| Globalization | Poverty | Development | Sustainability |
******************************************************************************
This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department for
Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD). Reproduction and
dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is
encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United
Nations in making it available.
******************************************************************************
INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGIES
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Foreword
In the four years since the Rio Summit, there have been many
initiatives to promote sustainable development. Indicators are useful
tools to gain insight regarding the progress made in achieving sustainable
development. Agenda 21 calls for countries, international organizations
and non-governmental organizations to develop and use indicators of
sustainable development.
Building on many national and international initiatives aimed at
developing and using indicators, the Commission on Sustainable Development
in 1995 adopted a work programme on indicators for sustainable development.
The work programme includes an initial set of 130 indicators.
To facilitate the use of these indicators and to test their
practicability at the same time, methodology sheets have been developed for
each of them. This publication presents these methodology sheets.
It is essential to get feedback on the indicators and the methodology
sheets. We, in the CSD secretariat, look forward to your reactions and
comments. The goal is to have a good set of indicators for sustainable
development by the year 2000. We count on the users of this publication to
contribute to this goal.
On behalf of the United Nations, I would like to thank all of those
who have participated in the process of making this publication possible.
Joke Waller-Hunter
Director
Division for Sustainable Development
Department for Policy Coordination
and Sustainable Development
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
Page
Foreword
Table of contents v
Introduction vii
Working list of indicators of sustainable development ix
Methodology sheets:
Indicators for social aspects of sustainable development 1
Chapter 3: Combating poverty 3
Chapter 5: Demographic dynamics and sustainability 31
Chapter 36: Promoting education, public awareness and
training 44
Chapter 6: Protecting and promoting human health 83
Chapter 7: Promoting sustainable human settlement
development 123
Indicators for economic aspects of sustainable development 150
Chapter 2: International cooperation to accelerate
sustainable development in countries
and related domestic policies 152
Chapter 4: Changing consumption patterns 166
Chapter 33: Financial resources and mechanisms 184
Chapter 34: Transfer of environmentally sound
technology, cooperation and
capacity-building 201
Indicators for environmental aspects of sustainable development 210
Water
Chapter 18: Protection of the quality and supply
of freshwater resources 213
Chapter 17: Protection of the oceans, all kinds of
seas and coastal areas 233
Land
Chapter 10: Integrated approach to the planning
and management of land resources 245
Chapter 12: Managing fragile ecosystems: combating
desertification and drought 255
Chapter 13: Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable
mountain development 269
Chapter 14: Promoting sustainable agriculture and
rural development 280
Other natural resources
Chapter 11: Combating deforestation 298
Chapter 15: Conservation of biological diversity 311
Chapter 16: Environmentally sound management of
biotechnology 318
Atmosphere
Chapter 9: Protection of the atmosphere 323
Waste
Chapter 21: Environmentally sound management of
solid wastes and sewage-related issues 349
Chapter 19: Environmentally sound management of
toxic chemicals 364
Chapter 20: Environmentally sound management of
hazardous wastes 366
Chapter 22: Safe and environmentally sound
management of radioactive wastes 382
Indicators for institutional aspects of sustainable development 385
Chapter 8: Integrating environment and development
in decision-making 386
Chapter 35: Science for sustainable development 395
Chapter 39: International legal instruments and
mechanisms 404
Chapter 40: Information for decision-making 411
Chapter 23-32: Strengthening the role of major groups 419
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
On occasion of its third session, in April 1995, the Commission
on Sustainable Development (CSD) approved a work programme on indicators
of sustainable development. The work programme included a list of
approximately 130 indicators organized in the Driving Force - State -
Response Framework. In this framework, Driving Force indicators
represent human activities, processes and patterns that impact on
sustainable development, State indicators indicate the "state" of
sustainable development, and response indicators indicate policy options
and other responses to changes in the state of sustainable development.
The indicators are intended for use at the national level by
countries in their decision-making processes. Not all of the indicators
will be applicable in every situation. It is understood that countries
will choose to use from among the indicators those relevant to national
priorities, goals and targets.
Following the decision of the CSD and the adoption of an
implementation plan by experts from various organizations involved in the
follow-up, the process of developing methodology sheets for each of the
indicators was started. The purpose of the methodology sheets is to
provide users at the national level with sufficient information about the
concept, significance, measurement and data sources for each indicator so
as to facilitate data collection and analysis. The process was
coordinated by the United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and
Sustainable Development (DPCSD) but builds upon indicator work being
carried out in several organizations. The process was marked by a high
degree of collaboration among a large number of organizations of the
United Nations system, other intergovernmental organizations, and
non-governmental organizations.
Organizations which have contributed both to the development of
the indicators and to the preparation of the methodology sheets include
the following:
the United Nations Department for Economic and Social
Information and Policy Analysis (DESIPA);
the United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable
Development (DPCSD);
the United Nations Department for Development Support and Management
Services (DDSMS);
the United Nations Department for Humanitarian Affairs (DHA);
the secretariat of the Framework Convention on Climate Change;
the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF);
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD);
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and its Office to
Combat Desertification and Drought (UNSO);
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the secretariat of
the Basel Convention;
the United Nations University;
the Regional Commissions of the United Nations; the United Nations Centre
for Human Settlements (Habitat);
the International Labour Organization (ILO);
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO);
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO);
the World Health Organization (WHO);
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU);
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO);
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO);
the World Bank;
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);
the European Communities Statistical Office;
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD);
the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT);
the International Conservation Union (IUCN);
the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD);
the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA);
the National Institute for Public Health and Environmental Protection
of the Netherlands (RIVM);
the New Economics Foundation;
the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE);
the Worldwatch Institute;
the World Resources Institute (WRI);
the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and
the Wuppertal Institute.
In February 1996, a meeting of government experts was organized
by the Environment Agency of Japan, in cooperation with DPCSD, in Glen
Cove, New York, to discuss and evaluate the methodology sheets from the
point of view of potential users. The methodology sheets were also
circulated among a roster of international experts for their comments.
The responsible organizations revised the methodology sheets
accordingly and a first draft of the publication was presented as a
Background Paper no. 15, at the fourth session of the Commission on
Sustainable Development, in April/May 1996. Since then additional and
revised methodology sheets have been submitted by the lead agencies and
were incorporated into the revised edition of the document. In a few
instances, methodology sheets are still being developed and in these
cases, a "bookmark" has been included, stating the name of the indicator,
a brief definition, the unit of measurement, and its placement in the
framework. The work on completing and revising the methodology sheets
will continue, as the CSD work programme on indicators now enters its
second phase.
The second phase concentrates on enhancement of information
exchange among all interested partners, training and capacity building
at the regional and national levels and monitoring the use of the
indicators in countries that have shown interest in this process. The
publication will now be forwarded to all Governments to assist them in
working with indicators in their decision-making processes. As feedback
and results from testing, analytical work are discussed, further
improvements in the indicators and methodology sheets will be
implemented. This includes in the longer run, additional work on
interlinkages, highly aggregated indicators and the conceptual framework
and compilation of environmental indicators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodology Sheets
Indicators for Environmental Aspects of
Sustainable Development
Table of Contents
Page
Water
Chapter 18: Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater
resources 213
- Annual withdrawals of ground and surface water 213
- Domestic consumption of water per capita 216
- Groundwater reserves 219
- Concentration of faecal coliform in freshwater 220
- Biochemical oxygen demand in water bodies 224
- Waste-water treatment coverage 227
- Density of hydrological networks 230
Chapter 17: Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas and
coastal areas 233
- Population growth in coastal areas 233
- Discharges of oil into coastal waters 234
- Releases of nitrogen and phosphorus to coastal waters 235
- Maximum sustained yield for fisheries 238
- Algae index 244
Land
Chapter 10: Integrated approach to the planning and management
of land resources 245
- Land use change 245
- Changes in land condition 248
- Decentralized local-level natural resource management 251
Chapter 12: Managing fragile ecosystems: combating
desertification and drought 255
- Population living below poverty line in dryland areas 255
- National monthly rainfall index 258
- Satellite derived vegetation index 260
- Land affected by desertification 263
Chapter 13: Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain
development 269
- Population change in mountain areas 269
- Sustainable use of natural resources in mountain areas 272
- Welfare of mountain populations 277
Chapter 14: Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural
development 280
- Use of agricultural pesticides 280
- Use of fertilizers 283
- Irrigation percent of arable land 285
- Energy use in agriculture 288
- Arable land per capita 291
- Area affected by salinization and waterlogging 293
- Agricultural education 296
Other natural resources
Chapter 11: Combating deforestation 298
- Wood harvesting intensity 298
- Forest area change 301
- Managed forest area ratio 305
- Protected forest area as a percent of total
forest area 308
Chapter 15: Conservation of biological diversity 311
- Threatened species as a percent of total native
species 311
- Protected area as a percent of total area 315
Chapter 16: Environmentally sound management of biotechnology 318
- R & D expenditure for biotechnology 318
- Existence of national biosafety regulations or
guidelines 320
Atmosphere
Chapter 9: Protection of the atmosphere 323
- Emissions of greenhouse gasses 323
- Emissions of sulphur oxides 326
- Emissions on nitrogen oxides 330
- Consumption of ozone depleting substances 334
- Ambient concentrations of pollutants in urban areas 338
- Expenditure on air pollution abatement 346
Waste
Chapter 21: Environmentally sound management of solid wastes
and sewage-related issues 349
- Generation of industrial and municipal solid waste 349
- Household waste disposed per capita 352
- Expenditure on waste management 355
- Waste recycling and reuse 358
- Municipal waste disposal 361
Chapter 19: Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals 364
- Chemically induced acute poisonings 364
- Number of chemicals banned or severely restricted 365
Chapter 20: Environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes 366
- Generation of hazardous wastes 366
- Imports and exports of hazardous wastes 370
- Area of land contaminated by hazardous wastes 375
- Expenditure on hazardous waste treatment 378
Chapter 22: Safe and environmentally sound management of
radioactive wastes 382
- Generation of radioactive wastes 382
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNUAL WITHDRAWALS OF GROUND AND SURFACE WATER
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a)Name: Annual withdrawals of ground and surface water as of a percent of
available water.
