managers
cators enables the development of a more
and regulatory officials with a common message
complete DPSIR profile for each issue and
and would make it more likely that the message
stimulates an understanding of the linkages
will be heard (GMCME 2002).
among drivers, impacts, and responses.
• Intensity indicators, pressure-impact indica-
Collaboration tors such as material flows, pressure-response
During the preparation for its national environ- indicators, and natural capital accounting
mental indicators and reporting strategy, Envi- indicators are some of the ways to help show
ronment Canada noted the lack of collaboration linkages.
among the nation’s various indicator initiatives. • Biogeophysical indicators will continue to
There is “a patchwork quilt of indicators and form the core of SOE reporting initiatives;
models, with too little consistency, and too much scientifically sound benchmarks are still being
improved.
If all of these efforts are performed in isolation, • Human environmental health indicators are
the methods and data could differ enough that increasingly being developed.
1) the tracking of global and cross-jurisdictional
• Integrated environmental assessment makes
issues would not be possible and 2) lessons-
inter-linkages more explicit.
learned in one country for a given issue may
be difficult or impossible to apply in another • Performance indices and relative ranking of
(NIRO 2003b, 32). country performance can stimulate decision-
makers to address environmental issues.
• Indicators that measure progress in adhering
to goals and targets in international and bilat-
potential for either overlap and duplication of eral agreements use definitions and method-
effort or gaps that need to be addressed. In the ologies that have already been agreed upon.
end, the lack of linkages—the lack of knowledge • Methodologies agreed-upon internationally
sharing—may be seriously inhibiting the abil- for measuring environmental conditions al-
ity of environmental indicators and reporting low for comparability.
programmes to support sound policy-making for
sustainable development” (NIRO 2003a, 19). Since • Protocols or guidelines foster the use of
2002, Environment Canada and Statistics Canada comparable methodologies for multilateral
have been working hand-in-hand to develop their indicators.
respective indicator sets and to generate or stimu- • When available, satellite remote sensing
late the generation of needed data. By the same provides visually explicit indicators of land-
token, the US Government Accountability Office use change.
notes that better coordination is needed to develop • Developing indicators for emerging issues
early on in the monitoring stage can influence
Beaver Dam on Mcgregor Ranch, near Rocky Mountain National Park, USA. Gary Kramer/UNEP/NRCS
75
A humpback whale tail in the Gulf of Maine. Captain Albert E. Theberge/UNEP/NOAA
monitoring methods. Given that national govern- of indicators if need be (see Box 13).
ments are still grappling with how to create more 10. Decide on levels of aggregation and types of
comparability among sub-national levels of state- indices; identify headline or key indicators.
of-the-environment reporting and monitoring,
11. Prepare methodology sheets for each indicator
the approach to achieving this goal should remain
(see Box 29).
flexible and be based on gradual improvement over
time (CEC 2003). 12. Identify data sources (see Appendix 2).
13. Gather data to populate the indicators, begin-
The following proposed steps are adapted from
ning with existing data (see Table 6).
the generic steps outlined in Box 9:
14. Standardize measurement wherever possible;
1. Set out the vision and goals of the note incongruities, with a view to
indicator project. improving comparability.
2. Identify stakeholders from both countries rep- 15. Compare indicator values to targets, thresh-
resenting all levels of the management process olds, and policy goals as appropriate, begin-
(governments, monitoring programmes, sta- ning at the international and bilateral levels
tistics departments, and so forth—see Figure but using national-level targets in the absence
13). Hold a brain-storming session to identify of higher levels of agreement.
themes and issues related to the overarching
16. Identify data gaps, retaining unpopulated
vision and goals.
indicators and those that reveal incomparabil-
3. Prioritize the issues (see Box 10). ity between the two countries in the indicator
4. Develop sets of questions related to each issue set(s), to stimulate efforts to fill gaps.
to prompt the identification of indicators (see 17. Decide on a suite of products to communi-
examples in Box 11). cate the results.
5. Propose candidate indicators that respond to 18. Disseminate the results, focusing on
the questions posed. policy-makers.
6. Select an analytical framework that links goals 19. Conduct an assessment of the use of the
to indicators (see Chapter 1). products by decision-makers.
7. Develop a list of criteria for indicator selec- 20. Assess strengths and weakness of the
tion (see Box 12), complementing generic indicator set(s).
criteria with those related specifically to the
21. Continue to develop superior indicators.
project’s vision.
The information in this report should facilitate
8. Evaluate indicators according to the criteria.
many of the steps suggested above. The indicators
9. Narrow down the indicators to a limited and in Appendix 1: Table 2, extracted from the nation-
manageable set. Define complementary sets al-level Canadian and US reports surveyed, could
77
Table 6: Feasible bilateral environmental indicators for Canada and the United States
Issue Feasible bilateral indicators Potential sources
Economy GDP OECD 2002b
structure of GDP OECD 2002b
per capita GDP OECD 2001
Population total population OECD 2002b
FAOSTAT 2004
population growth and density OECD 2001; OECD
2002b; UNDP 2003;
FAOSTAT 2004
Consumption total and per cent by type, per capita private OECD 2002b
final consumption expenditure
total private final consumption expenditure, OECD 2001; OECD 2002b
and as per cent GDP
Energy energy supply per capita IEA 2003a; OECD 2001
energy supply per unit GDP IEA 2003a; OECD 2001
total primary energy supply EIA 2003a; OECD 2001
total primary energy supply by source EIA 2003a; OECD 2001
(per cent share of total)
total and per capita energy consumption OECD 2002b; IEA 2003a
energy consumption by source IEA 2003a; OECD 2002b
energy consumption/GDP IEA 2003a; OECD 2002b;
UN 2004
Transportation road traffic/unit GDP OECD 2001
road fuel prices and taxes by type OECD 2001; OECD 2002b
road network length OECD 2002; IRF 2004
road vehicle stocks OECD 2001; OECD 2002b
road traffic per network length OECD 2001
road traffic volumes OECD 2001; OECD 2002b
transport by mode OECD 2002b
consumption of road fuels OECD 2002b
consumption of alternative and replacement fuels Statistics Canada 2000b
for road motor vehicles
annual receipts from road user taxation IRF 2004
average price of fossil fuel to end-users Statistics Canada 2000b
new model year fuel efficiency for road Statistics Canada 2000b
motor vehicles
federal emission control requirements for Statistics Canada 2000b
passenger cars and light trucks
energy consumption by transport sector, and mode OECD 2001; OECD 2002b;
Statistics Canada 2000b
79
Issue Feasible bilateral indicators Potential sources
Land use map of North American land cover characteristics Loveland & others 2000;
Earth Observatory 2002
Freshwater water extraction by use OECD 2002b; FAO 2004a
water extraction by source OECD 2002b
water use as per cent of annual renewable water OECD 2001; FAO 2004a
water quality in selected rivers OECD 2001; OECD 2002b
total and per cent population with access to OECD 2001; WHO and
improved sanitation UNCF 2004
per cent population with access to improved OECD 2001; OECD 2002b
water treatment
Wetlands total area and number of wetlands of Ramsar 2004
international importance
total area of permanent wetlands Loveland & others 2000
number and distribution of marine protected areas GBRMPA, The World
Bank, and IUCN 1995
marine or littoral protected areas (total area, number) Loveland & others 2000
Fisheries living marine resources catch FAO 2004b
total fish catch FAOSTAT 2004;
OECD 2001
total fish harvests and per cent of world capture by OECD 2001
major marine fishing area and species
aquaculture production OECD 2002b;
fish consumption OECD 2002b
Forests forest harvests as per cent annual growth OECD 2001
current forest cover (geospatial) UNEP-WCMC 2004
average annual rate of change FAOSTAT 2004
forest area as per cent of total land area FAO 2001a; FAO 2001b
area burned in forest wildfires EC 2003c;
Heinz Center 2003
FSC-certified forests UNEP-WCMC/WWF 2004
forest plantation extent FAOSTAT 2004
per cent of forests protected UNEP-WCMC 2004
Agricultural land extent of cropland (per cent and total) OECD 2002b;
FAOSTAT 2004
apparent consumption of nitrogenous and OECD 2002b
phosphate fertilizers, and commercial fertilizers
fertilizer use/unit agricultural land area OECD 2001
pesticide use/unit agricultural land area OECD 2001
consumption of pesticides OECD 2002b
irrigated area OECD 2002b
selected livestock numbers OECD 2002b
selected livestock densities OECD 2001
N and P from livestock per area land OECD 2001
water abstractions per area of irrigated land OECD 2001
total energy consumption by agriculture OECD 2002b
soil surface N balance OECD 2001
81
UNEP/MorgueFile
Unfavourable trend
83
The Economy
GDP
Figure 32: Trend in GDP, 1990–2000
Economy up
This indicator shows the changes in volume of tion, waste disposal, and the extraction and decline
gross domestic product (GDP) between 1990 and in natural resources, as well as the value of ecosys-
2000 (Figure 32). Data are expressed as indices tem goods and services taken as “free”—are not ac-
(1995=100) calculated from the value of GDP at counted for in the calculations of GDP. In fact, in
constant prices. the short term, cleaning up pollution and extract-
Gross domestic product measures the output of ing resources contributes to economic growth. On
goods and services but ignores the environmental the other hand, a strong economy is also one that
costs of economic activity. Thus, a positive inter- can finance environmentally-friendly technologies.
pretation of this upward trend is a false assumption Efforts are under way to develop an indicator that
because externalities—costs associated with pollu- gauges progress in a more balanced way.
Structure of GDP
Figure 33: Trends in the structure of GDP: agriculture, industry, services, 1990–2000
Value of agriculture down
Note: Data for agriculture include hunting, forestry, and fishing. Industry data include energy and construction.
Data on services exclude financial intermediation services indirectly measured. Source: Compiled by author from OECD 2002b, 10.
These indicators show the structure of GDP for use of energy, agricultural and industrial activities
three sectors of the economy, and changes since as presently practiced also damage the environment
1990 (Figure 33). Data represent the value added in other ways, including through air, soil, and water
by each economic sector as its contribution to pollution. The ‘happy’ face next to the downward
GDP. They are expressed as a percentage of gross trend in the value of agriculture is not meant to
value added. imply that agriculture is a ‘negative’ activity: a
The shift away from an economy based on graph showing a growing trend towards the value
industry and agriculture to one in which the of sustainable agriculture in the structure of GDP
service sector plays a greater role has implications would be deemed a positive trend since it would
for energy consumption since the service sector indicate increased support for practices that build
is less energy-intensive. This has contributed to a soils, reduce the use of agrochemicals, preserve rural
decline in North America’s share of world energy landscapes, and improve livelihoods in the sustain-
consumption (EIA 1999). In addition to its heavy able/organic farming sector.
Private consumption
Figure 34: Trend in private final consumption expenditure, 1990–2000
Private consumption up
This indicator shows the changes in volume of pri- tions that serve them in Canada and the United
vate final consumption expenditure between 1990 States. Increased consumption in North America
and 2000 (Figure 34). Data are expressed as indices mirrors increases in GDP; both are associated with
(1995=100) calculated from the value of private greater use of materials and energy, the production
final consumption expenditure at constant prices. of waste, and emissions of pollutants into
The indicator shows the trend in consumption the environment.
by households and the private nonprofit organiza-
85
Comparative indicator
Figure 35: Private final consumption expenditure, 1999
Canada and the United States are
among top 5 countries with high-
est personal consumption
This indicator shows the per capita consumption Cultures that promote consumption contribute to
by households and the private nonprofit organi- greater environmental pressures by helping to in-
zations that serve them for each of the member crease the demand for and use of energy resources,
countries of the OECD in 1999, in thousands of including: fuel for private cars; water; manufac-
US dollars (Figure 35). tured goods; and packaging. It also implies increas-
This comparative indicator reveals that private es in greenhouse gas emissions and the production
consumption in Canada and the United States is of waste.
higher than in almost all other developed countries.
Energy use
Primary energy consumption
Figure 36: Trend in primary energy consumption, 1993–2002
Energy consumption up
This indicator shows the intensity of energy use in importance to the economy. Canada and the
(Figure 37). This means the total amount of energy United States are among the most energy-intensive
consumed per dollar of gross domestic product. To- countries in the industrialized world, however. In
tal primary energy domestic supply (sometimes re- 2002, Canada’s energy intensity (per GDP) was
ferred to as energy use) is calculated by the Interna- 16,452 Btu per $1995 in purchasing power parity
tional Energy Agency (IEA) as: production of fuels (PPP), well above that of the United States, which
plus inputs from other sources plus imports minus was 11,047 Btu/$1995. In 1999, Canada was
exports minus international marine bunkers plus 33 per cent less energy efficient than the United
stock changes. “Purchasing power parities” (PPP) States (Boyd 2001). Although declining somewhat,
refers to the number of currency units required to Canada’s energy intensity remains high due to its
buy goods equivalent to what can be bought with energy-intensive industries (EIA 2004b) and to
one US dollar (UN 2004). increased population and economic growth (Boyd
North America’s energy/GDP ratio has con- 2001). One reason for the slow decline in the
tinued a slow decline that began in 1970. This Untied States is that newer homes are about 18 per
reflects a shift to less resource-intensive patterns cent larger than the existing housing stock and so
of production and a dematerialization of GDP as require more energy for heating, cooling, and light-
the service and information-based sectors increase ing (EIA 2003).
87
Transportation
Energy consumption by transportation
Figure 38: Trends in energy consumption by transportation sector: air, road, rail, and total, 1970–2000
Energy consumption by air
transport up
Motor vehicles
Comparative indicator
Figure 39: Motor vehicles per capita, 1998
Canada and the United States
among top nations with most
passenger vehicles per person
This comparative indicator shows the number of environmental impacts of motor vehicles and the
vehicles (passenger cars, goods vehicles, buses and infrastructure that serves them include the expro-
coaches) per 100 inhabitants in OECD countries priation of land for roads and highways, the use
(Figure 39). of materials and energy, polluting emissions, and
The United States and Canada are among the greenhouse gases. The implications for human
top nine OECD countries in passenger vehicle health and quality of life include risks of respiratory
ownership per person. In the United States, there illness from air pollution, deaths and injury from
are three vehicles for every four people, compared accidents, and the detrimental effect of noise and
to Western Europe and Japan, where there is typi- traffic congestion.
cally one for every two people (Brown 2001). The
89
Population
Total population
Figure 40: Trend in total population, 1990–2000
Total population up
This indicator shows the trend in total population populous countries in the world (after China and
from 1990 to 2000 (Figure 40). India) and is expected to still be among the top
The total population of North America in 2000 three in 2050. When combined with a pattern of
was 315.8 million (FAOSTAT 2004). It is presently high consumption and energy use, large popula-
growing at less than one per cent annually (PRB tions are a potent driver of environmental change.