(b)Brief Definition: The total annual gross volume of ground and surface
water extracted for water uses, including conveyance losses, consumptive uses
and return flows, as a percentage of the total average annually available
volume of freshwater.
(c)Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the
Development, Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to show the degree to which
available water resources are being exploited to meet the country's water
demands. It is an important measure of a country's vulnerability to water
shortages.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The indicator
can show to what extent freshwater resources are already used, and the need
for adjusted supply and demand management policy. It can reflect the extent of
water resource scarcity with increasing competition and conflict between
different water uses and users. Limited availability of water could have
negative effects on sustainability constraining economic and regional
development, and leading to loss of biodiversity with degradation of
freshwater ecological systems. Sustainability assessment of changes in the
indicator is linked to water availability. The indicator's variation between
countries as well as in time is a function of climate, population, and
economic development, as well as the economic and institutional capacity to
manage water resources and demand.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator's interpretation would
benefit from linkage with established water vulnerability indicators, such as
available freshwater resources per capita, measures of the country's economy,
such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and poverty incidence as an indicator of
equity of access. The indicator also needs to be matched with population,
social and economic indicators, irrigation as % of arable land, and drought
frequency. Interpretation will benefit from linking this indicator with
groundwater reserves and unused buffer water resources.
(d) Targets: No international target exists other than those set by
international treaties between countries.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: For international water
law, see reference in section 7 below. International water sharing agreements
also exist between many countries.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: A major problem is to define
available water and to differentiate between groundwater and surface water.
The only approach which respects the physical integrity of the water resources
is to consider where it is produced internally, that is from precipitation
inside the boundaries of the country/area. Internal renewable water resources
does not account for water generated in neighbouring countries nor does it
make the distinction between groundwater and surface water. This approach
brings a number of limitations which are described below.
(b) Measurement Methods: The indicator measures total water
abstractions divided by available water.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator is a reflection of
socioeconomic factors, such as population growth and economic development.
The expansion of irrigated lands can have a large impact on water demand.
Thus, the indicator represents a Driving Force within the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: This indicator has several important
limitations, most of them related to the computation of available water.
Accurate and complete data are scarce. Countries may be able to use important
non-renewable fossil groundwater at a sustainable rate. Available waters are
internal from endogenous precipitation or shared and external from outside the
country.
Except in a few cases, no consideration is given to recycling or the possible
double counting of shared water resources. Available waters can be enhanced
through water resources development (flow-regulating reservoirs, inter-basin
transfers, groundwater development etc.) and policy measures (allocation and
pricing), and need to be judged by economic and environmental considerations
and institutional capacity. Return flows and percolation losses which could
enhance available waters are not considered. Local sub-national variation of
water availability and water use abstractions could be considerable, and this
indicator does not reflect the local or individual watershed situation.
Seasonal variation in water availability is not reflected. There is no
consideration of distribution among uses and policy options for mitigating
scarcity, for example, re-allocation from agricultural to other uses.
Available water does not consider water quality and its suitability for use.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The indicator could consider withdrawals
and available waters at different levels of use efficiency and economic and
environmental water costs and values. The data for such calculations, however,
are not readily available. For some countries, calculation of the indicator at
sub-national levels would be more appropriate. The indicator could be
disaggregated to show available water, withdrawals, and irrigation use.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Annual water withdrawals
divided with average annual available water. Current water uses need to be
known.
(b) Data Availability: Data is available for most countries, at the
national level. Data quality is a problem in AQUASTAT (see 5c below) as the
data are estimated by countries at various periods, are often repeatedly
developed from the same original sources, are often interpolated and national
data on withdrawals and available water are sometimes biased and intentionally
over- or underestimated.
(c) Data Sources: Recent data are available at the country level and
recorded at the international level by the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) in AQUASTAT (1994/1995).
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
The contact point is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development
Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
7. Further Information
Mar del Plata 1977, Dublin ICDE 1992. International Water Law. Helsinki Rules
on Use of Waters of International Rivers 1966 and Seoul Rules, International
Groundwaters 1986.
Shiklomanov. Global Water Resources. 1990.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION OF WATER PER CAPITA
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Domestic consumption of water per capita.
(b) Brief Definition: Domestic consumption of water per capita is the
amount of water consumed per person for the purposes of ingestion, hygiene,
cooking, washing of utensils and other household purposes including garden
uses. Where it is customary for domestic animals to be kept at or in the
living environ their needs are also included in the assessment.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Litres per capita per day.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development,
Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The indicator assesses the quantity of water needed and/or
available to individuals in particular communities for their basic needs. It
helps to identify communities where these basic requirements are not being met
enabling actions to be planned and priorities for water supply development to
be set.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Adequate
quantities of water for meeting basic human needs are a prerequisite for
existence, health, and development. If development is to be sustained,
adequate quantity of water must be available. In fact, as development
increases, in most instances, the demand for water will also increase on a per
capita basis for personal, commercial, and agricultural purposes. Thus, the
indicator can be used as a useful indirect indicator of the level of social
and economic development.
If sustained development is achieved without, or with a limited increase in
per capita water consumption it can be a direct indicator of effective water
resource management. There is also a direct relationship between per capita
water consumption and water availability/scarcity and pricing. Domestic water
consumption is also closely linked to climatic conditions and water
availability. Clearly in arid and semi-arid areas where water supplies are
limited, consumption is constrained.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked with
several other socioeconomic and environmental indicators, such as population
growth rate, population density, rate of growth of urban population, land use
change, annual withdrawals of ground and surface water, and irrigation percent
of arable land.
(d) Targets: Agenda 21 established a target of access to at least 40
litres per capita per day of safe water in urban areas by the year 2000
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The United Nations Water
Conference recommended that Governments reaffirm their commitment made at
Habitat to "adopt programmes with realistic standards for quality and quantity
to provide water for urban and rural areas~. The goal of universal coverage
was reiterated at the World Summit for Children in 1990. See also Agenda 21,
section 3d above.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Domestic water consumption
although normally present in terms of litres per capita per day is a computed
figure since the parameter is household water consumption. Household water
consumption can be measured by meters connected to a water distribution
network or through a survey of the number of journeys per day made to a
standpost or water point.
(b) Measurement Methods: Per capita water consumption can be measured (or
estimated) through metered supply, local surveys, sample surveys or total
amount supplied to a community divided by number of inhabitants.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator measures water
consumption per capita. As such, it is a Driving Force in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Per capita water consumption provides
only one part of the picture with regard to water supply. To assess the
overall status of water supply provided to an individual, it is necessary to
combine consumption data with complementary information on the quality of the
water provided, the type of system used to deliver the supply, the distance to
be travelled to collect water, number of people per households per water
point, etc.
(e) Alternative Definitions: For domestic use, this indicator can be
replaced with household consumption per day. However, this is a more limited
measure of water consumption.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Record of water authorities~
meter readings and the results of household, sample and other surveys and
research projects, as well as information from project designs.
(b) Data Availability: Data is not normally available on a routine basis
but the World Health Organization (WHO) has been obtaining estimates of
national average figures from governments as part of its water supply and
sanitation monitoring activities.
(c) Data Sources: The data is available from national water authorities
and water supply utilities, field project evaluation reports, and records of
water supply development organizations.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Health Organization (WHO).
The contact point is the Director, Division of Operational Support in
Environmental Health, WHO; fax no. (41 22) 791 4159.
(b) Other Organizations: Other relevant organizations include: the
United Nations Children~s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Centre for
Human Settlements (HABITAT).
7. Further Information
The International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade, End of Decade
Review (as at December 1990). WHO, Geneva, WHO/CWS/92.12.
Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Monitoring Report 1993. Sector Status as
of 31 December 1991. WHO/UNICEF.
LEAD AGENCY: WHO
GROUNDWATER RESERVES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Groundwater reserves.
(b) Brief Definition:
(c) Unit of Measurement:
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development,
Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
(Indicator under development)
LEAD AGENCY: DDSMS
CONCENTRATION OF FAECAL COLIFORMS IN FRESHWATER
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Concentration of faecal coliforms in freshwater bodies.
(b) Brief Definition: The proportion of freshwater resources containing
concentrations of faecal coliforms which exceed the levels recommended in the
World Health Organization (WHO) Drinking Water Guidelines.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development,
Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The indicator assesses the quality of water available to
communities for basic needs. It identifies communities where faecal
contamination of water at source or in the supply is posing a threat to
health.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The concentration
of faecal coliforms in freshwater bodies is an indirect indicator of
contamination with human and animal excreta. Water contaminated with faecal
coliforms poses a serious health risk and is therefore unsuitable for potable
supply without being disinfected (chlorination). Faecal indicator organisms
remain the most sensitive and specific way of assessing the hygienic quality
of water. Escherichia coli (E. coli), the thermotolerant and other coliform
bacteria, the faecal streptococci and spores of sulphite-reducing clostridia,
are common indicators of this type used, with E. coli being the most specific
of all indicators. This measure indicates situations where treatment is
required or has to be improved to guarantee safety of supply. As population
density increases and/or more people are provided from a supply system, the
more critical safe, potable water becomes.
Diarrhoeal diseases, largely the consequence of faecal contamination of
drinking water supply, are variously estimated to be responsible for around
80% of morbidity/mortality in developing countries. A prerequisite for
development is a healthy community. Ill health not only reduces the work
capability of community members but frequent diarrhoeal episodes disrupt
children~s education which, in the longer term, can have serious consequences
for sustainable development.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is closely linked with
several others in the environmental and socioeconomic (health) categories,
including annual water withdrawals, domestic consumption of water per capita,
biochemical oxygen demand in water bodies, waste water treatment coverage, and
percent of population with adequate excreta disposal facilities.
(d) Targets: The standards are available in the WHO Drinking Water
Guidelines. These have been adopted by most countries.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The United Nations Water
Conference recommended governments reaffirm the commitment made at Habitat to
adopt programmes with realistic standards for water quantity to provide
sanitation for urban and rural areas. The goal of universal coverage was
reiterated at the World Summit for Children in 1990.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Ideal faecal indicator
characteristics are difficult to find in any one organism. However, many
useful characteristics are found in E.coli and, to a lesser extent, in the
thermotolerant coliform bacteria. For this reason E. coli tends to be the
preferred/recommended faecal contamination indicator. Faecal streptococci
satisfy some of the criteria and tend to be used as supplementary indicators
of faecal pollution indicating human and animal faeces.
(b) Measurement Methods: Microbiological examination provides the most
sensitive, although not the most rapid, indication of pollution by faecal
matter. Because the growth medium and the conditions of incubation, as well
as the nature and age of the water sample, can influence microbiological
analysis, accuracy of results may be variable. This means that the
standardization of methods and laboratory procedures are extremely important.
Established standard methods are available through the International
Organization of Standardization (ISO), American Public Health Association
(APHA), the UK Department of Health and Social Security, and the Guidelines
for Drinking-Water Quality (WHO).
Determination of sample size is the first important step in the examination.
The source of the sample will determine in the first instance the
concentration of organisms. Under normal conditions, the volume of sample for
a lake or reservoir sample would be 100 ml., while in the case of raw
municipal sewage only 0.001 ml. would be required. Larger samples would
result in too large a number of organism to make counting possible. Time-of-
travel may often be of relevance and changes in the bacterial characteristics
of samples can be reduced to a minimum by ensuring the samples are not exposed
to light and are kept preferably between 4 and 10 degrees C. Such precautions
are particularly important in tropical climates where ambient temperatures are
high and sunlight (ultra-violet radiation) is brightest.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator shows the level of
health risk for the community utilizing the source of water for potable and
hygienic purposes. It represents a State indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Concentration of E. coli in a water
sample provides only one part of the picture with regard to water quality. To
assess the overall status of water at source and supplied for potable and
other uses, it is necessary to combine the information of this indicator with
complementary data on physical and chemical quality. E. coli is an indicator
but not a pathogen by itself.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The indicator could be shown as the
proportion of the population using water source for domestic water supply that
do not meet the standards. The microbiological quality of water in relation to
faecal contamination can be defined in terms of Escherichia coli,
thermotolerant coliform bacteria, total coliform organisms, faecal
streptococci, sulphite-reducing clostridia/ coliphages and bifidobacteria.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Records of water authorities~
laboratories, hydrogeological institutes, universities, municipal public
health laboratories, research institutes, and special studies which show the
level of E. coli.
(b) Data Availability: Data are normally available from municipal water
supply authorities on a routine basis. Ministries of health in many countries
often check on the bacterial quality of new sources when they are being
considered for supply purposes.
(c) Data Sources: The data are available from national water authorities
and water supply utilities, ministries of health, and research institutes.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Health Organization (WHO).
The contact point is the Director, Division of Operational Support in
Environmental Health, WHO; fax no. (41 22) 730 6449.
(b) Other Organizations: Other organizations contributing to the
development of this indicator include: the Water and Environmental Sanitation
Section, United Nations Children~s Fund (UNICEF); United Nations Centre for
Human Settlements (HABITAT); and the Land and Water Division, Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO),
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
WHO. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. Second Edition, Volumes 1 and 3
Recommendations, WHO, Geneva, 1993.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. 17th Edition. 1989.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Detection and
Enumeration of the Spores of Sulphite-reducing Anaerobes (clostridia). Part 1:
Method by Enrichment in a Liquid Medium. ISO 646171.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Enumeration of
Viable Micro-organisms--Colony Count by Inoculation in or on a Nutrient Agar
Culture Medium. ISO 6222.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: General Guide
to the Enumeration of Micro-organisms by Culture. ISO 8199.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Detection and
Enumeration of Coliform Organisms, Thermotolerant Coliform Organisms and
Presumptive Escherichia coli, ISO 9308-2; Part 1 Membrane Filtration Method,
Part 2 Multiple Tube. ISO 9308-1.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Detection and
Enumeration of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa; Part 1 Method by Enrichment in Liquid
Medium, Part 2 Membrane Filtration Method. ISO 8360-2.
International Organization for Standardization. Water Quality: Detection and
Enumeration of Faecal Streptococci; Part 1 Method by Enrichment in a Liquid
Medium, Part 2 Method by Membrane Filtration. ISO 7899/2.
LEAD AGENCY: WHO
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND IN WATER BODIES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in water bodies.
(b) Brief Definition: BOD measures the amount of oxygen required or
consumed for the microbiological decomposition (oxidation) of organic material
in water.
(c) Unit of Measurement: mg/l of oxygen consumed in 5 days at a constant
temperature of 20 degrees C.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development,
Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to assess the quality of
water available to consumers in localities or communities for basic and
commercial needs.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Sustainable
development is heavily dependant on suitable water availability for a variety
of uses ranging from domestic to industrial supplies. Strict water quality
standards have been established to protect users from health and other adverse
consequences of poor water quality. The presence of BOD as an indicator of
faecal contamination can restrict water use and development or necessitate
expensive treatment. Ill health due to water quality problems can reduce work
capability and affect children's growth and education. It is, therefore,
important to monitor organic pollution to identify areas posing a threat to
health, to identify sources of contamination, to ensure adequate treatment,
and provide information for decision making to enhance water sustainability.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: Several indicators are directly linked
to the concentration of organic material in freshwater. These measures
include annual withdrawals of ground and surface water, domestic consumption
of water per capita, concentration of faecal coliforms in freshwater, percent
of population with adequate excreta disposal facilities, access to safe water,
infant mortality rate, nutritional status of children, environmental
protection expenditures as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, and
expenditure on waste collection and treatment.