2004). The United States is one of the three most
Population density
Figure 41: Trend in population density, 1990–2000
Population density up slightly
This indicator shows average population density in per cent living in urban areas (Statistics Canada
North America, measured by the number of inhab- 2001a). Densely populated areas are usually as-
itants per square kilometer (Figure 41). sociated with high pressures on the environment,
Average population density is increasing slightly including demands for water, energy, materials, as
in North America. About 79 per cent of North well as waste disposal and the use of land—often
Americans live in relatively densely populated productive agricultural land—for urban infrastruc-
urban areas (Statistics Canada 2001a; US Census ture. On the other hand, when planned for sustain-
Bureau 2002). Changes in population densities are ability, dense settlement patterns have the potential
often used as a surrogate for urbanization (Brown to reduce environmental pressures compared to the
and others 2004). Because the density indicator is impact of sprawling suburbs. “Smart” growth of
an average measure of the number of inhabitants urban areas reduces environmental impact through
per square kilometer, it appears to show that Ca- clustering a mixture of residential, office, retail,
nadians are sparsely spread out across the country. and outdoor recreational uses together, thereby
This is due to Canada’s relatively small population shrinking travel distances and encouraging walking,
and its large land mass. In fact, most Canadians cycling and public transit that reduces the use of
live in the southern part of the country, with 79.7 fossil fuels.
This comparative indicator shows the popula- densely populated nations, such as the Netherlands,
tion density (inhabitants per square kilometer) of Belgium, the United Kingdom, and Germany, are
OECD countries in 1999 (Figure 42). generally much “smarter” in terms of energy ex-
Canada and the United States are among the penditure on transportation and the environmental
least densely populated countries in the OECD. impacts of water use and waste disposal associated
The settlement patterns of several much more with urban areas.
91
Urban Areas
Urban growth
Figure 43: Trend (and projection) in total urban population, 1950–2030
Population in urban areas will
continue to increase
This indicator shows the historical trend in the million people per year (USDA n.d.). If accompa-
number of people living in urban areas from 1950, nied by urban planning that avoids the pitfalls of
projecting the trend from 2000 until 2030 (Figure suburban sprawl and focuses on “smart” growth
43). The urban/rural population is obtained by and the sustainable use of energy and resources, this
systematically applying the proportion of urban trend could have positive impacts on the environ-
population ratio to the total population. The urban ment. However, the past decade has seen a decrease
population estimates are based on the varying na- in household size and a trend toward population
tional definitions of urban areas. growth in suburbs and smaller towns and centres
The indicator reflects total population growth outside large cities (Brown and others 2004). One
in urban areas, showing that the number of people of the impacts of such growth is the conversion of
living in cities and towns in North America will rural land. In 2000, rural areas in the United States
continue to grow. In 2000, more than 80 per cent were being lost to urban uses at a rate faster than
of the US population lived in urban areas and the about 12 million km2 (3 million acres) per year
urban population was growing by more than 2 (USDA n.d.).
Climate Change
CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions
Comparative indicator
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
This indicator shows the top 25 greenhouse carbon dioxide. The per capita yearly rate in the
gas–emitting countries in the world, in absolute United States was 20.6 (UN 2004). In the United
terms (Figure 45). Emissions include CO2 from States, emissions per person increased about 3.4
fossil fuels and cement, and non-CO2 gasses. per cent between 1990 and 1997 (US EPA 2000b).
Per capita greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in With greater hydroelectricity and nuclear genera-
North America have been consistently high and tion (that do not emit GHGs), Canada’s per capita
well above those for any other region (Marland and emissions are slightly lower than those of the
others 2003). In 2000, Canadians each produced United States.
an average of 18.7 thousand metric tonnes of
93
Carbon intensity
Comparative indicator
Figure 46: CO2 emissions per unit GDP, 1998
CO2 Emission intensities per unit of GDP, 1998 Canada and the
United States are
Switzerland
among the 7 nations
France with the highest
Norway carbon intensities
Sweden
Iceland
Austria
Italy
Spain
Japan
Portugal
Luxembourg
Denmark
Turkey
UKD
Ireland
New Zealand
Netherlands
Germany
Mexico
OECD
Belgium
Finland
Hungary
USA
Greece
Korea
Canada
Australia
Czech Rep.
Poland
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
tonnes/1000 USD
This comparative intensity indicator shows per among the world’s highest carbon and energy
capita CO2 emissions (gross direct emissions) from intensities. Increased consumption of fossil fuels
energy use (fossil fuel combustion) among the for electricity generation, increased energy con-
OECD countries in 1998 (Figure 46), measured in sumption in the transportation sector, and growth
tonnes of CO2 relative to GDP (1 000 US dollars). in fossil fuel production (largely for export) have
GDP data refer to 1991 prices and purchasing influenced Canada’s high carbon intensity relative
power parities (PPPs). Since national inventories to other nations. The high reliance on carbon-
do not provide a complete and consistent picture intensive coal for energy generation contributes
of all greenhouse gas emissions, energy-related CO2 to the high carbon-intensity rating of the United
emissions represent overall trends in direct GHG States (EIA 2003).
emissions (OECD 2001).
Carbon intensity and energy intensity are
closely related. Canada and the United States have
150000
Canada
100000 US
50000
0
90
92
94
96
98
00
19
19
19
19
19
20
-50000
Source: Compiled by author from UN 2004.
This indicator shows the trend between 1990 As a result of the Montreal Protocol, Canada
and 2000 in consumption of chlorofluorocarbons and the United States rapidly decreased their con-
(CFCs), the synthetic compounds formerly used as sumption of CFCs and reached targets earlier than
refrigerants and aerosol propellants that are known called for. As of 1996, there has been no produc-
to harm the ozone layer of the atmosphere (Figure tion or consumption of these substances except
47). Consumption is defined as: production plus for certain essential uses, although there are still
imports minus exports of controlled substances releases to the atmosphere from previous produc-
(UN 2004). Basic data are weighted with the tion or consumption (OECD 2001).
ozone-depleting potentials (ODP) of the individual
substances (OECD 2001).
This indicator shows apparent consumption (used agreements and the molecules will remain
as a proxy for actual emissions) of hydrochloroflo- in the stratosphere for a long time after that
rocarbons (HCFCs) and methyl bromide (Fig- (OECD 2001).
ure 48). Dotted lines refer to data not available. Under the Montreal Protocol, Canada and the
The year 1989, representing 100, is the index for United States agreed to reduce methyl bromide by
HCFCs and 1991 is the methyl bromide index. 25 per cent by 1999 (compared to 1991 levels), 50
This indicator shows that North America, like per cent by 2001, 70 per cent by 2003 and 100 per
other industrialized countries, continues to use cent by 1 January 2005. In March 2004, the two
HCFCs. Although they have only 2 to 5 per cent of countries were among 11 nations to receive criti-
the ozone-depleting potential of CFCs, concentra- cal-use exemptions that will allow this substance to
tions of HCFCs are still increasing in the atmo- continue to be used in small quantities until 2005
sphere. It will take another 20 years before use of (UNEP 2004b).
HCFCs is phased out under current international
95
Total column ozone
Figure 49: Trend in total column ozone over selected cities, 1979–1999
Ozone column thickness over
Canada and the United States
down slightly
These indicators show trends in the thickness of mid-latitudes (35°N–60°N) were three per cent
total column ozone over selected cities in Canada below the pre-1980 values (NOAA 2002). Thin-
and the United States, in Dobson units (Figure ning of the ozone layer allows increased amounts
49). Total column ozone refers to tropospheric of ultraviolet radiation to reach the earth. This
plus stratospheric ozone. Dobson units are used to contributes to the increase in the incidence of skin
estimate the ozone layer’s thickness. One hundred cancers in North America. It may also cause stress
Dobson units represent a thickness of 1 mm of on some marine phytoplankton and affect pro-
ozone at 0 degrees Celsius at sea-level pressure. ductivity. Although the ozone layer is recovering,
Data are annual averages of daily values (OECD its full restoration will take decades because of the
2001). continued use of ozone-depleting products pro-
Between 1997 and 2001, the average amounts duced prior to the Montreal Protocol ban (US EPA
of total column ozone in the Northern Hemisphere 2003) and due to recent exemptions.
Air Quality
SOx emissions
Figure 50: Trend in total emissions of SOx, 1990–1999
NOx emissions
Figure 51: Trend in total emissions of NOx, 1990–2000
This indicator shows the amount of nitrogen oxides human activity (EC 2002a). Gains made through
(given as quantities of nitrogen dioxide) emitted pollution regulations and progress in technical pol-
between 1990 and 1999 as a result of human activ- lution controls in North America have been offset
ity (Figure 51). by the steady growth in road traffic and other uses
Emissions of NOx have not declined as much of fossil fuel that generate NOx (OECD 2001).
as those of SOx during this ten-year period. Fossil Compared to most OECD countries, emissions of
fuel combustion by motor vehicles, residential and traditional air pollutants in North America remain
commercial furnaces, industrial and electric utility generally high (OECD 2004b). NOx contributes to
boilers and engines, and other equipment are the acid rain and to the formation of smog.
principal sources of NOx emissions that result from
Increasing traffic, as well as the associated air pollution and fuel consumption, are
becoming major problems for communities. Warren Gretz/UNEP/NREL
97
Toxic Substances
Releases and transfers
This indicator shows the trend in the on- and to 2001. Total releases decreased by 16 per cent,
off-site release and transfer of toxic substances in on-site releases decreased by 19 per cent, other
Canada and the United States (Figure 52). Data transfers for further management decreased by 8
include 155 chemicals common to the pollutant per cent, and transfers to recycling decreased by 2
release inventories of each country (NPRI and TRI) per cent. However, off-site releases increased by 3
from selected industrial and other sources. They per cent. Compared with a decrease in total releases
represent data that have been consistently reported of 16 per cent for all matched chemicals from 1998
over the 1998–2001 period and include chemicals, to 2001, releases of carcinogens decreased by 20 per
as well as manufacturing facilities, electric utilities, cent and chemicals known to cause cancer, repro-
hazardous waste management facilities, chemical ductive or development harm (California Proposi-
wholesalers, and coal mines. tion 65 chemicals) decreased by 26 per cent” (CEC
“Total releases and transfers of chemicals in 2004a, xxv).
North America decreased by 10 per cent from 1998
This indicator shows the amount of household and America generally mirrors private final consump-
municipal waste generated per capita in the OECD tion expenditure and GDP. The disposal of mu-
countries in the late 1990s (Figure 53). nicipal waste has various environmental impacts,
Canada and the United States are among the including toxic air emissions from incinerators,
top ten per capita producers of household and mu- methane emissions from landfills, and the contami-
nicipal waste in the OECD, with the United States nation of soils and water from leaking landfills.
topping the list. The generation of waste in North
Nuclear waste
Figure 54: Trend in nuclear waste: spent fuel arisings, 1990–2000
Radioactive waste generation
steady
This indicator presents annual spent fuel arisings in power but the lack of growth in the number of nu-
nuclear power plants (Figure 54). Spent fuel aris- clear power plants in North America. Nuclear waste
ings are one part of the radioactive waste generated is a serious threat to human health and the environ-
at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle (uranium ment and, despite efforts to increase the efficient
mining and milling, fuel enrichment, reactor opera- use of nuclear fuel and to optimize storage capacity,
tion, spent fuel reprocessing) (OECD 2002b). there are concerns about the region’s capacity to
The steady generation of radioactive waste over store spent fuel (Fukuda and others, n.d.).
the past decade reflects the continued use of nuclear
99
Freshwater
Use of water
Comparative indicator
Figure 55: Per capita freshwater abstractions, late 1990s
Canada and the United States are
the highest per capita users of
water in the world
This indicator shows the yearly amount of water lowed by irrigation in the United States, with 34
used per capita in each of the OECD countries per cent, and the manufacturing sector in Canada,
(Figure 55). Use is measured as abstractions, or to- which accounts for about 14 per cent of total ab-
tal water withdrawal without deducting water that stractions. In Canada, agriculture accounts for only
is reintroduced into the natural environment after 9 per cent of abstractions (Hutson and others 2004;
use (OECD 2001). OECD 2004a). The pressures accounting for high
The United States and Canada respectively are water use in both countries include infrastructure
the two highest users of water on a per capita basis development and maintenance; water-use conflicts;
in the world. In fact, per capita water abstraction is drought in the prairies; urban sprawl; and climate
two or three times greater than that of most OECD change (Gaudet 2004) as well as unrealistic water
countries. In both countries, the electric power pricing. High water-use, especially for irrigation in
sector accounts for most water use (about 64 and drought-prone regions, is causing the unsustain-
48 per cent of the total water abstraction in Canada able use of fossil water from aquifers while dams
and the United States respectively). Canada’s high and water diversions to supply users have disrupted
per capita use is accounted for to some degree by ecological processes and wildlife habitat.
this reliance on hydroelectric power. This is fol-
Wastewater treatment
Figure 56: Trend in wastewater treatment connection rates, 1980–1997
North
America
This indicator shows the percentage of the popu- into the environment, however. Newer statistics
lation connected to public wastewater treatment show that by 1999, 73 per cent of Canadians were
plants in the late 1990s, according to the type of served by municipal sewer systems, although about
treatment—primary (physical and mechanical pro- 3 per cent of Canadians were serviced by sewage
cesses), secondary (biological treatment technolo- collection systems that discharged untreated sewage
gies), and tertiary (advanced chemical treatment directly into lakes, rivers, or oceans (EC 2002b)
technologies)—and the total (Figure 56). and only 33 per cent of the population was served
The indicator shows the steady rise in the per- by tertiary treatment (Boyd 2001). Numerous
centage of the population served by sewage treat- coastal areas and inland beaches in both Canada
ment. In 1996, wastewater treatment facilities and the United States are frequently closed to recre-
provided for 73 per cent of the total US popula- ational uses, fishing, and shellfish harvesting due to
tion. The indicator shows that at the same time, the pollution from such discharges or from storm
there was a steady increase in the proportion of fa- water runoff that contains contaminants from inad-
cilities providing secondary and tertiary treatment. equate sewage treatment.