(d) Targets: Not available.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The Resolution II and Plan
of the United Nations Water Conference recommended governments reaffirm the
commitment made at Habitat to "adopt programmes with realistic standards for
quality and quantity to provide water for rural and urban areas". The goal of
universal safe water coverage was reiterated at the World Summit for Children
in 1990.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: BOD is an empirical test to
provide a measure of the level of organic material in a body of water. The
test involves the incubation of a diluted sample for a period of five days at
a constant temperature of 20 degrees C. The sample is diluted to bring it
within the operational parameters of the test procedure. The test represents
a standard laboratory procedure usually referred to as the BOD5 test.
The procedure is used to estimate the relative oxygen requirements of waste
waters, effluents, and other polluted waters. Micro-organisms use the oxygen
in the water for biochemical oxidation of polluting matter, which is their
source of carbon.
(b) Measurement Methods: The method used consists of filling to
overflowing an airtight bottle of specified size with the water sample to be
tested. It is then incubated at a constant temperature for five days.
Dissolved oxygen is measured initially and after incubation. The BOD5 is then
computed from the difference between the initial and final readings of
dissolved oxygen.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator is a measure of
the State of water quality.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The main limitation of the indicator is
that it provides empirical and not absolute results. It gives a good
comparison among samples, but does not give an exact measure of the
concentration of any particular contaminant. It is important to follow
laboratory procedures precisely to obtain consistent results. The five-day
time-frame to obtain results represents the main operational drawback of the
indicator.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is an
alternative measure of the oxygen equivalent of the organic matter content of
a sample that is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical exigent. COD
can be empirically related to BOD5. After this correlation is determined for
a specific source, it is a useful measure obtained from an instantaneous
chemical test.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: BOD5 results from laboratories.
(b) Data Availability: Data is normally available from municipal waste
water treatment and discharge facilities on a routine basis.
(c) Data Sources: The data is available from the laboratories of water or
public health authorities, water research institutes, and universities. At
the national level, the data sources include national water authorities, water
supply utilities, ministries of health or environment, and research
institutions.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency responsible for the development of this
indicator is the World Health Organization (WHO). The contact point at WHO is
the Director, Division of Operational Support in Environmental Health; fax no.
(41 22) 791 4159.
(b) Other Organizations: Other agencies assisting in the development of
this indicator include the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF); United
Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat); and the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
7. Further Information
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. 17th Edition. 1989.
International Standards Organization. Water Quality--Determination of
Biochemical Oxygen Demand after Five Days (BOD5). ISO 5815. 1989.
International Standards Organization. Water Quality--Determination of the
Chemical Oxygen Demand. ISO 6060. 1989.
LEAD AGENCIES: WHO, UNEP
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Wastewater treatment coverage.
(b) Brief Definition: The treatment of wastewater can be defined as the
collection of waste- water from household, commercial, industrial or public
premises and its conveyance to a location where it receives treatment
sufficient to permit its discharge to the environment without adverse impact
on public health and the ecosystem.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %. Proportion of the wastewater generated by the
community receiving acceptable levels of treatment prior to discharge.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the
Development, Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator assesses the potential level of pollution
from domestic and industrial/commercial point sources entering the aquatic
environment, and monitors progress towards reducing this potential within a
framework of integrated water resources management. It helps to identify
communities where wastewater treatment action is required to protect the
ecosystem.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: In many countries
the large proportion of wastewater is discharged to the environment with
little or no treatment. This is economically, socially, and environmentally
unsustainable, especially recognizing the increasing demands on finite water
resources, rapidly expanding populations particularly in urban areas,
industrial expansion, and the need to expand irrigated agriculture. Low water
quality reduces the availability of water resources for specific uses, in
particular domestic needs; and has adverse implications for public health.
Wastewater treatment, therefore, is central to the requirements for
sustainability. The situation is particularly serious in developing countries
where financial resources for pollution control are scarce.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator has important linkages
to other socioeconomic and environmental indicators, such as annual
withdrawals of ground and surface water, the levels of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) in water resources, concentration of faecal coliforms, population
growth, informal settlements, infrastructure expenditure, and generation of
waste.
(d) Targets: Agenda 21 recommends that quantitative and qualitative
discharge standards for municipal and industrial effluents are established and
applied by the year 2000.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The United Nations Water
Conference recommended governments reaffirm the commitment made at Habitat to
adopt programmes with realistic standards for water quantity to provide
sanitation for urban and rural areas. The goal of universal coverage was
reiterated at the World Summit for Children in 1990.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The proportion of wastewater
treated is the percentage of water consumed and returned to the environment
according to criteria and standards that ensure that it does not impact on the
aquatic environment to the detriment of sustainable development. Within this
context, treatment can comprise a wide range of processes including simple
screening, sedimentation, biological-chemical processes, or appropriately
designed marine discharge.
(b) Measurement Methods: The proportion of domestic waste (sewage)
treated in urban areas can be determined on the basis of the quantity of water
consumed by households as compared to the capacity of wastewater treatment
facilities. It can also be estimated on the basis of areas of a community
connected to the sewerage system and the population inhabiting these
localities.
In the case of industrial waste a similar approach can be taken for those
installations which are connected to a central sewerage system, using water
consumption and allowing for the differentiation between process and cooling
waters. In many cases, industrial establishments, either discharging their
effluents direct or through the public sewerage system, have their own
treatment facilities.
As far as the efficacy of treatment is concerned, this can only be determined
from the performance information for each waste treatment plant judged against
established discharge criteria.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator reflects a
societal Response towards the treatment of waste and the protection of human
health and ecosystems.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The main limitation of this indicator
is the effort required to collect and collate the information. This can be
avoided at least to some extent, through the use of estimates. This
indicator provides information on the degree of treatment. It does not,
however, deal with the level of treatment required to meet the requirements of
specific ecosystems.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The proportion of wastewater treated can be
converted into a quantity of wastewater. These loadings can be defined in
terms of a weekly, monthly, or annual burden by catchment, water source, or
other boundary. For some countries, it may be practical and useful to keep
household, and commercial and industrial wastes separate.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The data required include
records of water authorities' meter readings; data on the capacity service
area; and performance of waste treatment facilities; information on industrial
processes and trade-waste treatment plants; information from wastewater
laboratories; and number of house connections to the sewerage system.
(b) Data Availability: Data is often not available, or is incomplete.
Without surveys of individual industrial establishments or environmental
impact assessments associated with new industrial developments, data will
remain partial or, at best professional estimates.
(c) Data Sources: The data are available from national water authorities
and water supply utilities, river basin/catchment authorities, municipal
authorities, industry and field project evaluation reports.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Health Organization (WHO).
The contact point is the Director, Division of Operational Support in
Environmental Health, WHO; fax no. (41 22) 791 4159.
(b) Other Organizations: Other contributing organizations include the
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) and the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP).
7. Further Information
The World Bank. Development and the Environment: World Development Indicators.
World Development Report 1992.
LEAD AGENCY: WHO
DENSITY OF HYDROLOGICAL NETWORKS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Density of hydrological networks.
(b) Brief Definition: Density of hydrological networks is defined as the
average area served by one hydrological station. It is derived by dividing
the area of the territory by the number of hydrological stations operated
within this territory.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Area in km2 per station.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 18: Protection of the Quality and Supply of
Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development,
Management, and Use of Water Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: To assess the adequacy of existing hydrological networks to
provide the necessary information on freshwater in the context of freshwater
assessment. The density should be sufficient to avoid deficiencies in
assessing, developing, and managing water resources.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Adequate
hydrological networks to provide data on freshwater are important to support
sustainable development. Hydrological observations from appropriate spatial
and temporal coverage, provide information to decision makers to facilitate
informed, preventative action. These early warnings are essential where
sustainable development is threatened.
Before considering forecast and response strategies, it is important to know
how much water and of what quality is available. The basic hydrological
network should therefore provide a level of hydrological information that
would preclude gross mistakes in decision making related to freshwater.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to
most of the other freshwater resource indicators, including groundwater
reserves; BOD and COD in freshwater bodies; concentration of coliforms in
freshwater bodies; annual withdrawals of groundwater; and surface water as a
percent of available water.
(d) Targets: The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) offers guidance
on the minimum density of international hydrological networks for various
hydrological variables and conventions or for different physiographic,
climatic and geographic zones.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: See section 3d above.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The density of hydrological
networks is measured as the average area for one hydrological station. The
territory in question may be divided according to its physiographic and/or
climatic features. The density is understood as a set of values representing
densities of stations monitoring different hydrological variables; such as,
precipitation, streamflow, groundwater, sediment load, water quality (for
surface water, groundwater and sediment), and evaporation.
The network is understood here to comprise a series of sub-networks each
composed of gauges and stations within the territory which are collecting data
on a different hydrological variable. The territory itself might be an
administrative unit such as a country, state, or province, or a physical
entity such as a river basin.