Untreated sewage and wastewater is still released
Fisheries
Fish harvests
Figure 57: Trend in total fishery production, all areas, 1990–2000
This indicator shows the tonnes of fish (species cline in salmon stocks began in 1995 on the West
of fish in the nine divisions of the FAO Interna- Coast (Statistics Canada 2001b). Although US
tional Standard Statistical Classification of Aquatic federal management of fisheries was strengthened
Animals and Plants) produced in all fishing areas of in 1999 and overfishing of some stocks has been
Canada and the United States from 1990 to 2000 eliminated, of a total of 909 stocks reviewed in
(Figure 57). 2003, 76 were deemed to be overfished and 60 fish
There has been a downward trend in the vol- stocks thought to be fished at too high a rate, while
ume of fish harvested from North American waters the status of nearly 75 per cent of fish stocks man-
since 1990. Since they collapsed in the early 1990s, aged by the federal government remained unknown
cod stocks in the cold waters off the Canadian (NMFS 2004). Both the United States and Canada
Atlantic coast have not rebounded. There was a 78 recently adopted tougher fishing controls and are
per cent drop in Atlantic catches of groundfish in reducing the size of their fishing fleets (UNDP and
Canada between 1990 and 2002 and a marked de- others 1998).
101
Forests
Forest area
Figure 58: Trend in total forest area as per cent of land area, 1990 and 2000
Forested area up slightly
This indicator shows the per cent of total land area Canada’s wooded area is assumed to have remained
under forests in 1990 and 2000 (Figure 58). For- fairly constant over the decade, at 417.6 million
est includes natural forests and forest plantations. hectares (1 032 million acres), of which over 70
It refers to land with a tree canopy cover of more per cent has never been harvested (OECD 2004a).
than 10 per cent and area of more than 0.5 hectares North America is about 25.6 per cent forested,
(UN 2004). slightly below the global average of 30 per cent
The area of forested land in North America is (FAO 2001b). The indicator does not reveal any
growing. There were substantial increases in forest information about the quality of the forests in
areas in the United States during the decade, but terms of fragmentation, age of stands, insect and
these were partly offset by declining areas of other fire damage, and air pollution impacts, among
wooded land. The total area grew by about 3.9 other indicators of forest health.
million hectares (9.6 million acres) (FAO 2003).
This indicator shows the number of hectares certi- tionally recognized FSC Principles and Criteria of
fied as sustainable by accredited Forest Steward- Forest Stewardship. Some of the criteria include the
ship Council (FSC) bodies, from 1996 to 2001 assurance that areas of natural wealth and endan-
(Figure 59). FSC-endorsed certification of a forest gered wildlife habitat are not being negatively
site signifies that an independent evaluation by affected and that forest management does not put
one of several FSC-accredited certification bodies the forest’s natural heritage at risk (FSC 2004;
has shown that its management meets the interna- UNEP-WCMC 2004).
Comparative indicator
Figure 60: Top ten countries with certified forests
This comparative indicator ranks the top ten coun- by the Forest Stewardship Council. The FSC is one
tries in the world in 2004 by the area (in millions of three dominant North American forest certifica-
of hectares) of land certified by the Forest Steward- tion programmes. The other two are the Canadian
ship Council (FSC) (Figure 60). Standards Association (CSA) and the Sustainable
Canada and the United States are among the Forestry Initiative (SFI) (IISD 2004b).
top four countries in the world with land certified
Aspens in fall color in Uncompahgre National Forest, USA. Gene Alexander/UNEP/NRCS
103
Agricultural Lands
Area of cropland
Figure 61: Trend in arable and permanent-crop land, 1990–2000
Area in cropland down slightly
Arable and permanent-crop land is the sum of the manent-crop land (OECD 2004a). The decline in
areas of arable land and land under permanent total area devoted to cropland in the United States
crops. “Arable land” refers to all land that can be is the result of a number of processes, including the
cultivated to plant seed, including meadows and conversion of agricultural land to other uses (espe-
land that is left fallow (at rest, without a crop) in cially urbanization), abandonment of poor-quality
the cycle of crop rotation. Permanent crops are land, increases in productivity in the agriculture
those that occupy land continuously for many sector, and intensification of agriculture on land
years, rather than are completely replanted annu- still cultivated. The decline varies by region, with
ally. They would include, for example, orchard the cornbelt and parts of the west showing stable
and other trees; vines; shrubs and perennials cropland area while regions east of the Mississippi
grown for flowers, leaves, seed, fruit; and nurs- River experienced declines. Where the dominant
ery stock (with the exception of trees grown for factor is exurban growth and the abandonment of
reforesting)(OECD 2002b). agricultural lands (especially in the Eastern United
There has been a slow decline in the amount States), environmental impacts such as changes in
of land under rotational and permanent crops in the functioning of ecological systems and concerns
North America since 1990 (Figure 61), continu- about the potential for restoration are most signifi-
ing a trend since the 1950s. In the United States, cant, especially given the large areas affected. The
cropland area decreased 11 per cent between 1950 ecological state of cropland varies depending on the
and 2000, from 35 per cent of the land area to 31 intensity of irrigation and the use of fertilizers, pes-
per cent (Brown and others 2004). In Canada, only ticides, and herbicides (Brown and others 2004).
4.5 per cent of the total land area is arable and per-
Area of grassland
Figure 62: Trend in permanent grassland, 1990–2000
Canada
United States
Total
North America
Irrigated area
Figure 63: Trend in irrigated area, 1990–2000
Area under irrigation up
This indicator shows the trend in the amount of use of water in the United States, represents about
land under irrigation between 1990 and 2000 80 per cent of the nation’s water consumption and
(Figure 63). The data on irrigation relate to areas as much as 90 per cent of freshwater consumption
purposely provided with water, including land in the Western States (Heimlich 2003). Much of
flooded by river water for crop production or pas- this water irrigates crops in dry regions. Irrigation
ture improvement (controlled flooding), whether from groundwater sources exerts a major pressure
this area is irrigated several times or only once dur- on available water resources (OECD 2002b). For
ing the year (OECD 2002b). example, irrigated agriculture is the dominant land
The amount of land under irrigation in North use overlying the High Plains aquifer, which yields
America has risen steadily since 1990. The United about 30 per cent of the water used for irrigation in
States, with 224 000 km2 (55 351 605 acres) of the United States. From 1980 to 1997, the average
irrigated land in 2002, has significantly more land area-weighted water level in the High Plains aquifer
under irrigation than does Canada, with only declined 0.8m (2.7 ft) (USGS 2003).
7 200 km2 (1 779 159 acres). Irrigation, the largest
105
Fertilizer use
Figure 64: Trend in apparent consumption of nitrogenous fertilizers, 1990–2000
The indicator shows the trend in apparent con- decrease in fertilizer use despite increased yields in
sumption of nitrogenous fertilizer in North corn and other crops (Korol and Larivière 1998).
America between 1990 and 2000 in thousands of In the United States, increases in the area planted
tonnes (Figure 64). The data in this indicator refer account for the growth in use of commercial fertil-
to the nitrogen (N) content of commercial inor- izer, which rose to over 22 million tonnes during
ganic fertilizers. 1996–98. In 1998, 12.3 million tonnes of nitrog-
The use of nitrogenous fertilizer in North enous fertilizer was used, representing 55.4 per cent
America continues to increase. The major source is of total commercial fertilizer use. The increase was
commercial fertilizer, followed by animal manure. generally due to greater corn productivity that led
In the United States, consumption of all nitrogen to more demand by farmers (Daberkow, Taylor,
products increased over 17 per cent between the and Wen-yuan Huang 2000).
1991–92 and 1996–97 period. In Canada, nitrogen Dietary preference, especially the consumption
demand grew by 33 per cent in the same period of meat, is a significant driver of nitrogen use in ag-
(Korol and Larivière 1998). Given the much riculture. The concentration of industrial livestock
smaller agricultural base, Canada’s fertilizer con- farming has led to the concentration of manure.
sumption is not nearly as high in absolute terms as When manure application exceeds the uptake
that of the United States. Of all OECD countries, by crops, excess nitrogen enters the environment
however, Canada’s increase in the use of nitrogen (CGER 2000; Howarth and others 2002). The
fertilizer has been the largest (OECD 2004a). impacts include air- and water-quality impairment,
Increases vary across the country. More land in and especially the eutrophication of aquatic and
agriculture and more intensive use of the land in estuarine systems. Excess nutrients from fertilizer
western Canada led to an increase of nearly 50 runoff transported by the Mississippi River are
per cent since 1990, while in central Canada, a thought to be the primary cause of a large “dead
shift in crops and better management resulted in a zone” in the Gulf of Mexico (Larson 2004).
A manure slurry is applied to this field to help manage the animal waste and to add
nutrients to the soil. Tim McCabe/UNEP/NRCS
This indicator shows the average nitrogen bal- Canada and the United States have relatively
ances in OECD countries between 1995 and 1997 low nitrogen surpluses compared to other OECD
(Figure 65). The nitrogen balance is the annual nations. The impacts on the Canadian environ-
total quantity of inputs, mainly from livestock and ment are felt regionally rather than at the national
chemical fertilizers, measured in kilogrammes per level (OECD 2004a). In the United States, nitro-
hectare of agricultural land. It provides information gen balances also vary regionally and from year to
about the match between nutrient inputs and nu- year, depending on the crop, the level of yields, and
trient outputs and the potential loss of nitrogen to nutrient uptake (Daberkow, Taylor, and Wen-yuan
the soil, the air, and to surface or groundwater. The Huang 2000).
data exclude nitrogen loss to the atmosphere from
livestock housing and stored manure (Daberkow,
Taylor, and Wen-yuan Huang 2000; OEDC 2001).
Biodiversity
Protected areas
Figure 66: Trend in protected areas, 1994–2003
Protected areas up
107
This indicator shows the trend in the area (square average was 10.8. In Canada, 6.3
kilometers) of land and water set aside to protect per cent of the land was protected under IUCN
and maintain biological diversity and natural and categories I–VI (excluding marine and littoral ar-
associated cultural resources (Figure 66). Protected eas) in 2003 (WRI 2004). Canada has about 20 per
areas are managed through legal or other effective cent of the world’s remaining natural areas (OECD
means. The definition includes IUCN categories 2004a); some two-thirds of the land occupied by
I–VI: areas under strict protection, national parks Canada’s terrestrial ecoregions has some form of
and monuments, areas conserved through active protection, but the other third has virtually none
management, and protected landscapes and sea- (NRCan 2004). Over the past decade, however,
scapes (UN 2004). there was a 40 per cent increase in the area protect-
The area set aside for protection in North ed (OECD 2004a). Canada’s target is to protect 12
America has increased over the last decade, from 2 per cent of its land. In the United States in 2003,
million to 2.6 million km2 (494 million to 642.4 15.8 per cent was protected under IUCN categories
million acres). While such areas in North America I–VI. Although there has been a general increase in
and elsewhere may be categorized as protected, they the area protected in the United States over the past
vary in level of effective management. In 2003, 10 years, only three new parks have been created
some 10.9 per cent of the land area in the region since 2000.
was under some form of protection. The world
National Responses
Official development assistance
This indicator presents the trend in official devel- large ecological footprint means that its activi-
opment assistance (ODA) related to gross national ties have important impacts on regions beyond its
income (Figure 67). Data refer to loans (except shores, and since its own environmental quality de-
military loans), grants, and technical coopera- pends on the health of global ecosystem goods and
tion by the public sector to developing countries services. The indicator shows that Canada reduced
(OECD 2002b). the percentage of its gross national income devoted
This is an important response indicator, since a to ODA from 0.44 per cent in 1990 to 0.25
large part of ODA goes towards conserving natural per cent in 2000 and the United States reduced
resources, protecting the environment, and funding it from 0.21 per cent to 0.01 per cent during this
population programmes in developing countries. time. These amounts fall far short of the UN target,
It is appropriate that North America provide such agreed to by the international community in 1970,
aid to less developed regions since North America’s of 0.7 per cent (ICPD 1994).
109
IEA International Energy Agency
IUCN World Conservation Union (International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources)
K Potassium
km kilometre
l litre
lbs pounds
m3 cubic metre
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MEME multiple exposures–multiple effects
mg milligram
MSW municipal solid waste
N2 nitrogen
NAAEC North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
NAAQO National Ambient Air Quality Objectives (Canada)
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards (US)
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NATS North American Transportation Statistics Interchange
NEON National Ecological Observatory Network (US)
NGO Non-governmental organization
NIRO National Indicators and Reporting Office (Canada)
NOx nitrogen oxides
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NO3 nitrate
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
NPL Superfund National Priorities List (US)
NPRI National Pollutant Release Inventory (Canada)
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NRTEE National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (Canada)
O3 ozone
ODA official development assistance
ODP ozone-depleting potential
ODS ozone depleting substances
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
P phosphorous
Pb lead
PBTs persistent bioaccumulative toxics
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCSD President’s Council on Sustainable Development (US)
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 101micrometer
PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.51micrometer
(fine particulate)
POPs persistent organic pollutants
ppb parts per billion
PPP purchasing power parities
PRTR Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
111
References Brown, Lester R., Christopher Flavin, and Sandra Postel. 1991.
Saving the planet: How to shape an environmentally sustain-
AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme). 2003. able global economy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
AMAP assessment 2002: human health in the Arctic. Oslo, Brunvoll, F. 1997. Indicators of the state of the environment in
Norway: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme the nordic countries: Experiences from the production of the
http://www.amap.no/, on 31 May 2004. first nordic environmental indicator report (working paper no.
———. 2004. AMAP assessment 2002: Persistent organic pollut- 2). UN/ECE, Statistical Division, Environment Statistics
ants (POPs) in the Arctic. Oslo, Norway: Arctic Monitoring http://www.unece.org/stats/documents/1997/09/env_
and Assessment Programme http://www.amap.no/, on 31 meth/2.e.pdf, on 8 April 2004.
May 2004. CCFM (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers). 2000. Criteria
ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment and and indicators of sustainable forest management in Canada:
Conservation Council). 2000. Core environmental indicators National status, 2000. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Coun-
for reporting on the state of the environment. Canberra: Aus- cil of Forest Ministers, Canadian Forest Service, Natural
tralian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Resources Canada http://www.ccfm.org/ci/2000_e.html, on
Council, State-of-the-environment reporting Task Force 10 June 2004.
http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/publications/pubs/coreindica- CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment).
tors.pdf, on 12 May 2004. 2003. Climate, nature, people: Indicators of Canada’s changing
Bachand, Richard R. 2001. The American prairie: Going, go- climate. Winnipeg, Manitoba http://www.ccme.ca/assets/
ing, gone? A status report on the American prairie. National pdf/cc_ind_full_doc_e.pdf, on 25 April 2005.
Wildlife Federation http://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/ CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North
binaryVault/americanprairie.pdf?CFID=5106498&CF America). 1997. Ecological Regions of North America: Toward
TOKEN=87980161f4d0ae22-90F9082E-65BF-09FE- a Common Perspective. Montreal: Commission for Envi-
B5FBB07D7A4C0EA7, on 24 April 2005. ronmental Cooperation of North America http://www.
Baumert, Kevin, and Jonathan Pershing. 2004. Climate data: cec.org/files/pdf/BIODIVERSITY/eco-eng_EN.pdf on 25
Insights and observations. Pew Center on Global Climate April 2005.
Change http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate% ———. 2001. The North American mosaic: A state of the envi-
20Data%20new%2Epdf, on10 January 2005. ronment report. Montreal: Commission for Environmental
Berger, A.R, and R.A. Hodge. 1998. Natural change in the Cooperation of North America.
environment: A challenge to the pressure-state-response ———. 2003. Feasibility study for the development of indicators
concept. Social Indicators Research 44:255–65 http://www2. of children’s health and the environment in North America.
nature.nps.gov/geology/monitoring//ib4/pressure_state_re- Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation of
sponse.pdf, on 7 July 2004. North America http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POLLUT-
Bertram, Paul, and Nancy Stadler-Salt. 2000. Selection of indi- ANTS/CHE-Feasibility-Study-EN.pdf, on 9 June 2004.
cators for Great Lakes basin ecosystem health: Version 4. State ———. 2004a. Taking Stock 2001: Executive Summary.
of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) http://bina- Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation
tional.net/solec/doc/Selection%20of%20Indicators%20v4/ of North America http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POL-
English/Selection%20Indicators%20Whole%20doc%20acc LUTANTS/TS2001-Executive-Summary_en.pdf, on 14
ess.pdf, on 17 August 2004. September 2004.
Bossel, Hartmut. 1999. Indicators for sustainable development: ———. 2004b. North American air quality and climate change
Theory, method, applications. A report to the Balaton Group. standards, regulations, planning and enforcement at the
Winnipeg, Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable national, state/provincial and local levels. Montreal: Commis-
Development http://www.iisd.org/publications/publication. sion for Environmental Cooperation of North America.
asp?pno=275, on 7 April 2004.
———. 2006. Children’s Health and the Environment in North
Boyd, David R. 2001. Canada vs. The OECD: An environmen- America: A First Report on Available Indicators and Measures.
tal comparison. University of Victoria: Eco-Research Chair of Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation of
Environmental Law and Policy http://www.environmental- North America.
indicators.com/htdocs/PDF/Pgs1-10.pdf, on 23 May 2004.
CESCC (Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Coun-
Briggs, David. 1999. Environmental health indicators: Frame- cil). 2000. Wild species 2000: The general status of species
work and methodologies. Geneva: World Health Organiza- in Canada. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation
tion http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/WHO_SDE_ Council. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Govern-
OEH_99.10.pdf, on 20 October 2004. ment Services Canada http://www.wildspecies.ca/wildspe-
Briggs, David. 2003. Making a difference: Indicators to improve cies2000/en/Report.pdf, on 22 September 2004.
children’s environmental health. Geneva: World Health CGER (Committee to Evaluate Indicators for Monitoring
Organization. Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments, Board on Environ-
Brown, Daniel G., Kenneth M. Johnson, Thomas R. Loveland, mental Studies and Toxicology, Water Science and Technol-
and David M. Theobald. 2004. Rural land-use trends in ogy Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and
the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. In Ecological Resources, National Research Council). 1997. Building a
Applications, Press http://www-personal.umich.edu/ Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions. Committee
~danbrown/papers/ecolapps_final.pdf, on16 January 2004. on Research Opportunities and Priorities for EPA, National
Research Council http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5756.html,
Brown, Lester R. 2001. Paving the planet: Cars and crops on 10 May 2004.
competing for land. Earth Policy Alerts http://www.earth-
policy.org/Alerts/Alert12.htm, on 16 January 2005.
113
———. 2003b. Canadian water quality guidelines. Environ- ———. 2004a. International total primary energy and related
ment Canada http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/English/Ceqg/ information. Energy Information Administration, National
Water/default.cfm, on 29 September 2004. Energy Information Center http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/
international/total.html#IntlConsumption, on 7 January
———. 2004a. Ecosystem information: Toxins in Great Blue 2005.
Heron eggs. http://www.ecoinfo.ec.gc.ca/env_ind/region/
gbhtoxin/gbhtoxin_e.cfm and http://www.ecoinfo.ec.gc.ca/ ———. 2004b. Country analysis briefs. North America.
env_ind/region/herons/heron_e.cfm, on 30 October 2004. Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.doe.
gov/emeu/cabs/cabsna.html, on 7 January 2005.
———. 2004b. Canadian consumption of energy (1961–97).
State of the Environment Infobase, National Environmental Exchange Network. 2004. Exchange network net. Exchange
Indicator Series http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indi- Network http://www.exchangenetwork.net/common/de-
cators/Issues/Energy/Tables/ectb01_e.cfm, on 21 September fault.asp, on 29 October 2004.
2004.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
———. 2004c. National environmental indicator series Nations). 2001a. Global forest resources assessment 2000:
archive. Environment Canada, State of the Environment Main report. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization
Infobase http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicators/ of the United Nations, Forestry Department http://
what/default.cfm#top, on 8 July 2004. www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.
jsp?siteId=101&langId=1, on 9 December 2004.
EC, and US EPA (Environment Canada, and United States
Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. State of the Great ———. 2001b. The state of the world’s forests 2001. Rome:
Lakes 2001. EPA 905-R-01-003. Environment Canada and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
United States Environmental Protection Agency http:// Forestry Department http://www.fao.org/documents/show_
www.binational.net/sogl2001/download.html on 7 April cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/003/y0900E/y0900E00.htm, on 2
2005. January 2005.
———. 2003. State of the Great Lakes 2003. Environment ———. 2003. The state of the world’s forests 2003. Rome: Food
Canada and United States Environmental Protection and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, For-
Agency http://binational.net/sogl2003/sogl03eng.pdf, on estry Department http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.
17 May 2004. asp?url_file=/DOCREP/005/Y7581E/y7581e00.htm, on 16
June 2004.
———. 2004. Characterization of the Georgia Basin/Puget
Sound airshed. Environment Canada and United States ———. 2004a. AQUASTAT. Food and Agriculture Organiza-
Environmental Protection Agency http://www.pyr.ec.gc. tion of the United Nations, Land and Water Development
ca/Air/gb_ps_airshed/summary_e.htm, on 4 October 2004. Division: http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/
aglw/aquastat/main/index.stm, on 15 June 2004.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2000a. Are we moving
in the right direction? Indicators on transport and environment ———. 2004b. FISHSTAT plus: Universal software for fish-
integration in the EU. Environmental issues series no. 12. ery statistical time series. Food and Agriculture Organiza-
Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, Term 2000 tion of the United Nations, Fisheries Information Center
http://reports.eea.eu.int/ENVISSUENo12/en/term2000. http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.asp, on
pdf, on 24 June 2004. 21 September 2004.
———. 2000b. Questions to be answered by a state-of-the-envi- ———.2004. FAOSTAT. FAO statistical databases. Food and
ronment report: The first list. Technical report no. 47. Copen- Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: http://
hagen: European Environment Agency http://reports.eea. apps.fao.org/default.jsp, on 7 June 2004.
eu.int/Technical_report_No_47/en/tech47.pdf, on 24 June
2004. FSC (Forest Stewardship Council). 2004. Forest Stewardship
Council http://www.fsc.org/en/, on 2 January 2005.
———. 2003. Europe’s environment: The third assessment: En-
vironmental assessment report no. 10. Copenhagen: European Fukuda, K., W. Danker, J.S. Lee, A. Bonne, and M.J. Crijns.
Environment Agency http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmen- N.d. IAEA overview of global spent fuel storage (IAEA-CN-
tal_assessment_report_2003_10/en/tab_content_RLR, on 2 102/60). International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.
October 2004. iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/GrimselLab/storageoverview.
pdf, on12 January 2005.
EIA (Energy Information Administration). US Department
of Energy. 1995. Energy-intensity indicators for the US Gallopín, Gilberto Carlos. 1997. Indicators and their use: In-
economy, by sector. In Measuring energy efficiency in the formation for decision-making. In Sustainability indicators:
United States’ economy: A beginning. Washington, DC: En- Report of the project on indicators for sustainable development,
ergy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets edited by B. Moldan and S. Billharz. Wiley: Scientific
and End Use http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/eefig_ Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE)
exsum.htm, on 20 September 2004. http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope58/ch01-
introd.html, on 13 May 2004.
———. 1999. Energy in the Americas. Energy Information
Administration http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/theam- US GAO (United States Government Accountabil-
ericas.html, on 7 January 2005. ity Office). 2004. Environmental indicators: Better
coordination is needed to develop environmental indica-
———. 2003. United States—Environmental issues. Energy tors sets that inform decisions. Report to Congressional
Information Administration http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ requesters. US Government Accountability Office
cabs/usenv.html, on 7 January 2005. http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNEPA/ReNepa.nsf/0/
38cdc5741a14edb785256f54005939c8?OpenDocument,
on 30 December 2004.
115
Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Larsen, J. 2004. Dead zones increasing in world’s coastal waters.
Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin. 2004. Earth Policy Institute http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/
Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000. United Update41.htm, on 17 January 2005.
States Geological Survey http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/
circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/text-intro.html#ack, on 5 April Lealess, Sherry. 2002. Headline indicators. Background paper
2004. for symposium, Beyond Indicators: Indices of Environmen-
tal Sustainability, March 5–6, 2002, at Downsview, ON:
ICPD (United Nations International Conference on Popula- Policy Research Directorate, Environment Canada.
tion and Development). 1994. United Nations International
Conference on Population and Development (ICPD): Sum- Linster, Myriam. 1997. OECD environmental indicators. In
mary of the Programme of Action. United Nations Depart- Sustainability indicators: Report of the Project on Indicators
ment of Public Information http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/ for Sustainable Development, edited by B. Moldan and S.
geninfo/populatin/icpd.htm#chapter14, Viewed 29 August Billharz. Wiley: Scientific Committee on Problems of the
2004. Environment (SCOPE) http://www.icsu-scope.org/down-
loadpubs/scope58/box3a.html, on 13 May 2004.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2003a. Energy statistics
of OECD countries. International Energy Agency Data Loveland, T.R., B.C. Reed, J.F. Brown, D.O Ohlen, Z. Zhu,
Services http://data.iea.org/IEASTORE/DEFAULT.ASP, on L. Yang, and J. Merchant. 2000. Global land cover charac-
2 June 2004. teristics data base version 2.0. Land Processes Distributed
Active Archive Center http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/glob-
———. 2003b. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (2003 edi- doc2_0.html, on 1 June 2004.
tion). International Energy Agency Data Services http://
data.iea.org/ieastore/product.asp?dept%5Fid=101&pf%5Fi Luxem, Monika, and Birgitte Bryld. 1997. Introductory box:
d=305, on 2 June 2004. The CSD work programme on indicators of sustainable
development. In Sustainability indicators: Report of the
IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). Project on Indicators for Sustainable Development, edited by
1997. LitScan: A brief overview of the ‘big’ annual interna- B. Moldan and S. Billharz. Wiley: Scientific Committee
tional SD reports. In Developing ideas: A bi-monthly digest by On Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) http://www.
IISD May/June (9) http://www.iisd.org/didigest/may97/de- icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope58/introd-box.html, on
fault.htm, on 20 May 2004. 13 May 2004.
———. 2002. Welcome to the dashboard of sustainability. Inter- MAP (Mediterranean Action Plan). 1998. Environmental
national Institute for Sustainable Development http://www. performance Indicators: Frame document. Paper read at the
iisd.org/cgsdi/intro_dashboard.htm, on 10 June 2004. Sub-regional Workshop: Environmental Performance Indi-
cators, Plan Bleu, 26–28 November, at Cairo. Mediterra-
———. 2004a. Compendium: A global directory to indicator nean Action Plan, Mediterranean Environmental Technical
initiatives. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Assistance http://www.planbleu.org/pdf/ipecadra.pdf, on 4
Development http://www.iisd.org/measure/compendium/, June 2004.
on 23 May 2004.
Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R.J. Andres. 2003. Global,
———. 2004b. Canada led world growth in forest certifica- regional, and national CO2 emissions. In Trends: A compen-
tion in 2003. International Institute for Sustainable dium of data on global change. Carbon Dioxide Information
Development, Forests Forum http://lists.iisd.ca:81/read/ Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US De-
messages?id=20310, on 15 January 2005. partment of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN http://cdiac.esd.ornl.
gov/trends/emis/tre_nam.htm, on 7 December 2004.
ISCGM (International Steering Committee for Global Map-
ping.). 2004. International Steering Committee for Global MFE (Ministry for the Environment). Government of New
Mapping. Geographical Survey Institute, Ibaraki, Japan Zealand. 1996. National environmental indicators: Building
http://www.iscgm.org/html4/index.html on 29 October a framework for a core set. Ministry for the Environment,
2004. Government of New Zealand http://nat-env-inds-jan96.pdf,
on 8 April 2004.
ISIN (International Sustainability Indicators Network). 2002.
Comparative Summary of Existing Indicator Initiatives. ———. 2000. Environmental performance indicators: Proposals
International Sustainability Indicators Network http://www. for indicators of the environment effects of energy. Ministry for
sustainabilityindicators.org/workgroups/NIC/Pocantico- the Environment, Government of New Zealand energy-pro-
ComparativeElements.html, on 2 October 2004. posals-jun00.pdf, on 8 April 2004.
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature— Mills, Elizabeth. 2003. State of the Gulf report: Nutrient indica-
The World Conservation Union). 2003. 2003 IUCN red tors. NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Manage-
list of threatened species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN—The ment http://www.gulfofmainesummit.org/docs/state_of_
World Conservation Union, IUCN Species Survival Com- gulf_report_nutrients10_03.pdf, on 11 August 2004.
mission http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/RedList2003/Eng-
lish/backgroundEn.htm, on 16 June 2004. Mortensen, Lars Fogh. 1997. The driving force-state-response
framework used by CSD. In Sustainability indicators: Report
Keating, Michael. 2001. Review and analysis of best practices in of the Project on Indicators for Sustainable Development,
public reporting on environmental performance: A report to edited by B. Moldan and S. Billharz. Wiley: Scientific
Executive Resource Group. Research paper #9. Committee On Problems of the Environment (SCOPE)
http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope58/box1d.
Korol, Maurice, and Éric Larivière. 1998. Fertilizer pricing in
html, on 13 May 2004.
Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada http://www.agr.
gc.ca/spb/fiap-dpraa/publications/fertil/fertil_toc_e.php, on
18 January 2005.
NatureServe. 2004. NatureServe explorer database. Nature- NRTEE (National Round Table on the Environment and
Serve http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/, on 23 July the Economy). 2003. Environment and sustainable develop-
2004. ment indicators for Canada. National Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy http://www.nrtee-trnee.