(b) Measurement Methods: Calculated on the basis of lists and maps of
observation stations.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The density of hydrological
networks indicates a government policy Response to the need to monitor
hydrological variables for assessing, developing and managing freshwater
resources.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The minimum recommended density is not
uniform either worldwide or for all hydrological variables. Its value may
indeed depend on such factors as the economic development of the country,
population density, climate, or geographic zone.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The scope of this indicator could be
broadened to take into account other monitoring networks, such as air quality,
land use change, etc. It would then become an indicator of environmental
monitoring and observation. In such a case, it would probably best fit as an
institutional response indicator.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Number of stations where the
variables of concern have been observed, and their location.
(b) Data Availability: Data of this type have been analyzed within the
framework of the INFOHYDRO and Basic Network Assessment Projects (BNAP) of
WMO.
(c) Data Sources: The principle data sources are national hydrological or
hydrometeorological agencies, and other data collecting organizations. The
WMO Secretariat has compiled a set of such data.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is the World Meteorological organization (WMO). The contact
point is the Director, Hydrology and Water Resources Department, WMO; fax no.
(41 22) 734 2326.
7. Further Information
WMO. Guide to Hydrological Practices. Fifth Edition, WMO-No. 168, Chapter
20, 1994.
WMO. INFOHYDRO Manual. WMO-No. 683, 1987 (Second edition in press).
LEAD AGENCY: WMO
POPULATION GROWTH IN COASTAL AREAS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Population growth in coastal areas.
(b) Brief Definition:
(c) Unit of Measurement:
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 17: Protection of the Oceans, all Kinds of Seas,
including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the
Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
(Indicator under development)
LEAD AGENCY: UNEP
DISCHARGES OF OIL INTO COASTAL WATERS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Discharges of oil into coastal waters.
(b) Brief Definition: Estimates of oil entering the coastal marine
environment from land-based activities, maritime transportation, offshore
exploration and exploitation, through the atmosphere, as well as natural
seepages.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Metric tons.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 17: Protection of the Oceans, all Kinds of Seas,
including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the
Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
(Indicator under development)
LEAD AGENCIES: FAO, IMO
RELEASES OF NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS TO COASTAL WATERS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Releases of nitrogen and phosphorus to coastal waters.
(b) Brief Definition: Average annual load of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus
(P) from land sources discharged into coastal waters.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Tons per year, reported separately for N and P,
for a given watershed area, and when possible aggregated on a national basis.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 17: Protection of the Oceans, all Kinds of Seas,
including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the
Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator represents the potential for impacts of
nutrient releases into enclosed or semi-enclosed marine environments.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: This indicator
reflects the negative externalities of fertilizer use, as well as domestic and
industrial discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus. It is an indication of
inadequate sanitation and/or wastewater treatment facilities, or pollution
control. Nutrient enrichment of coastal waters may have consequences to
important economic and environmental goods and services, for example, tourism
and recreation, maintenance of the fishery potential, and decline or
preservation of estuarine and marine biodiversity. The importance of normal to
lightly enriched freshwater discharge, if free of associated chemical
contaminants, to fisheries production, is however only now being fully
recognized.
Such impacts are likely to be negative if uncontrolled, and if close to the
point of discharge. For example, water quality deterioration, eutrophication
(with consequent decreased light penetration and reduced dissolved oxygen
levels), and degradation of fishery resources (especially demersal and benthic
species). Low to moderate releases may enhance fishery production, given that
natural levels of discharges from rivers sustain marine production at moderate
to high levels in estuarine and coastal waters.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The indicator is linked to many other
socioeconomic, environmental, and institutional indicators including: use of
fertilizers, land use and condition change, quality of freshwater resources,
environmental protection expenditures, population growth in coastal areas, and
participation in maritime agreements.
(d) Targets: Not available.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following conventions
and agreements apply to this indicator: Helsinki Commission on the Baltic,
1982, 1992; Black Sea Convention on the Environment, 1994; Sofia Convention
(Danube), 1994; European Economic Community (EEC) directives on nutrients to
water bodies; EEC Convention on Transboundary Pollution, 1983.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Concepts are available. The
indicator needs to be specific to a watershed and a receiving water body whose
degree of mixing/water retention is important to determine effects. Further
chemical specification of the nutrients is needed. While the contribution of
same-size fluxes of ammonium-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen would be similar in
regard to eutrophication (provided nitrogen is the limiting nutrient), their
impacts to the receiving water body will be quite different.
(b) Measurement Methods: The methodology is not yet ready for immediate
application in many areas. The indicator needs to be measured using the mass
balance principle through a technique called Regional Mass Flux Budgeting.
First, system boundaries need to be established using the watershed, or
drainage basin, as its horizontal extension. Vertical boundaries in the
atmosphere and ground need to be selected. Within those boundaries, the
processes or activities relevant to the nutrient mass cycle (input-output) are
determined. A time period of one year is usually selected for nutrient
balances. Balances can be established only for total elements (total-N or
total-P) or specific compounds. Additional information is needed to determine
impacts.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: The indicator relates to marine
pollution. It is a Driving Force indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Effects will depend on assimilative
capacity of water body (according to biophysical conditions). The indicator
does not reflect the cumulative impact upon the water body. No indication is
given as to the proportional contribution of different sources (including
atmospheric deposition), or the prevalent paths of nutrients to coastal
waters, unless broader information included in the preparation of the regional
mass balance is available. In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish
between anthropogenic nutrient loading and environmental conditions.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Releases of N and P by sources (agricultural,
domestic, industrial) would indicate major contributions and guide policy
action. Ratio of N/P releases would indicate which nutrient is the limiting
factor for eutrophication. It would be appropriate for some countries which
only border on one sea, to select either N or P as the indicator, depending on
which is of primary influence.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Regional mass balances for
nitrogen and phosphorus.
(b) Data Availability: Very little data are available. Some input data on
fertilizers and source-point measurements are available for specific areas.
(c) Data Sources: Principle data sources include: River and regional
commissions and in Europe and North America; and studies on specific water
bodies, for example the Mediterranean, Baltic, and Black Sea.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency is the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
The contact point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development
Department, FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
7. Further Information
Baccini, P. and B.H. Brunner. Metabolism of the Anthroposphere (ISBN: 3-540-
53778-3). 1991.
Isserman, K. Share of Agriculture in Nitrogen and Phosphorus into the Surface
Waters of Western Europe against the Background of their Eutrophication.
Fertilizer Research, 253-269, 1990.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED YIELD FOR FISHERIES
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: This indicator can be: (i) the ratio between maximum sustained
yield (MSY) abundance and actual average abundance; or (ii) the deviation in
stock of marine species from the MSY level.
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator is an expression of the state of
fishery resource exploitation to its sustainable size.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 17: Protection of the Ocean, all Kinds of Seas,
including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the
Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator expresses the state of the fishery resource
and/or its level of exploitation, in relation to either the MSY, or to virgin
stock size. If spawning stock size is available, it has the further refinement
of providing some indication of reproductive capacity of the resource.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: If a resource
biomass is at or below that believed to apply under MSY conditions, or if the
fishing effort or fishing mortality is at or above that believed to apply
under the same conditions, there must be serious concern that the resource may
currently be overexploited. This is not only because MSY conditions imply a
level of fishing effort that is in excess of economically optimal harvesting,
and has other biological impacts on target and associated species, but because
the precision with which the underlying quantities used in these indices are
measured is relatively low. Estimates of population biomass or cohort size,
even in developed country fisheries, rarely are more precise than + or - 20%.
Such a low precision presents a significant risk that fishing may be more
intensive than is apparently measured by the indices, and that sustainable
development options are possibly being compromised. Other more conservative
and sophisticated indicators may be appropriate in particular circumstances
(see United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] reference in
section 7 below).
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely linked to the
other measures proposed for marine resources in Agenda 21. In a more general
sense, it is also linked to socioeconomic indicators, such as population
growth rate.
(d) Targets: The concept of using benchmarks and reference points as
targets has been partly abandoned in recent fisheries conventions (see section
3e below). Given the great uncertainty with the stock size and condition of
sea stocks, especially marine open stocks, two types of management bench marks
are now proposed (See FAO reference in section 7 below). These are Target
Reference Points (TRPs) focusing on the classical objectives of fisheries
management; and Limit Reference Points (LRPs) which represent upper limits to
the rate of fishing or fishing effort level (or lower limits to the population
biomass or spawning biomass) that should not be passed. It is specified in the
Conventions below that when LRPs are approached, action should be taken to
ensure they are not exceeded.