NCDC, and NOAA. 2004. United States: Climate summary ca/eng/programs/Current_Programs/SDIndicators/ESDI-
June 2004. Ashville, NC: National Climatic Data Center, Report/ESDI-Report_IntroPage_E.htm, on 18 June 2004.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration http://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/NA.html. O’Malley, Robin, Kent Cavender-Bares, and William C. Clark.
2004. Providing “better” data: Not as simple as it might
Nedeau, Ethan. 2003. Science insights: Environmental indica- seem. In Environment 45 (4):8–18.
tors: As environmental red flags, indicators reveal marine
changes. In Gulf of Maine Times 7 (4):www.gulfofmaine. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
org/times/winter2003/science_insights.asp. Development). 1994. Environmental indicators: OECD core
set. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network). National Development.
Ecological Observatory Network. National Science Founda-
tion, Division of Biological Infrastructure http://www.nsf. ———. 1998. Environmental performance reviews. Mexico.
gov/bio/neon/start.htm, on 14 October 2004. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment.
Network Blueprint Team. 2000. Blueprint for a national
environmental information exchange network: Report to the ———. 1999. Frameworks to measure sustainable develop-
State/EPA Information Management Workgroup http://www. ment. OECD Expert Workshop, 2–3 September, at Paris.
epa.gov/oei/imwg/files/Blueprint_Report.pdf on 29 Octo- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
ber 2004. http://www.belspo.be/platformisd/Nederlands/documents/
oecd-expert_workshop_1999.pdf, on 27 January 2005.
NIRO (National Indicators and Reporting Office). 2003a.
Current status, trends, and perceptions regarding environ- ———. 2001. OECD environmental indicators: Towards
mental indicators and state-of-the-environment reporting sustainable development. Paris: Organisation for Economic
in Canada. Background paper no. 1 to An Environment Co-operation and Development.
Canada strategy for environmental indicators and state-of-
the-environment reporting in Canada. National Indicators ———. 2002a. Background. In Environmentally Harm-
and Reporting Office, Environmental Reporting Branch, ful Subsidies Workshop, 7–8 November 2002. Paris:
Knowledge Integration Directorate, Environment Canada Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/documents/default. http://www1.oecd.org/agr/ehsw/background.htm, on 27
cfm, on 27 October 2004. September 2004.
———. 2003b. A national strategy for environmental indi- ———. 2002b. OECD environmental data— Compendium
cators and state-of-the-environment reporting in Canada: 2002. Paris: Environmental Performance and Informa-
Proposed options. National Indicators and Reporting Office, tion Division, OECD Environment Directorate, Work-
Environmental Reporting Branch, Knowledge Integration ing Group on Environmental Information and Outlooks
Directorate, Environment Canada http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer- (WGEIO) http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,2340,en_
ree/English/documents/default.cfm, on 27 October 2004. 2649_34303_2516565_1_1_1_1,00.html, on 7 June 2004.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Sustaining ———. 2003. OECD environmental indicators: Development,
and rebuilding National Marine Fisheries Service 2003—Re- measurement and use, Reference paper. Paris: Organisation
port to Congress—The status of US fisheries. Silver Spring, for Economic Co-operation and Development http://www.
MD: US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and oecd.org/dataoecd/7/47/24993546.pdf, on 14 May 2004.
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
———. 2004a. OECD environmental performance reviews:
Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries http://www.nmfs.
Canada. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation
noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/statusostocks03/Report_Text.
and Development.
pdf, on 25 April 2005.
———. 2004b. OECD key environmental indicators, 2004.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
2002. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2002, executive
opment http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/20/31558547.
summary. Report No. 47. World Meteorological Organi-
pdf, on 12 May 2004.
zation Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration http:// OFDA/CRED–EM-DAT. 2004. EM-DAT: The OFDA/
www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/assessment02/execu- CRED international disasters data base. WHO Collaborat-
tive-summary.html#A2, on 12 January 2005. ing Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
Emergency Events Database: http://www.em-dat.net/, on 3
Nordhaus, William D., and Edward C. Kokkelenberg, eds.
January 2005.
1999. Nature’s numbers: Expanding the national economic
accounts to include the environment. Washington DC: Panel PSEPC (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada).
on Integrated Environmental and Economic Account- 2004. Disaster database. Public Safety and Emergency
ing, National Research Council: http://www.nap.edu/ Preparedness Canada http://www.ocipep-bpiepc.gc.ca/disas-
books/0309071518/html/, on 29 August 2004. ter/search.asp?lang=eng, on 16 July 2004.
117
Parris, Thomas M. 2000. Tracking down state of the environ- Ramsar. 2004. The list of wetlands of international importance.
ment reports. In Environment April http://www.findarticles. The Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands http://ramsar.
com/p/articles/mi_m1076/is_3_42/ai_62277263, on 28 org/sitelist.pdf, on 15 June 2004.
October 2004.
Repetto, Robert. 1994. What can policymakers learn from
Pastille Consortium (The). 2002. Indicators into action: Local natural resource accounting? In Assigning economic value to
sustainability indicator sets in their context. Final report. natural resources. Commission on Geosciences, Environment
London: London School of Economics http://www.lse. and Resources (CGER), Commission on Behavioral and
ac.uk/Depts/geography/Pastille/FinalReportWeb.pdf, on 12 Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council.
May 2004. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
PCSD (President’s Council on Sustainable Development). Roget. 1995. Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition.
1996. Sustainable America: A new consensus for prosperity, op- Houghton Mifflin Company.
portunity and a healthy environment for the future. President’s
Council on Sustainable Development http://clinton4.nara. Rump, Paul C. 1996. State-of-the-environment reporting: Source
gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/amer-top.html, on 29 book of methods and approaches. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP/
October 2004. DEIA/TR.
Pembina Institute. 2004. Ecological fiscal reform http://www. SCERP (Southwest Center for Environmental Research and
fiscallygreen.ca/efr3.html, on 22 September 2004. Policy). 2002. US-Mexican border region and Border 2012
Program environmental indicators. Southwest Center for
Pesch, G.G., and P.G. Wells (eds). 2004. Tides of change across Environmental Research and Policy http://www.scerp.
the Gulf: An environmental report on the Gulf of Maine and org/bi/BIV/SCERP.pdf on February 2005.
Bay of Fundy. Prepared for the Gulf of Maine Summit,
Committing to Change, Gulf of Maine Council on the SCOPE (Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environ-
Marine Environment and Global Programme of Action Co- ment). 2003. Indicators of Sustainable Development—The
alition for the Gulf of Maine, 26–29 October, at Fairmont first SCOPE/UNEP project. Scientific Committee on Prob-
Algonquin Hotel, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada lems of the Environment http://www.icsu-scope.org/, on 13
http://www.gulfofmainesummit.org/docs/Tides%20of%2 May 2004.
0Change%20Across%20the%20Gulf.pdf, on 27 October
Segura, Gerardo. 2004. Forest certification and governments:
2004.
The real and potential influence on regulatory frameworks and
Pidot, Lauren. 2003. Tapping the indicators knowledge-base: forest policies. Washington, DC: Forest Trends http://www.
“Lessons learned” by developers of environmental indicators. forest-trends.org/resources/pdf/Certification%20and%20G
Briefing package for the Northwest Atlantic Indicators overnments%2011-15-04.pdf, on15 January 2005.
Workshop. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environ-
Segnestam, Lisa. 2002. Indicators of environment and sus-
ment http://www.gulfofmaine.org/nciw/PDFs/Lessons-
tainable development: Theories and practical experience.
Learned.pdf, on 12 May 2004.
Environmental Economics Series, Paper # 89. The
Pintér, László, and Darren Swanson. 2004a. Use of indicators World Bank Environment Department http://lnweb18.
in policy analysis: annotated training module prepared for the worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/44ByDocName/
World Bank Institute. Winnipeg: International Institute for IndicatorsofEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopment/
Sustainable Development. $FILE/IndicatorsofEnvironmentandSustainableDevelop-
ment2003.pdf, on 12 August 2004.
———. 2004b. Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Concept
in Progress: Annotated Training Module Prepared for the Shah, Reena. 2004. Assessment of sustainability indicators (ASI):
World Bank Institute. Winnipeg: International Institute for A SCOPE/UNEP/IHDP/EEA project: CSD indicators of
Sustainable Development. sustainable development—Recent developments and activities.
Paper read at ASI Workshop, 10_14 May, at Prague, Czech
Pintér, László, Kaveh Zahedi, and David R. Cressman. 2000. Republic http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indica-
Capacity building for integrated environmental assessment and tors/scopepaper_2004.pdf, on 12 May 2004.
reporting: training manual. 2nd ed. Winnipeg: International
Institute for Sustainable Development. Shelton, I.J., G.J. Wall, J.-M. Cossette, R. Eilers, B. Grant,
D. King, G. Padbury, H. Rees, J. Tajek, and L. van Vliet.
Potier, Michel. 2002. Summary and conclusions. In Environ- 2000. Indicator: Risk of water erosion. In Environmental
mentally Harmful Subsidies Workshop, 7–8 November 2002. sustainability of Canadian agriculture: Report of the Agri-
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel- Environmental Indicator Project. A summary, edited by T.
opment http://www1.oecd.org/agr/ehsw/, on 27 September McRae, C.A.S. Smith and L.J. Gregorich, pp. 6. Ottawa,
2004. Ont.: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada http://www.agr.
gc.ca/policy/environment/pdfs/aei/Chap06C.pdf, and
PRB (Population Reference Bureau). 2004. Human popula- http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicator_series/Excel/
tion: Fundamentals of growth: Population growth and agri3.xls on 3 October 2004.
distribution. Population Reference Bureau http://www.
prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Hu- Singh, Ashbindu, Bedrich Moldan, and Thomas Loveland.
man_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth. 2002. Making science for sustainable development more policy
htm, on 11 January 2005. relevant: New tools for analysis. ICSU Series on Science for
Sustainable Development, no. 8. International Council for
Prescott-Allen, Robert. 1997. Barometer of sustainability: Science http://grid2.cr.usgs.gov/publications/newtools.pdf,
Measuring and communicating wellbeing and sustainable on 5 October 2004.
development, an approach to assessing progress toward
sustainability. Tools and training series. IUCN—The
World Conservation Union http://prog2000.casaccia.enea.
it/nuovo/documenti/1716.PDF, on 10 June 2004.
SRP (Sustainability Reporting Program). 2004. The sustain- ———. 2003a. National indicators of sustainable development:
ability report. Sustainability Reporting Program http://www. Canada, 2003 status report. United Nations Division for
sustreport.org/home.html, on 23 May 2004. Sustainable Development http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/
natlinfo/countr/canada/, on 12 May 2004.
Statistics Canada. 2000a. Econnections: Linking the environment
and the economy, indicators and detailed statistics. Catalogue ———. 2003b. About the Commission on Sustainable Develop-
No. 16-200-XKE: Statistics Canada. ment (CSD). UN Department of Economic and Social
Affairs http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/about_csd.htm,
Statistics Canada. 2000b. North American transportation in on 20 May 2004.
figures. 50-501-XIE. US Department of Transportation, Bu-
reau of Transportation Statistics; US Department of Com- ———. 2004a. Indicators of sustainable development. UN
merce, Census Bureau; Statistics Canada; Transport Canada; Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for
Instituto Mexicano del Transporte; Instituto Nacional de Sustainable Development http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/
Estadística, Geografía e Informática; and Secretaría de Co- natlinfo/indicators/isd.htm, on 14 May 2004.
municaciones y Transportes http://www.statcan.ca/english/
freepub/50-501-XIE/free.htm, on 17 June 2004. ———. 2004b. Millennium indicators database. United Na-
tions Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics
Statistics Canada. 2001a. 2001 census of Canada. Statistics Division http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_
Canada http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/home/ goals.asp, on 29 October 2004.
index.cfm, on 10 January 2005.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2003.
Statistics Canada. 2001b. Canada’s troubled fisheries. In Statis- World population prospects: The 2002 revision population
tics Canada e-book http://142.206.72.67/r000_e.htm, on database. United Nations Population Division http://esa.
13 January 2005. un.org/unpp/, on 2 June 2004.
Steenblik, Ronald P. 2002. Subsidy measurement and clas- UNDP, UNEP, World Bank, and WRI (United Nations
sification: Developing a common framework. In Environ- Development Programme, United Nations Environment
mentally Harmful Subsidies Workshop, 7-8 November 2002. Programme, World Bank, and World Resources Institute).
Paris: http://www1.oecd.org/agr/ehsw/pubchapter3.PDF, 1998. World resources 1998–99: Environmental change and
on 27 September 2004. human health. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute). N.d. A Frame- ———. 2000. World resources 2000-2001: People and
work for energy sustainability assessment. The Energy and ecosystems, the fraying web of life. Washington, DC: World
Resources Institute http://www.teriin.org/ee/gbr/fesa.htm, Resources Institute.
on 31 March 2004.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 1972.
Turnhout, Esther. 2003. Ecological indicators in Dutch nature Educational, informational, social and cultural aspects of
conservation: Science and policy intertwined in the classifica- environmental issues: Recommendation 95. United Nations
tion and evaluation of nature. Ph.D. thesis. Amsterdam: Vrije Environment Programme, Conference on the Human
Universiteit http://www.kun.nl/gap/seminars/gapw-sem- Environment, Stockholm http://www.unep.org/Docu-
turnhout.doc, on 6 June 2004. ments/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1511, on
22 May 2004.
UN (United Nations). 1996. Indicators of sustainable develop-
ment: Framework and methodologies. New York: United ———. 1999. GEO-2000. London: Earthscan.
Nations.
———. 2002a. North America’s environment: A thirty-year state
———. 2004. Millennium statistics database. United Nations, of the environment and policy retrospective. Nairobi, Kenya:
Department of Economic and Social Affairs http://mil- United Nations Environment Programme.
lenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_goals.asp, on 9
December 2004. ———. 2002b. GEO data portal home. United Nations Envi-
ronment Programme http://gridca.grid.unep.ch/geoportal/,
UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and on 1 June 2004.
Social Affairs). 2001a. Indicators of sustainable development:
Guidelines and methodologies. UN Department of Economic ———. 2002c. Production and consumption of ozone deplet-
and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development ing substances under the Montreal Protocol, 1986–2000.
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/indisd/ Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP Ozone Secretariat http://www.unep.
indisd-mg2001.pdf, on 8 April 2004. ch/ozone/pdfs/15-year-data-report.pdf, on 14 July 2004.
119
———. 2004a. GEO indicators: GEO year book 2003. United USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2004.
Nations Environment Programme, Global Environment National report on sustainable forests—2003. US Department
Outlook http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/103.htm, on of Agriculture http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/docu-
18 May 2004. ments/SustainableForests.pdf, on 23 July 2004.
———. 2004b. Methyl bromide approved for temporary uses ———. N.d. Position paper: Loss and fragmentation of open
after Montreal Protocol phase-out deadline. Press release. space: USDA Forest Service http://www.fs.fed.us/publica-
United Nations Environment Programme http://www.uscib. tions/policy-analysis/loss-of-open-space-position-paper.pdf,
org/index.asp?DocumentID=2862, on 22 December 2004. on 16 January 2005.
UNEP GRIDA (United Nations Environment Programme/ US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency).
GRID Arendal). 2001. Actual and projected emissions of 6 1996. Border XXI framework. US Environmental Protec-
greenhouse gases, 1990–2010: Canada and the United States. tion Agency http://yosemite1.epa.gov/oia/MexUSA.
Arendal, Norway: GRID Arendal http://www.grida.no/ nsf/Border+XXI+-+Framework?OpenView, on 3 February
db/maps/collection/climate6/canada.htm and http://www. 2005.
grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/usa.htm, on 1 June
2004. ———. 1997. US-Mexico border environmental indicators
report. US Environmental Protection Agency http://www.
UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme– epa.gov/usmexicoborder/indica97/index.htm, on 3 February
World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2004. Forests: 2005.
North America—Map and statistics. United Nations
Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring ———. 2000a. US-Mexico Border XXI program: Progress report
Centre http://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html?http://www. 1996–2000. US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
unep-wcmc.org/forest/homepage.htm~main, on 16 June 160/R/00/001 http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/prog-
2004. ress/eng/index.htm, on 4 February 2005.
UNEP-WCMC/WWF (United Nations Environment Pro- ———. 2000b. Global warming—Emissions. US Environ-
gramme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre / World mental Protection Agency http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/glo-
Wildlife Fund). 2004. Global FSC: Country total chart, sta- balwarming.nsf/content/emissionsindividual.html, on15
tistical graphs and map. Power Point slides. United Nations January 2005.
Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring
———. 2003. Draft report on the environment. US Environ-
Centre, World Wildlife Fund http://www.unep-wcmc.org/
mental Protection Agency, Environmental Indicators Initia-
index.html?http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/homepage.
tive http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/, on 18 June 2004.
htm~main, on 9 December 2004.
———. 2004. The global earth observation system of systems.
UNESCO (United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural
US Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.
Organization). 2003. Chapter 3: Signing progress: Indica-
gov/geoss/, on 29 October 2004.
tors mark the way. In The UN world water development
report: Water for people, water for life, edited by UNESCO. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2003. High plains
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe http:// regional ground-water study. Denver, CO: United States
www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/pdf/chap3.pdf, on 14 Geological Survey http://co.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/hpgw/
June 2004. factsheets/DENNEHYFS1.html, on January 2005.
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on US IWG (United States Interagency Working Group on
Climate Change). N.d. Greenhouse gas inventory database Sustainable Development Indicators). 2001. Sustainable
(GHG): On-line searchable database of GHG inventory development in the United States: An experimental set of
data. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate indicators. US Interagency Working Group on Sustainable
Change http://ghg.unfccc.int/default1.htf?time=06%3A43 Development Indicators http://www.sdi.gov/lpBin22/lpext.
%3A24+PM, on 2 June 2004. dll/Folder1/Infobase7/1?fn=main-j.htm&f=templates&2.0,
on 4 June 2004.
UN Habitat (United Nations Human Settlements Pro-
gramme). 2001. State of the world’s cities report 2001. United Venetoulis, Jason, Dahlia Chazan, and Christopher Gaudet.
Nations Human Settlements Programme http://www.unchs. 2004. Ecolgical footprint of nations. Redefining Progress,
org/Istanbul+5/114.pdf, on 15 October 2004. Sustainability Indicators Program http://www.redefining-
progress.org/publications/footprintnations2004.pdf, on 10
———. 2003. Urban indicators tool kit: Guide. United Na-
June 2004.
tions Human Settlements Programme http://www.unhabi-
tat.org/programmes/guo/guo_guide.asp, on 15 October von Schirnding, Yasmin E. 2002. Health-and-environment
2004. indicators in the context of sustainable development. In
Canadian journal of public health 93 (Suppl. 1, Sept/Oct):
US CEQ (United States Council on Environmental Qual-
S9-S15.
ity). 1997. Environmental quality—The World Wide Web:
The 1997 annual report of the Council on Environmental Wagner, L. A. 2002. Materials in the economy—Material
Quality. Washington, DC: US Council on Environmental flows, scarcity, and the environment. US Geological Survey,
Quality, Executive Office of the President http://ceq.eh.doe. Circular1221 http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2002/c1221/c1221-
gov/nepa/reports/1997/, on 12 January 2005. 508.pdf, on 11 July 20004.
US Census Bureau (United States Census Bureau). 2002. Cen- WCED (The World Commission on Environment and Devel-
sus 2000 gateway. United States Census Bureau http://www. opment). 1987. Our common future. The World Commis-
census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, on 20 January 2005. sion on Environment and Development. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Willer, Helga, and Minou Yussefi, eds. 2004. The world of ———. 2004. Living planet report 2004. World Wildlife Fund
organic agriculture: statistics and emerging trends. Bonn: http://www.panda.org/downloads/general/lpr2004.pdf on
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements 30 December 2004.
http://www.soel.de/inhalte/publikationen/s/s_74.pdf, on 14
Yeung, Ophelia M., and John A. Mathieson. 1998. Global
October 2004.
benchmarks: Comprehensive measures of development. Menlo
Worldwatch Institute. 2004. Featured publications. World- Park, CA: SRI International.
watch Institute http://www.worldwatch.org/, on 29 Octo-
ber 2004.
121
Appendix 1: Table 2–Comparative table of Canadian and US environmental indicators
122
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
Drivers Drivers Drivers Drivers Drivers
% change in population, % change in population, % change in population,
GDP per capita and energy GDP, energy consumption, GDP per capita and
use per capita since 1990 VMT, and aggregate emissions energy use
(to 2000) of criteria air pollutants since
1970 (to 2001)
Energy and Energy and Energy and Energy and Energy and
Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
Pollution Issues Pollution Issues Pollution Issues Pollution Issues Pollution Issues
Climate Change Climate Change Climate Change Climate Change Climate Change
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
total GHG emissions total GHG emissions
(gigatonnes CO2 equivalents), (gigatonnes CO2 equivalent),
1980–2000 1980–2000, with
Kyoto benchmark
State State State State State
mean Canadian temperature
variation, 1961–1990 (5-yr avgs)
Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact
# weather-related disasters,
1900–1999
Response Response Response Response Response
O3 Layer O3 Layer O3 Layer O3 Layer O3 Layer
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
new supplies: O3 -depleting US production of selected trends in ODS
substances (CFCs and all ODSs) ODSs (103 metric tonnes of production
(kilotonnes, CFC-11 equivalent), CFC-11 equivalent ),
1979–2000 1958–1993
State State: State State State
Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact
mean annual O3 level over O3 levels over North trend in O3 levels over
Canada (Dobson units*), America (Dobson units), North America
1957–2001 1979 and 1994
Response Response Response Response Response
Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
SO2 emissions for total Canada sectoral SO2 emissions trend in criteria
and eastern Canada (106 tonnes), (103 short tonnes), pollutants emissions
1980–2000, with targets 1982–2001
123
*defined as thickness of 1 mm of ozone at 0ºC at sea level pressure
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
124
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
percent reduction in
concentration of 6 criteria
air pollutants, 1982–2001
compared to 1992–2001
Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact
# and % days w/ Air Quality
Index (AQI) greater than 100,
1988–2001
mean daily 8-hr max O3 people (#) living in areas w/ population exposed to 8-hr
exposure by population 8-hr O3 and PM2.5 levels O3 above acceptable levels
(ppb), 1986–2000 above NAAQS, 2001
Pb (g/dkl) in blood of children
5 and under, 1976–1980,
1988–1991, 1992–1994,
1999–2000
Response Response Response Response Response
Acid Deposition Acid Deposition Acid Deposition Acid Deposition Acid Deposition
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
3
Canada and eastern Canada sectoral SO2 emissions (10
total SO2 emissions (106 tonnes), short tonnes), 1982–2001
1980–2000, with targets
NOx emissions (106 tonnes), sectoral NOx emissions (103
1980-2000 short tonnes), 1982–2001
SO2 power plant emissions
(106 tonnes), 1980–2001
NOx power plant emissions
(106 tonnes), 1990–2001
State State State State State
125
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
126
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
wet SO42 deposition 4-year wet SO42 deposition (kg/ha), change in wet S042
mean (kg/ha, 7 categories), 1989–1991 compared to deposition distribution
1980–1983 compared to 1999–2001 (map of US)
1996–2000 (map of eastern
North America)
wet NO3 deposition (kg/ha, wet NO3 deposition (kg/ha), change in wet NO3
7 categories) 4-year mean, 1989–1991 compared to deposition distribution
1980–1983 compared to 1999–2001 (map of US)
1996–2000 (map of eastern
North America)
Response Response Response Response Response
Indoor Air Quality Indoor Air Quality Indoor Air Quality Indoor Air Quality Indoor Air Quality
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
Toxic Substances Toxic Substances Toxic Substances Toxic Substances Toxic Substances
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
% emissions change (15 toxic total Toxics Release Inventory
substances w/ matched data (TRI) releases across industry
(NPRI), 1995–2000 (short tonnes), 1998, 1999,
2000; yearly totals; and change
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
127
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
128
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
129
use (Gl/day), 1983–1999
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
130
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
water abstractions/irrigated
land area (m3/ha/year), 1997
cultivated land: % irrigated
areas share, 1997, and %
change since 1980
sources of acidity (watershed
sources, organic or acid
deposition) in acid-sensitive
lakes and streams, 1984–1986
Hg, dioxin, PCBs, PBTs toxic
release to water, 2000
State State State State State
extent of ponds, lakes, and extent of ponds, lakes,
reservoirs, excluding the Great and reservoirs, excluding
Lakes (Macres), 1950s–1990s the Great Lakes (Macres),
1950s–1990s
est. streams and rivers mileage, length of small, medium,
1997-2002 and large streams and
rivers
extent of submerged aquatic riparian land cover of
vegetation in estuarine systems streams and rivers (%
(acres) riparian miles, each of 3
land use catergories),
1990’s
% of lake and reservoir
area with low-, medium-,
and high-clarity water
stream habitat quality
Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact
freshwater quality
index
% stream, pond, lake,
and riparian zone miles
and wetland acres that
have been altered
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
131
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
132
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
% gauged streams/rivers
w/ major, moderate, and
minimal low flow and high
flow changes, 1970s, 1980s,
and 1990s, against
1930–1949 reference period
% gauged streams/rivers
w/ low and high flows
increase, decrease, or timing,
1970s, 1980s, 1990s, against
1930–1949 reference period
Response Response Response Response Response
population (total and %) served
by community water systems w/
no reported national health-based
standards violations, 1993–2002
133
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
134
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
Coastal Resources Coastal Resources Coastal Resources Coastal Resources Coastal Resources
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
State State State State State
est. estuarine surface area (acres)
and coastline (miles), 1996–1998
coastal living habitats extent coastal living habitats extent
(106 acres), 1950s–1990s (106 acres), 1950s–1990s
% of total regional shoreline, in % of total regional shoreline in
types of coastal shoreline, by types of coastal shoreline by
region, 2000 region, 2000
% coastal areas where benthic % ocean bottom area
communities are in good, fair, where benthic communities
or poor condition, in are undegraded, moderate,
Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic or degraded, by region,
and Gulf of Mexico, 2000 1990–1997 and 1999–2000
water clarity: % estuarine area
with good, fair, or poor light
penetration, 1990–1997
estuarine area with poor, fair, % estuarine and coastal
or good dissolved oxygen areas by level of dissolved
conditions, 2000 oxygen
% Mid-Atlantic estuarine
areas with low, intermediate,
or high total organic carbon
content in sediments,
1997–1998
chlorophyll concentrations chlorophyll concentrations
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
135
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
136
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
Fish Resources Fish Resources Fish Resources Fish Resources Fish Resources
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
commercial fish and
shellfish landings by
region (megatonnes)
1950–2000
State State State State State
% commercially important
fish stocks w/ known status
(increasing or decreasing
volume), by region,
1981–1999
Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact
% fish samples exceeding
number of standards or
guidelines for aquatic life
(3 categories), 1992–1998
occurrence (% of fish samples) occurrence (% of fish
of contaminants (3 categories) samples) of contaminants
in fish tissue, 1992–1998 (3 categories) in fish tissue,
1992–1998
watersheds w/ fish tissue
concentrations exceeding
health-based national water
quality Hg criteria, 2001
(map)
watersheds with fish tissue
concentrations exceeding
health-based national water
quality PCBs criteria, 2001 (map)
fish abnormalities (% fish concentration of PCBs,
examined), 2001 mercury, and DDT in
edible tissue of seafood
from coastal waters
Response Response Response Response Response
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
137
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
138
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
frequency distribution of %
of plot area exhibiting evidence
of surface compaction on FHM
program plots, 1999–2000
% forest streams with
mean NO3- concentrations
(1 of 4 ranges), 1992–1998
Response Response Response Response Response
trend in % strictly protected % forest area in East and trend in area of protected
area, for 4 ecozones, 1992–2001 West in 1 of 4 forest
management categories,
1953–1997
forest planted timberland
(% area), 1953–1997
% natural/semi-natural
forest land area,
1953–1997
forest natural/semi-natural
timberland (% area), 1953–1997
Agricultural land Agricultural land Agricultural land Agricultural land Agricultural land
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
% farmland actively used
for crop production,
pasture, or haylands, 1992
% use non-cropland
areas of farmland landscape,
1992
agricultural pesticides use
(Mlbs active ingredients/yr),
1992 and 1997
fertilizer use (millions of
nutrient tonnes), 1960–1998
State State State State State
farmlands (croplands and croplands (% farmland
pasturelands) acreage est., area), by region, 1992
1977–1982 and 1997–2002
139
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
140
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
wind and water erosion
distribution on croplands
and CRP lands (tonnes/yr),
1997 (map)
croplands most prone to croplands most prone to
wind erosion, (dot = 2*104 wind and water erosion,
acres), 1997 (map) (dot = 2*104 acres), 1997 (map)
% share agricultural land % farmland, according to % farmland susceptible to
(5 regions) subject to potential for wind and water erosion
unsustainable water erosion, water erosion (3
1981, 1991, 1996 categories), 1982–1997
% cropland with different
levels of salt content (dS/m)
habitat quality of farmland
streams
% change in residual N % farmland streams and
levels on agricultural land, groundwater sites w/ mean
in regions (3 categories), NO3- concentrations (1 of
1981–1996 4 ranges), 1992–1998
average # pesticides in
farmland streams and shallow
groundwater wells,
1992–1998
% streams and shallow
groundwater wells with
pesticide concentrations
exceeding standards and
guidelines for human health
and aquatic health, 1992–1998
% farmland streams w/ mean
annual P concentrations
(1 of 4 ranges), 1992–1998
pesticide residues in food
(% of samples), 2000
Response Response Response Response Response
% change in # bare soil days
on agricultural land, in 5
regions, between 1981
and 1996
141
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
142
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
143
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
144
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
145
1982–1997 (map)
NRTEE (Canada) Environment Canada United States EPA The Heinz Center (USA) Common Indicators
146
Environment and Environmental Signals: Draft Report on The State of the Generic indicators
Sustainable Development Canada’s National the Environment 2003 Nation’s Ecosystems common to both countries
Indicators for Canada Environmental Indicators Series
% urban/suburban land
that is undeveloped (5
categories, regional), 1992
% all natural areas w/in
urban and suburban lands
w/ varying size patches
(5 catagories, regional), 1992
% streams draining urban
watersheds with average
NO3- concentrations in 1
of 4 ranges, 1992–1998
% streams draining urban
watersheds with average
annual P concentrations
in 1 of 4 ranges, 1992–1998
average difference between
urban and rural air temperature
(% metropolitan area in 1
of 3 categories)
# and type of “disruptive”
species found in metropolitan
areas, and by region
Response Response Response Response Response
Natural Disasters Natural Disasters Natural Disasters Natural Disasters Natural Disasters
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
State State State State State
Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact
Response Response Response Response Response
National Responses National Responses National Responses National Responses National Responses
EC. 2001. Tracking Key Environmental Issues. Environment Statistics Canada. 2001. 2001 Census of Canada: http://
Canada: Http://Www.Ec.Gc.Ca/TKEI/Eng_Final. www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/home/index.cfm.