With respect to national policy for exclusively national stocks, TRPs and LRPs
should be estimated using the best scientific information available, and a
precautionary approach applied where such information is inadequate. In the
case of straddling, highly migratory, or transboundary stocks, such reference
points and a joint exploitation strategy should be developed with other states
sharing the same stock.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The Draft Agreement for
the Implementation of the Provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Doc A/CONF 164/33),
particularly Annex II, and of course the 1982 Convention itself, are of
immediate relevance. The other significant draft agreement is the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which applies to all fisheries in marine
and freshwater, and whose Article 6 also recommends the use of LRPs and TRPs.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The measures used to provide
the ratio indicators for MSY are well known, and described in a number of
texts on fisheries assessment and population dynamics. The approach is based
on the application of general production models.
It is felt that only one indicator based on Maximum Sustainable Yield is not
the best way to measure the state of resource exploitation. Under these
circumstances, a more empirical approach to developing indicators may be
appropriate for a particular fishery; or a customized indicator may be
developed from those given in the FAO reference listed in section 7 below
which reflects the particular methodologies used for assessment of the
resource in question. The MSY indicator is obtained by fitting the
relationship between yield and fishing effort for a historical series of catch
and effort data by a production model, but roughly equivalent indicators can
be obtained from size or age based methods of analysis.
Fishing at the MSY level is now seen to be excessive, and determining MSY
where it is not yet known, involves overfishing, which is obviously
undesirable. Unfortunately, none of a number of alternative benchmarks for
lower rates of fishing, such as described in the FAO report listed in section
7 below are widely accepted, so no obvious single alternative benchmark
emerges. For many global fish stocks, MSY levels have not yet been
determined.
Where MSY estimates are available, it should of course be possible to
determine whether the fishing effort level corresponding to MSY (f[MSY]), or
the corresponding fishing mortality rate (F[MSY]), is currently being exceeded
or not. Depending on the fisheries management methodology used in a country,
it may be possible, as an alternative, to say if the current biomass or
spawning biomass of a particular stock has fallen below that corresponding to
MSY (B[MSY]).
An alternative indicator that is commonly used to measure the state of the
marine fisheries resources, and could be used instead of MSY-related
indicators where these do not exist, is to specify what is the current
biomass, or spawning biomass, as a percentage of the virgin biomass B[O],
determined by surveys or other estimates of unexploited stock size, before the
fishery had been established.
In summary, four alternative indicators are proposed:
(i) Ratio of current effort to that at MSY: (f[NOW]/f[MSY]);
(ii) Ratio of current fishing mortality rate to that at MSY:
(F[NOW]/F[MSY]);
(iii) Ratio of current population biomass (or spawning biomass) to
that at MSY: (B[MSY]/B[MSY]);
(iv) Current biomass to that under virgin conditions, that is, before
fishing began: (B[NOW]/B[0]).
The above indicators are given as ratios, they are pure numbers, as are the
instantaneous rates of fishing mortality. It is generally possible to cross-
reference these indicators under specific assumptions, so that the apparent
diversity of indices simply provides a choice that allows for the different
information sources available under different fishery management regimes. In
all cases, the indicator could be expressed in terms of the ratio and the
component numerical values being divided.
(b) Measurement Methods: The measurement methods for each of the
alternative indicators are described below:
i) f[NOW]/f[MSY]: The current effort level given in standard units
adjusted for changes in fleet fishing power over time, is expressed as a ratio
or percentage of the effort level under MSY conditions, where these prevailed
and were estimated in the past.
ii) F[NOW]/F[MSY]: An instantaneous rate of fishing mortality F, is
defined by the ratio of the natural logarithm of numbers for fully exploited
cohorts now in the fishery at the beginning N(t), and end N(t+1) of the year,
allowing for the instantaneous rate of mortality due to natural causes, M:F =
[ln N(t) - ln N(t+1)] - M. This is calculated for the most recent year,
[F(NOW)] and for the period when MSY conditions were believed to have applied,
and the ratio taken.
iii) B[MSY]/B[MSY]: The biomass (or spawning biomass of mature animals) is
determined for the most current year (for example, by trawl surveys) and
compared with that level of biomass (or spawning biomass) when MSY conditions
were believed to have applied.
iv) B[NOW]/B[0]: The biomass (or specific spawning biomass of mature
animals) is determined for the most current year (for example, by trawl
surveys) and compared with the level of biomass (or spawning biomass) before
commercial exploitation began. Under a commonly-used population model, the
logistic, MSY conditions occur when the stock size is reduced to 50% of the
virgin stock size: that is, when this indicator shows values of 0.5 or lower.
MSY and biomass are usually specified in tonnes (1000 kg), and fishing effort
either in standard number of days per year fished or total standard fleet
horsepower (see Gulland reference in section 7 below).
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator provides a measure
of the State of the fisheries resource resulting from the pressure of human
activities.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The major defect of the MSY concept,
and of these indicators, is that MSY is determined by fitting an empirical
"control curve" of catch on exploitation intensity or effort. This does not
always fully reflect processes of birth and death, effects of exploitation on
non-target species, or inter-species interactions, nor does it reflect changes
in methodology of fishing. To improve management, it is important that
countries collect ancillary data (for example, on size and age composition of
catches and populations) that can be used to produce more refined indicators
of value for the management of the resource, as their research funds and
skilled manpower allow.
For many countries, suitable data to calculate these indicators are scarce.
In addition, major deficiencies are characteristic of many available data
sets. For example, there are serious deficiencies in data series for annual
catch due to poor statistical design, lack of consideration of catches by
small scale fleets, or problems where the extent and nature of unit resources
have not been defined, or sharing taken into account. Not all national
statistical offices collect the required data. In such cases, research
institutes estimates are often developed from special research information
collected and analysed by one or several qualified scientists.
(e) Alternative Definitions: See sections 4a and 4b above.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data are required for annual
catch, fishing effort, fishing mortality rates, biomass estimates, and stock
size and age. Other supplementary data needs may be proposed, such as mean
size or age in the catch (which goes down with fishing pressure); the
percentage of mature fish in the catch, the overall instantaneous mortality
rate, and the proportion of long-lived fish in the catch (for a multispecies
fishery). These are of value to resource management, if they can be referred
to the exploitation rate by human harvesting, specified as the target and
limit conditions set as management reference points.
(b) Data Availability: Most countries collect data on annual catch. Not
many countries maintain data on fishing effort by national fleets; still fewer
standardize effort levels by different fleets and arrive at an annual total.
Unless size and age compositions are collected and/or estimated from properly
sampled catches in ports, fishing mortality rates will not be estimated, which
in any case requires a cadre of trained fisheries scientists working in an
equipped fisheries or marine science laboratory. Regular direct biomass
estimates will require regular fisheries surveys using standard vessels and
procedures with trained observers/fisheries biologists on board.
(c) Data Sources: National statistical offices often collect data on
catches, and fleet size, but often require assistance in distinguishing
species in the catch. At present, effort and mortality estimates, and other
biological information used to develop the indicators mentioned above, are
almost always performed by national marine resource institutes or
universities.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point
is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO;
fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The fisheries laboratories of the North Atlantic
countries, particularly the UK, Canada and USA, and International Fisheries
Commissions (notably the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the
International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (now defunct)) have
sponsored the earliest applications of these indicators. The work of the
International Center for living Aquatic resources Management (ICLARM), Manila
has been aimed at applying these concepts in tropical fisheries.
7. Further Information
Food and Agriculture Organization. Reference Points for Fishery Management.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 347. 1995.
Gulland, J.A. Fish Stock Assessment. Volume 1 FAO/Wiley Series on Food and
Agriculture. 1983.
Hilborn, R. and C.J. Walters. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment.
Routledge, Chapman and Hall Inc. 1992.
Also see issues of the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science over
the last decade for articles outlining recent developments in this field.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
ALGAE INDEX
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Algae index.
(b) Brief Definition: The Algae index could contain information of three
elements: the type of algae (phytoplankton) species present, the composition
of the algae species, and the amount of algae present in the water column.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Amount of algae per litre.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 17: Protection of the Oceans, all Kinds of Seas,
including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas; and the
Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
(Indicator under development)
LEAD AGENCIES: FAO, UNESCO
LAND USE CHANGE
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Land use change.
(b) Brief Definition: Change with time of the distribution of land uses
within a country.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Proportion of change of each category of land
use to another land use per unit of time.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 10: Integrated Approach to the Planning and
Management of Land Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to highlight changes in
the productive or protective uses of the land resource to facilitate
sustainable land use planning and policy development.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Information on
land use change is critical for integrated and sustainable land use planning.
Such information is useful in identifying opportunities to protect land uses
or promote future allocation aimed at providing the greatest sustainable
benefits for people.