Pdf. United States
Boyd, David R. 2001. Canada vs. the OECD: An Environ- US Census Bureau. 2002. Census 2000 Gateway: http://
mental Comparison. University of Victoria: Eco- www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.
Research Chair of Environmental Law and Policy,
http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htdocs/
PDF/Pgs1-10.pdf.
147
GDP and Consumption NRCan. 2004. Energy Efficiency Trends in Canada, 1990–
2002. Natural Resources Canada http://oee.nrcan.
International gc.ca/neud/dpa/datae/Trends04/Trends2004.pdf.
WB. 2004. World Development Indicators. WDI 2004 CD- Statistics Canada. 2003. Energy Statistics Handbook. http://
ROM. World Bank Group: http://www.worldbank. www.statcan.ca/english/ads/57-601-XIE/.
org/data/wdi2004/cdrom/.
Statistics Canada. 2002. Report on Energy Supply-De-
EIU. 2004. Country Reports. Economist Intelligence Unit: mand in Canada. http://www.statcan.ca:8096/bsolc/
http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=ps_ english/bsolc?catno=57-003-X.
country_reports&entry1=psNav&infositelayout=site_
info_nav_ha, Viewed 17 June 2004. United States
Gilbert, Richard, Neal Irwin, Brian Hollingworth, and Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R.J. Andres. 2003. Global,
Pamela Blais. 2002. Sustainable Transportation Regional, and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions.
Performance Indicators (STPI): Report on Phase 3: The In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change.
Centre for Sustainable Transportation: http://www. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of
cstctd.org/CSTadobefiles/STPI%20Phase%203%20fi Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA: Carbon Dioxide
nal%20report.pdf. Information Analysis Center, http://cdiac.esd.ornl.
gov/trends/trends.htm.
Statistics Canada. 2004. Canadian Vehicle Survey, Annual,
2003. Statistics Canada, Transportation Division: IEA. 2004. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 1971-
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/53-223- 2002—2004 Edition: http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/
XIE/53-223-XIE2003000.pdf. bookshop/add.aspx?id=36.
149
Ozone Layer Canada
UNEP. 2002. Production and Consumption of Ozone- EC. 1999. National Environmental Indicator Series: Urban
Depleting Substances under the Montreal Protocol, Air Quality (SOE Bulletin No. 99-1). Environ-
1986—2000. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP Ozone Secre- ment Canada, State of the Environment Infobase:
tariat: http://www.unep.ch/ozone/pdfs/15-year-data- http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicators/Is-
report.pdf. sues/Urb_Air/.
WOUDC. N.d. Global Atmosphere Watch. World Ozone EC. 2003. National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS)
and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre: http://www. Network Annual Data Summary for 2002, Envi-
wmo.ch/web/arep/gaw/wourdc.html. ronmental Protection Series, Report EPS 7/AP/35.
Environmental Technology Advancement Director-
WMO. 2002. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: ate, Environmental Protection Service, Environment
2002. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization, Canada: http://www.etcentre.org/publications/naps/
Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—Re- naps2002_annual.pdf .
port No. 47: http://www.wmo.ch/web/arep/reports/
o3_assess_rep_2002_front_page.html. Janzen, H.H., R.L. Desjardins, and J.M.R. Asselin, and
B. Grace. 1998. The Health of Our Air: Toward
Canada Sustainable Agriculture in Canada. Research Branch,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: http://res2.agr.
EC. 1999. National Environmental Indicator Series: Strato-
gc.ca/publications/ha/pdf_e.htm.
spheric Ozone Depletion (SOE Bulletin No. 99-2).
Environment Canada, State of the Environment NAtChem. 2003. The Canadian National Atmospheric
Infobase: http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indi- Chemistry (NAtChem) Database and Analysis System.
cators/Issues/Ozone/default.cfm. Environment Canada: http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/
natchem/index_e.html.
MSC. 2002. Experimental Studies Division, World Ozone
and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre (WOUDC). United States
Experimental Studies Division of the Air Qual-
ity Branch of the Meteorlogical Service of Canada US EPA. 2004. The Ozone Report—Measuring Progress
(MSC). Toronto, ON: http://www.msc.ec.gc. through 2003. Research Triangle Park, North Caro-
ca/woudc/expstudies_e.html. lina: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emissions,
United States Monitoring, and Analysis Division: http://www.epa.
gov/airtrends/ozone.html.
EIA. 2003. Annual Energy Review, 2002. Washington DC:
Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy US EPA. 2003. National Emission Inventory (NEI): Air
Markets and End Use, US Department of Energy: Pollutant Emission Trends. Environmental Protection
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/03842002.pdf. Agency, Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse
for Inventories & Emission Factors: http://www.epa.
CMDL. 2004. Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Labora-
gov/ttn/chief/trends/.
tory. US Department of Commerce/NOAA/OAR/
CMDL: Boulder, CO: http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/. US EPA. 2004. System Overview. Technology Transfer
Network, Air Quality System (AQS): http://www.
US EPA. 2004. Myth: Ozone Depletion Occurs Only In Ant-
epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/sysoverview.htm, Viewed 4
arctica. US Environmental Protection Agency, Ozone
August 2004.
Depletion web site: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/sci-
ence/glob_dep.html. US EPA. 2000. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends
Report, 1900–1998. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Air Quality and Acid Deposition US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality and Standards: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
International
trends/trends98/.
RIVM. 2001. Emission Database for Global Atmospheric
US EPA. 2003. Latest Findings on National Air Qual-
Research - EDGAR. Bilthoven: The Netherlands
ity 2002: Status and Trends, EPA 454/ K-03-001.
National Institute of Public Health and the Environ-
Research Triangle Park, NC: US Environmental
ment: http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/coredata/edgar/.
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
North America and Standards Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis
Division: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2002_
EC. 2004. Canada - United States Air Quality Agree- airtrends_final.pdf.
ment: 2004 Progress Report. Environment Canada,
The Green Lane: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/can_us/ US EPA. 2002. The EPA Acid Rain Program 2001 Progress
2004CanUs/intro_e.html. Report. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air
Markets—Progress and Results: http://www.epa.
gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp01/index.html.
US EPA. 2004. Number of NPL Site Actions and Milestones Earth Observatory. 2002. NASA’s Terra Satellite Refines
by Fiscal Year. US Environmental Protection Agency, Map of Global Land Cover: http://earthobservatory.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response: nasa.gov/Newsroom/LCC/, viewed 22 September
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/ 2004.
nplfy.htm. North America
US EPA. 2004. CERCLIS Database. US Environmental Loveland, T.R., B.C. Reed, J.F. Brown, D.O Ohlen, Z.
Protection Agency, Superfund Information Systems: Zhu, L. Yang, and J. Merchant. 2000. Global Land
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index. Cover Characteristics Data Base Version 2.0. Land
htm. Processes Distributed Active Archive Center: http://
US EPA. 2002. Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/na_int.asp.
(RSEI). US Environmental Protection Agency: http://
www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/.
151
Canada NRCan. 2004. The National Atlas of Canada: Water Con-
sumption. Natural Resources Canada online maps:
CGDI. 2003. AVHRR Land Cover Data, Canada. Cana- http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/freshwater/con-
dian Geospatial Data Infrastructure: GeoConnections sumption.
Discovery Portal, Government of Canada, Natural
Resources Canada, Canada Centre for Remote Sens- EC. 2002. Freshwater Web Site: Water Quality. Environ-
ing, GeoAccess Division: http://geodiscover.cgdi. ment Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/
ca/gdp/search?action=entrySummary&entryType=p qual/e_qual.htm.
roductCollection&entryId=99&language=en&entry
Lang=en. EC. 1998. Canada and Freshwater: Monograph No. 6. Ot-
tawa: Environment Canada, Minister of Public Works
United States and Government Services Canada: http://www.
sdinfo.gc.ca/reports/en/monograph6/splash.cfm.
MRLC. 2004. National Land Cover Database (NLDC).
Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium: EC. 2002. Nutrients and Their Impacts on the Canadian
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html. Environment: Reporting on the State of Canada’s Envi-
ronment. Indicators and Assessment Office, Ecosys-
USGS. National Land Cover Data 1992 (NLCD 92). US tem Science Directorate, Environmental Conserva-
Geological Survey, EROS Data Center: http://edc- tion Service, Environment Canada: http://www.ec.gc.
www.cr.usgs.gov/products/landcover/nlcd.html. ca/soer-ree/English/soer/nutrientseng.pdf.
NRCS. 2004. National Resources Inventory 2002 Annual EC. 2001. Urban Water Indicators: Municipal Water Use
NRI. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Re- and Wastewater Treatment, National Environmental
sources Conservation Service: http://www.nrcs.usda. Indicator Series, SOE Bulletin No. 2001-1: Environ-
gov/technical/land/nri02/. ment Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/
Indicators/Issues/Urb_H2O/default.cfm.
ERS/USDA. 2001. Data: Major Land Uses. Economic
Research Service, US Department of Agriculture: EC. Municipal Water Use Database [under construc-
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/majorlanduses/. tion]. Environment Canada, Municipal Water Use
Database: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/mud/.
Freshwater
United States
International
USGS. 2004. Water Resources of the United States. US
FAO. 2004. AQUASTAT. Food and Agriculture Organiza- Geological Survey: http://water.usgs.gov/.
tion of the United Nations, Land and Water Develop-
ment Division: http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/ Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin
agricult/agl/aglw/aquastat/main/index.stm. S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin.
2004. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in
FAO. 2003. Review of World Water Resources by Country. 2000. United States Geological Survey: http://water.
Water Reports 23. Rome: Food and Agriculture usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/text-intro.
Organization of the United Nations: ftp://ftp.fao. html#ack.
org/agl/aglw/docs/wr23e.pdf.
Hamilton, Pixie A., Timothy L. Miller, and Donna N.
GemsWater. 2004. Gems/Water: About Us. Global Environ- Myers. 2004. Water Quality in the Nation’s Streams
ment Monitoring System: http://www.gemswater. and Aquifers: Overview of Selected Findings, 1991–
org/aboutus/index-e.html. 2001. US Geological Circular 1265. US Geological
Survey: http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/1265/.
Gleick, Peter H. 2000. The World’s Water, 2000–2001: The
Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Washington USGS. 1999. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Nu-
DC: Island Press. trients and Pesticides. US Geological Survey, Circular
1225. US Geological Survey: http://water.usgs.
WHO. 2000. Global Water Supply and Sanitation As-
gov/pubs/circ/circ1225/.
sessment 2000 Report. World Health Organization:
http://www.who.int/docstore/watersanitationhealth/ US EPA. 1999. Overall Watershed Characterization
Globassessment/GlobalTOC.htm. - National Maps: September 1999 IWI Release. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands, Oceans
UNESCO. 1999. International Hydrological Programme:
and Watersheds, Watershed Information Network:
World Water Resources and Their Use: United Nations
http://www.epa.gov/iwi/1999sept/catalog.html.
Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization:
http://webworld.unesco.org/water/ihp/db/. [accessed IWI. 2002. Index of Watershed Indicators, Revised 2002.
12 January 2005]. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds: http://www.epa.
Canada
gov/iwi/iwi-overview.pdf.
EC. 2004. Water Use Data. Environment Canada, Fresh-
NWQAP. 2004. USGS National Water Quality Assessment
water Web Site: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/man-
Data Warehouse. National Water Quality Assessment
age/use/edata.htm.
Program: http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/servlet/page?_
Coote, D.R., and L.J. Gregorich, eds. 2000. The Health of pageid=543&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30.
Our Water: Toward Sustainable Agriculture in Canada.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch:
http://res2.agr.ca/research-recherche/science/Healthy_
Water/e07d.html.
Kolpin, Dana W., and Jeffrey D. Martin. 2003. Pesticides Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the
in Ground Water: Summary Statistics; Preliminary Re- Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. Wash-
sults from Cycle I of the National Water Quality Assess- ington D.C.: Department of the Interior, Fish and
ment Program (NAWQA), 1992-2001. US Geological Wildlife Service: http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/
Survey: http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestgw/Pest- SandTReport.html, and http://wetlands.fws.gov/sta-
GW_2001_Text.html. tusandtrends.htm.
Ferguson, Jill, Linda Pettit-Waldner, Tim Roach, and Dan Dahl, Thomas E., and Craig E. Johnson. 1991. Wetlands
Engelberg. 2004. EPA Claims to Meet Drinking Water Status and Trends in the Conterminous United States,
Goals Despite Persistent Data Quality Shortcomings, mid -1970 to mid-1980s: First Update of the National
Memorandum Report # 2004-P-0008: EPA Office of Wetlands Status Report, 1991. US Department of the
Inspector General: http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/re- Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service: http://www.
ports/2004/20040305-2004-P-0008.pdf. nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/others/wetstatus.pdf.