Changes in arable and permanent crop land and wooded areas give important
information about a country's endowment in agricultural and forest resources,
both from an economic and an environmental perspective. Economically, changes
in land use will, for example, result in changes in the volume of produce
available and influence employment opportunities. From an environmental point
of view, unsustainable land use is an important factor in erosion and
desertification, may pose a threat to ecosystems, and lead to natural habitat
loss and landscape changes. Changes which lead, for example, to inappropriate
farming and grazing practices, or to environmentally insensitive construction
or mining activities are significant from a sustainability viewpoint. This
indicator acts as a synoptic measure for the myriad of more specific
environmental and natural resource changes significant to sustainable
development.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The interpretation of this indicator is
significantly improved if it is considered with land quality. It is also
closely linked to many other social, economic, environmental, and
institutional indicators, such as those related to population (for example,
population growth rate, rate of growth of urban population, population
density, population dynamics in mountain areas), energy and mineral reserves,
land affected by desertification, sustainable use of natural resources in
mountain areas, arable land per capita, wood harvesting intensity, protected
areas as a percent of total land area, and sustainable development strategies.
(d) Targets: Generally, international targets for this indicator do not
exist. However, certain minimal contiguous limits or proportions of total
land area have been established for certain needed or desirable land uses, for
example protected areas (see Protected Area as a Percent of Total Area
indicator).
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The underlying concepts and
definitions for land use classifications are widespread. Work coordinated by
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is currently
underway to harmonize classification systems and databases to improve national
and international land use information. This includes the development of
definitions and protocols, computerized land use database structure, and
broadly accepted structure of land use classifications.
(b) Measurement Methods: Land use change data can be derived from
periodic mapping and monitoring, partly on the basis of land cover
information; from remote sensing, supported by ground truthing; and the use of
land use aspects from agricultural census. It is essential to use a uniform
classification of land use and cover. The FAO/United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) approach is recommended (see reference in section 7 below).
Land use and land cover database software is also available. Use of these
tools will lead to the production of uniform results and statistics.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: As land use change can result in
changes in land potential, or availability and quality of land resources, it
has the character of a Driving Force indicator. However, it can also be
regarded as a State indicator in the DSR Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator by itself does not
identify the causes or pressures leading to the change in land use. At the
international level, sufficient harmonization of land use classification has
yet to be achieved. Georeferenced land use change data are generally not
available.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The data required includes
updated statistics and remote sensing coverage, dependable agricultural census
data on land uses, and dependable land use maps, all updated at regular
intervals.
(b) Data Availability: Broad land use statistics are available for most
countries. However, variable definitions, and the lack of consistent land use
change data which is spatially referenced are serious impediments to, for
example, temporal analysis and international comparisons.
(c) Data Sources: Data are available from national governments and
regional and international programmes which focus on land use information.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point
is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO;
fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The United Nations Environment Programme is a
partner in the development of this indicator. National experts from
governments and institutes, for example the International Institute for
Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences and the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology,
have also contributed.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
United Nations Environment Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization.
Report of the UNEP/FAO Expert Meeting on Harmonizing Land Cover and Land Use
Classifications. Geneva November 23-25, 1993. GEMS Report Series No. 25.
Nairobi. March 1994.
Other documents are available and under development.
(b) Status of the Methodology:
A methodology has not been agreed to by any intergovernmental fora.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
CHANGES IN LAND CONDITIONS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Changes in land conditions.
(b) Brief Definition: Changes, disaggregated by type and geographic
location, in the condition, suitability, and nature of the land resource.
These may be of very different types including: physical soil condition;
diversity or density of vegetation cover; thickness of topsoil; alkaline
conditions; terracing; establishment of contour vegetation strips; etc.
(c) Unit of Measurement: The areal extent and magnitude of the selected
land condition changes, with improvement and deterioration reported
separately.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 10: Integrated Approach to the Planning and
Management of Land Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure changes in the
productive capacity, the environmental quality, and the sustainability of the
national land resource.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Changes in land
quality and suitability to support various land uses has obvious and
fundamental impacts on the sustainability of the land resource. Such changes
can be linked to anthropogenic or natural causes, and seriously affect human
wellbeing. Land degradation can limit the capacity of land and water
resources to support agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and human settlements.
In severe forms, it can lead to desertification. On the other hand, land
conservation measures, such as terracing, can lead to improvements in land
quality and productivity. Land condition changes, whether positive or
negative, are significant to human activities, for example affecting crop
yields; and ecosystem health including habitat quality and availability. This
indicator may be particularly relevant to countries if it is related to
priority national land quality issues, and used for early warning purposes to
promote preventative conservation measures.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The interpretation of this indicator
is strengthened if linked to land use change. It is also closely linked to
several other social, economic, environmental, and institutional indicators,
such as population growth rate, population density, Gross Domestic Product per
capita, land affected by desertification, area affected by salinization and
waterlogging, area of land contaminated by hazardous waste, and sustainable
development strategies.
(d) Targets: No international targets exist or apply. National or
sub-national targets for individual types of change, for example the
reclamation of salt-affected land or the restoration of land damaged by
erosion, may exist in certain countries.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: No formal conventions or
agreements exist, but three less formal documents support this indicator: i)
World Soil Charter, adopted by the United Nation Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) Conference 1981; ii) the International Scheme for the
Conservation and Rehabilitation of African Lands (ARC/90/4), adopted by the
Africa Regional Conference 1990; iii) The Den Bosch Declaration and Agenda for
Action on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, FAO and Government of
the Netherlands, 1991.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts and definitions of
land and soil degradation are available, for example, in the Global Assessment
of Soil Degradation (GLASOD) Study. The current work on the World Catalogue of
Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) by Berne University/Swiss
Development Cooperation, the World Association for Soil and Water
Conservation, and FAO will provide concepts and information on the extent of
different types of land conservation practices. However, this indicator
requires additional conceptual development and cannot be considered
satisfactorily operational at this time for most countries.
(b) Measurement Methods: It is suggested that the indicator be measured
by the extent of land improved or deteriorated, specified by type of change.
The measurement should be conducted with a monitoring interval of 5-10 years.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This represents a State indicator
within the DSR Framework which monitors improvement or degradation of land
quality due to land management or natural causes.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Land quality can be represented in many
ways and it is difficult and expensive to collect sufficient quality data for
meaningful analysis. Comparison between countries is not possible due to the
variety of land quality variables, diverse classification systems, and the
paucity of available data especially for large areas.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The indicator could be based on the
selection of a core set of land quality parameters based on availability of
data. Such parameters could include: vegetation cover; land at risk from soil
erosion; soil organic matter levels; and salinization. Such an approach may
emerge in the future with additional national and international experience.
However, at this time, a greater degree of flexibility in selecting parameters
may be more appropriate.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data for this indicator can be
derived from a variety of sources, including soil surveys, land cover surveys,
soil degradation assessments, and estimates of the extent of different land
improvements since previous census.
(b) Data Availability: Data are generally not available in a systematic
form, except in a very few countries. Some data are available at a global
scale (1:5 million and 1:10 million), or at the national level.
(c) Data Sources: Data may be available from national soil survey
institutes, agricultural censuses, or remote-sensing data collections.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant
Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no. (39-6) 5225
3152.
7. Further Information
Guidelines for Agro-ecological Zone Studies (in preparation).
Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD) Study.
Soils Bulletin 67.
World Soil Resources Report 71 and 71/1-9.
World Soil Resources Report 74. Global and National Soils and Terrain Digital
Databases (manual).
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
DECENTRALIZED LOCAL-LEVEL NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Decentralized local-level natural resource management.
(b) Brief Definition: This indicator is a measure of the extent to which
higher level governments have devolved management of natural resources to
local communities; and of changes in the allocation of powers of resource
management.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Numbers of local governments and local
communities to which resource management has been devolved or with which
resource management is shared as percentages of total numbers of local
governments and local communities.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 10: Integrated Approach to the Planning and
Management of Land Resources.
(b) Type of Indicator: Response.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator represents the extent to which resource
management is in the hands of landholders or other de facto local resource
controllers; and partially represents whether local resource controllers and
others with direct impact on resources have incentives to conserve them.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Devolution, or at
least sharing, of rights, responsibilities and rewards is increasingly
recognized as essential for sound resource management. Community empowerment
is one of the more important institutional issues, a key to changing to or
reinforcing sustainable behaviour. Community management of resources
signifies community empowerment, with direct consequences for sustainable
development.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to other
indicators which have implications for resource use from an institutional
perspective. These would include: access to information, contribution of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and sustainable development strategies.
(d) Targets: No targets exist for this indicator.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The Desertification
Convention discusses empowerment of local resource users.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The concepts are well
developed, but seldom applied. They are documented in a variety of
publications on community development and community resource management. From
an operational viewpoint, this indicator still requires development.