US EPA. 2004. STORET Legacy Data Center. EPA Office Dahl, Thomas E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United
of Water: http://www.epa.gov/storpubl/legacy/gate- States: 1780’s to 1980’s. Washington, DC, James-
way.htm. town, ND: US Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research
US EPA. 2004. National Contaminant Occurrence Data- Center Home Page, http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/re-
base (NCOD). US Environmental Protection Agency: source/othrdata/wetloss/wetloss.htm.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/ncod.html.
USGS. 1999. National Water Summary on Wetland
USGS. 2004. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). US Resources. US Geological Survey: http://water.usgs.
Department of the Interior, US Geological Survery: gov/nwsum/WSP2425/.
http://nhd.usgs.gov/.
Frayer et al. 1983. Status and Trends of Wetlands and
US EPA. 2001. Draft Report on the Incidence and Severity Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United States,
of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the 1950s to 1970s. Houghton, MI: Michigan Techno-
United States, National Sediment Quality Survey. EPA logical University.
823-R-01-01. Washington DC.: EPA Office of Wa-
ter: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/draft/survey. USGS. 2004. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. US Geologi-
html. cal Service, Center for Aquatic Resource Studies:
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/.
US EPA. 2003. The Safe Drinking Water Information
System / Federal Version (SDWIS/FED). Environmen- Coastal and Marine
tal Protection Agency, The Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water (OGWDW): http://www.epa. International
gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, The World
Bank, and The World Conservation Union (IUCN).
Wetlands 1995. A Global Representative System of Marine Pro-
International tected Areas. Australian Government, Department of
the Environment and Heritage: http://www.deh.gov.
Ramsar. 2004. The List of Wetlands of International Impor- au/coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/global/.
tance. The Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands:
http://ramsar.org/sitelist.pdf. Canada
153
EMAP. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA Canada
620-R-01-005. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development and Office of DFO. 2004. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat: Stock
Water, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Status Reports. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: http://
Program: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr2/in- www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/CSAS/English/Publica-
dex.html. tions/Stock_Report_e.htm.
US EPA. 2004. National Coastal Assessment: Data. US DFO. 2003. Statistical Services. Fisheries and Oceans
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Canada: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/statis-
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): tics/main_e.htm.
http://www.epa.gov/emap/nca/html/data/index.html.
FAO. 2001. Fishery Country Profile - Canada: Food and
NOAA. 2004. Our National Marine Sanctuaries: State of Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
the Sanctuaries Report 2003-2004: NOAA’s National http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/CAN/profile.htm.
Ocean Service: http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.
United States
gov/library/national/sots04.pdf.
NMFS. 2003. Commercial Fisheries. Fisheries Statistics &
NERRS. 2004. National Estuarine Research Reserve System.
Economics Division of the National Marine Fisheries
NOAA, Ocean and Coastal Resource Management:
Service (NMFS): http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/com-
http://nerrs.noaa.gov/Reserves.html.
mercial/index.html.
US EPA. 1998. USEPA National Sediment Inventory (NSI)
NMFS. 2004. Sustaining and Rebuilding: National Marine
Version 1.2 for the Conterminous U.S: http://www.epa.
Fisheries Service 2003- Report to Congress -The Sta-
gov/waterscience/basins/metadata/nsi.htm.
tus of US Fisheries. Silver Spring, MD: US Depart-
Bricker, S., C. Clement, D. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and ment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmo-
D.R.G. Farrow. 1999. National Estuarine Eutrophica- spheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
tion Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries: http://www.
Nation’s Estuaries: National Ocean Service, NOAA. nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/statusostocks03/
Report_Text.pdf.
Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s Living Oceans:
http://www.pewoceans.org/oceans/index.asp. FAO. 2001. Fishery Country Profile - United States: Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Palumbi, Stephen R. 2002. Marine Reserves: A Tool for http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/USA/profile.htm.
Ecosystem Management and Conservation: Pew Oceans
Commission: http://www.pewoceans.org/reports/ Forests
pew_marine_reserves.pdf.
International
US Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. Preliminary Re-
port of the US Commission on Ocean Policy - Governors’ FAO. 2004. Forest Resources Assessment Programme.
Draft. http://oceancommission.gov/documents/pre- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
limreport/welcome.html. Nations, Forestry Department: http://www.
fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.
NCCOS. 2004. National Center for Coastal Monitoring jsp?siteId=101&langId=1.
and Assessment. NOAA, National Ocean Service:
http://ccmaserver.nos.noaa.gov/. FAO. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000: Main
Report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
Turgeon, D.D. et al. 2002. The State of Coral Reef Ecosys- United Nations: http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/we-
tems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated bview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=101&langId=1.
States: 2002. Silver Spring, MD.: National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean FAO. 2003. The State of the World’s Forests 2003. Rome:
Service/National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
http://www.nccos.noaa.gov/publications/notables. Nations, Forestry Department: http://www.fao.org/
html#ch; http://nsandt.noaa.gov/. documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/005/
Y7581E/y7581e00.htm.
Dorfman, Mark. 2003. Testing the Waters 2003: A Guide to
Water Quality at Vacation Beaches: Natural Resources UN-ECE, and FAO. 2000. Forest Resources of Europe, CIS,
Defense Council (NRDC): http://www.nrdc.org/wa- North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (in-
ter/oceans/ttw/titinx.asp. dustrialized temperate/boreal counties). Vol. UN-ECE/
FAO Contribution to the Global Forest Resources
Surfrider Foundation. 2004. State of the Beach 2004: Assessment 2000; Geneva Timber and Forest Study
http://www.beach.com/stateofthebeach2004/home. Papers, No. 17. New York and Geneva: United Na-
asp. tions. http://www.unece.org/trade/timber/fra/.
155
United States Howarth, Robert W., Elizabeth W. Boyer, Wendy J.
Pabich, and James N. Galloway. 2002. Nitrogen Use
USDA. 2004. USDA Economics and Statistics System: in the United States from 1961–2000 and Potential
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/. Future Trends. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human
Environment 31 (2):88-96.
MRLC. 2004. National Land Cover Database (NLDC).
Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium: USDA. Trends in US Agriculture: Farm Numbers and Land
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html. in Farms. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics
Service: http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/trends/index.
NRCS. 2004. National Resources Inventory 2002 Annual
htm; and http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/
NRI. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Re-
nassr/other/zfl-bb/.
sources Conservation Service: http://www.nrcs.usda.
gov/technical/land/nri02/. Heimlich, Ralph. 2003. Agricultural Resources and Environ-
mental Indicators. Washington D.C.: Department of
NRCS. n.d. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database.
Agriculture, Economic Research Service: http://www.
National Cartography and Geospatial Center: http://
ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/ah722/.
www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/branch/ssb/products/statsgo/
index.html.
Grasslands and Shrublands
USDA. 2003. USDA-NASS Agricultural Statistics 2003.
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service: http:// International
www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr03/acro03.htm. United States
USDA-NASS. 2003. Statistical Highlights 2002 and 2003 Bachand, Richard R. 2001. The American Prairie: Go-
of US Agriculture. US Department of Agriculture, ing, Going, Gone? A Status Report on the American
National Agricultural Statistics Service: http://www. Prairie. National Wildlife Federation: http://www.
usda.gov/nass/pubs/stathigh/content.htm. nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/americanprairie.
USDA-NASS. 2002. Census of Agriculture. US Depart- pdf?CFID=5106498&CFTOKEN=87980161f4d0ae
ment of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistical 22-90F9082E-65BF-09FE-B5FBB07D7A4C0EA7.
Service: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/ Conner, Richard, Andrew Seidl, Larry VanTassel, and Neal
volume1/us/st991009010.pdf. Wilkins. n.d. United States Grasslands and Related Re-
USDA. 2003. USDA-NASS Agricultural Statistics 2003. sources: An Economic and Biological Trends Assessment.
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service: http:// Land Information Systems: https://landinfo.tamu.
www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr03/acro03.htm. edu/presentations/ExecSummaryTOC_high.pdf.
USDA-NASS. 2002. Census of Agriculture. US Depart- Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable. 2003. 2003 Sustain-
ment of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistical able Rangelands Roundtable: First Approximation
Service: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/ Report: http://sustainablerangelands.cnr.colostate.
volume1/us/st991009010.pdf. edu/2003Report/2003Report.htm.
United States Parks Canada. 1997. State of The Parks 1997 Report.
Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada: http://www.pc.gc.
TESS. 2003. Threatened and Endangered Species System. ca/docs/pc/rpts/etat-state/SOP_e.pdf.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Con-
servation Online System (ECOS): http://ecos.fws. Parks Canada. 1999. State of Protected Heritage Areas. Parks
gov/tesspublic/TESSWebpage. Canada Agency: http://www.parkscanada.gc.ca/docs/
pc/rpts/heritage/prot1e.asp.
Stein, Bruce A. 2002. States of the Union: Ranking
America’s Biodiversity. Arlington, Virginia: Nature- Parks Canada Agency. 2000. Unimpaired for future genera-
Serve: http://nature.org/earthday/files/states_of_the_ tions? Conserving Ecological Integrity with Canada’s
union_report.pdf. National Parks, Vol. I A Call to Action, Volume II:
Setting a New Direction for Canada’s National Parks.
Stein, Bruce A., Lynn S. Kutner, and Jonathan S. Adams, Ottawa, ON: Panel on the Ecological Integrity of
eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiver- Canada’s National Parks: http://collection.nlc-bnc.
sity in the United States. New York: Oxford University ca/100/200/301/parkscanada/reportofthepanel-e/Li-
Press, The Nature Conservancy and the Association brary/DownloadDocuments/DocumentsArchive/EI-
for Biodiversity Information: http://www.oup-usa. IE/English/Volume2e.pdf.
org/sc/0195125193/summary.pdf. Accessed 24 Janu-
ary 2004. DFO. 2003. Oceans Program Activity Tracking (OPAT) Sys-
tem. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: http://canoceans.
Protected Areas dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index_e.htm.
Chape, Stuart, Simon Blyth, Lucy Fish, Phillip Fox, and NPCA. n.d. Across The Nation. National Parks Con-
Mark Spalding (compilers). 2003. 2003 United Na- servation Association: http://www.npca.org/
tions List of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Swit- across%5Fthe%5Fnation/park%5Fpulse/.
zerland and Cambridge, UK and UNEP World MPA. 2003. Marine Protected Areas of the United States.
Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK: Marine Protected Areas, US Department of Com-
http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/unlist/2003_UN_ merce/NOAA and the US Department of the Inte-
LIST.pdf. rior: http://www.mpa.gov/.
WCPA. 2004. World Database of Protected Areas. World
Commission on Protected Areas: http://sea.unep- Urban Areas
wcmc.org/wdbpa/.
International
WCMC. 2004. GEO Protected Areas Snapshot. GEO Data
UN DESA. 2003. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003
Portal, UNEP.net, World Conservation Monitoring
Revision. United Nations Department of Economic
Centre, World Database of Protected Areas: http://
and Social Affairs, Population Division: http://www.
sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/GEO/GEO_all.cfm?RegI
un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2003/
D=28&SubRegID=&ctyRecID=&year=2004&yearfr
2003WUP.htm.
eetext=&submit=Show+further+details.
Canada
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, The World
Bank, and The World Conservation Union (IUCN). Statistics Canada. 2001. 2001 Census of Canada:
1995. A Global Representative System of Marine Pro- http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/
tected Areas. Australian Government, Department of products/standard/popdwell/Table-CSD-
the Environment and Heritage: http://www.deh.gov. N.cfm?T=2&SR=1&S=20&O=A, Viewed 29
au/coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/global/. October 2004.
North America Statistics Canada. 2001. Urban Consumption of Agricul-
tural Land: Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis
GeoGratis. 2004. NCAD - North American Conservation
Bulletin: http://www.statcan.ca:8096/bsolc/english/
Areas Database. Natural Resources Canada: http://
bsolc?catno=21-006-X2001002, Viewed 29 October
geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/clf/en?action=entrySummary&en
2004.
tryId=3719&entryType=productCollection&context
=&keymap=outlineCanada.
157
United States Thomas Burke. 2004. Identifying priority health condi-
tions, environmental data, and infrastructure needs: a
Johnson, Kenneth M. 1999. The rural rebound. Reports on synopsis of the Pew Environmental Health Track-
America 1 (3):http://www.luc.edu/depts/sociology/ ing Project. EHP Online: Public Health Tracking,
johnson/rebound.pdf, Viewed 16 October 2004. Mini-Monograph: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/mem-
bers/2004/7147/7147.pdf.
American Farmland Trust. 2002. Farming on the Edge:
Sprawling Development Threatens America’s Best Farm- RTI International. n.d. National Human Exposure
land. Washington D.C.: American Farmland Trust: Assessment Survey (NHEXAS): http://www.rti.
http://www.farmland.org/farmingontheedge/index. org/page.cfm?objectid=A892862B-0DB0-4405-
htm. BB30056DB2611983, Viewed 21 July 2004.
Human Health and the Environment CAPRM. n.d. CAPRM II Final Indicators: Chemical and
Pesticides Results Measures: http://www.pepps.fsu.
International edu/CAPRM/.
Canada US EPA. 2003. America’s Children and the Environment:
Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses
Oostdam, Jay Van, and Neil Tremblay. 2003. Chapter
(EPA 240R03001). US Environmental Protection
5: Biological Monitoring: Human Tissue Levels of
Agency: http://www.epa.gov/envirohealth/children/.
Environmental Contaminants. In AMAP Assessment
2002: Human Health in the Arctic, edited by AMAP. CDC. 2004. Environmental Public Health Indicators
Oslo, Norway: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Project: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
Programme, pp 31-51: http://www.amap.no/. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/indicators/default.htm.
United States
Natural Disasters
ALA. 2004. State of the Air: 2004. American Lung Associa-
Canada
tion: http://lungaction.org/reports/sota04_full.html,
Viewed 31 May 2004. PSEPC. 2004. Disaster Database. Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness Canada: http://www.ocipep-
Schneider, Conrad G. 2004. Dirty Air, Dirty Power: Mor-
bpiepc.gc.ca/disaster/search.asp?lang=eng.
tality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from
Power Plants. Clean Air Task Force: www.cleartheair. United States
org/dirtypower.
NCDC. 2005. Billion Dollar US Weather Disasters,
Craun, G.F., and R.L. Calderon. 2003. Waterborne 1980–2004. NOAA, National Climatic Data Center:
Outbreaks in the United States, 1971-2000. In Safe http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html.
Drinking Water Act Compliance, edited by F. Pontius, [accessed 20 January 2005].
pp. 3-18.
UNEP/DEWA/RS.06-1
DEW/0791/WA