The local level with administrative authority recognized by higher level
governments, and the lowest level of social organization above the family
regardless of recognition by governments. The two are not necessarily the
same. Devolution of management needs to be at both levels. It involves
transfer or sharing of responsibility for the resources and of the income from
their use. It may also involve transfer or sharing of skills and information
to ensure management is effective.
It is useful to distinguish resource users (such as hunters, loggers, and
tourists), de facto resource controllers (private landowners, local
government, the state), and resource managers. The key is for local resource
controllers to share management with the state and to have a strong incentive
to conserve the resource.
(b) Measurement Methods: Measurement is complicated by the facts that
more than one local level may be involved, and that devolution of management
includes several aspects, including responsibilities, rights to rewards,
skills, and information. Consequently, the indicator may entail several
measurements. In Zimbabwe, for example two measures have been used together:
percent of rural districts granted authority over wildlife management; and
districts that have devolved at least 50% of gross wildlife revenues to
communities as a percent of districts granted authority over wildlife
management (see Prescott-Allen, 1995 in section 7a below). The first of these
is a measure of central government devolution to local government. The second
is a measure of local government devolution to communities. The two measures
are regarded as equally important, and are therefore added together and
averaged to provide a single indicator.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator represents an
institutional Response to resources management.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The indicator requires development and
testing. Devolution says nothing about the capacity of the various partners
to work together according to a decentralized model. The measurement unit
ignores the important qualitative assessment of how well resource management
is shared among resource users, local communities, and higher levels of
government. The indicator does not show whether the local communities and
governments actually conserve the resources.
(e) Alternative Definitions: An alternative method of expressing the
indicator would be with a yes/no designation. This would not be a meaningful
measure, because of the several levels and components of local management that
are involved.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Rights and responsibilities
devolved. Total number of local governments/communities. Number of local
governments/communities to which rights or responsibilities have been
devolved. Capacities of all concerned to work to a decentralized model.
Actors involved in sharing resource management, and manner and extent of that
sharing.
(b) Data Availability: The data are available for some countries only.
Most data can be gathered only at the local level, preferably with full
community participation in the assessment.
(c) Data Sources: National sources are communities, resource users,
resource management departments, and NGOs cooperating with community
management programs. There is no international source of data.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the World Conservation Union (IUCN).
The contact point is the IUCN International Assessment Team; fax no. (1 604)
474 6976.
(b) Other Organizations: The Office to Combat Desertification and
Drought, United Nations Development Programme has contributed to the
development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
(a) Further Readings:
Dudley, Eric. The Critical Villager: Beyond Community Participation.
Routledge, London and New York. 1993.
International Institute for environment and Development (IIED). Whose Eden?
An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management. London. 1994.
Murphree, M. Communities as Resource Management Institutions. Gatekeeper
Series, 36, IIED, London. 1993.
Prescott-Allen, Robert. Barometer of Sustainability: a Method of Assessing
Progress towards Sustainable Societies. PADATA, Victoria, Canada. 1995.
Prescott-Allen, Robert and Christine (eds.). Assessing the Sustainability of
Uses of Wild Species: Case Studies and Initial Assessment Procedure. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland. 1996.
(b) Other Contacts:
United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization; fax no. (39 6) 522 3369.
International institute for Environment and Development; fax no.
(44 71) 388 2826.
Office to Combat Desertification and Drought, United Nations Development
Programme; fax no. (1 212) 906 6345/6916.
LEAD AGENCY: IUCN
POPULATION LIVING BELOW POVERTY LINE IN DRYLAND AREAS
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Population living below poverty line in dryland areas.
(b) Brief Definition: A measure of the number of persons/households
classified as living below the nationally-defined poverty line, given as a
fraction of the total population in a country's dryland area.
(c) Unit of Measurement: %.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 12: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Combating
Desertification and Drought.
(b) Type of Indicator: Driving Force.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of the indicator is to show the extent to
which poverty affects dryland economies, limiting investment and increasing
short-term resource management leading to degradation. It indicates the need
for the establishment of alternative income-generating projects and food
security systems in drought-prone areas.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: This indicator
is relevant to policy decisions related to education, health, land tenure,
decentralization of resource management. It can guide decision making towards
preventive measures for lands that are not yet degraded or are slightly
degraded. In addition, it would contribute to the identification of factors
leading to desertification, the development of practical measures to combat
desertification and mitigate the effects of drought, and the implementation
and evaluation of national action plans. The sustainable development of
dryland ecosystems depends on supporting a diversified economy and re-
investing locally the revenues of goods and services produced.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The link between poverty and
environmental degradation was established by the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED). More specifically, the indicator is
better interpreted if paired with land use, infrastructure availability, and
other socioeconomic indicators, for example, population density, education,
food security, tenure, and percentage of household income spent on food.
(d) Targets: No international targets exist for poverty eradication or
rural development.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification and the International Conference on
Population and Development (Cairo) are relevant to this indicator.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: Poverty concepts are available
at the national level or from the World Bank World Development Report.
However, this indicator is not operational to any degree at this time, due to
the severe limitations outlined under 4d below.
(b) Measurement Methods: A country-specific poverty line. The headcount
index as a percentage of the population is established. The headcount index
is the percentage of the population below the poverty line. This needs to be
computed at a regional or sub-regional level to cover the dryland area,
depending on the country.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: Poverty in dryland areas can be
considered a Driving Force inasmuch as it may cause people to mismanage
resources and contribute to desertification. This will not hold true in all
regions and at all times, given the cyclical nature of droughts. On the other
hand, poverty can be considered a State indicator wherever desertification
degrades the resource base and contributes to the expansion of poverty.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The concept of a poverty line can be
misleading. Poverty is measured in terms of income. However, populations in
dryland areas may be income-poor given lack of access to markets or monetized
economies, but wealthy in terms of livestock. Also, the poverty line
measurement is insensitive to the distribution of income below the poverty
line. Security of tenure, a key socioeconomic aspect of sustainable
development in drylands, is not reflected in poverty indicators. Therefore,
while the issues of poverty and population pressure are important in combating
desertification, further refinement of the indicator is necessary. Geo-
referencing to agro-ecological conditions and crops, and knowledge of carrying
capacity and its spatial/temporal variability is needed to properly capture
the role of poverty in the degradation of drylands. Disaggregation of poverty
data by dryland may not be readily available.
(e) Alternative Definitions: The focus of this indicator is limited to
dryland areas only. An alternative socioeconomic indicator may be proposed as
the "optimal land size for the sustenance of a household basic needs." The
sign and amplitude of the difference between the average landholding and this
optimal land size could serve as an indicator of the resulting wealth or
poverty of households and of pressures for degradation. Determination of
optimal land size, however, is a complex multi-disciplinary exercise. Amounts
of land needed would depend on life style (that is., nomadic, sedentary), food
products consumed, variability of rain, etc. Data on optimal farm sizes are
available from many member nations. "Basic needs" would generally be computed
by countries to establish poverty indices. Issues of land tenure are not
captured by this alternative indicator either.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Population and income
statistics disaggregated by dryland region.
(b) Data Availability: Data disaggregated by dryland area not readily
available at the international level. Relevant national data would be
available from national statistical institutions.
(c) Data Sources: The United Nations and World Bank data are the major
international sources of data for this indicator.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator
is the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact
point is the Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development Department,
FAO; fax no. (39 6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: Further development of the indicator would be
of interest to FAO, the United Nations Statistical Office (UNSO), and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
7. Further Information
The World Bank. World Development Report. 1990.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
NATIONAL MONTHLY RAINFALL INDEX
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: National monthly rainfall index (NMRI).
(b) Brief Definition: The national average of monthly station rainfall,
weighted by the long-term station rainfall average.
(c) Unit of Measurement: The preferred measure is the departure from
average in standard deviations. An alternate measure is the absolute value or
departure from the average in millimetres.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 12: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Combating
Desertification and Drought.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The purpose of this indicator is to measure rainfall water
availability in countries subject to desertification and drought.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Desertification
in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas results from various factors,
including climatic variations and human activities. It affects about one
sixth of the world's population, 70% of drylands, and about 25% of the total
land area of the world. Strengthening the access to the knowledge base on
biophysical factors such as rainfall availability will facilitate improved
management of freshwater and land resources. Rainfall data over the longer
term is significant from a climate change perspective, and, therefore, has
significance in the development of adaptive strategies. Rainfall information
is critical to, for example, habitat protection, and agricultural planning and
risk assessment.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is closely related to
other social, economic, and environmental measures important to dryland areas.
These would include: population growth rate, net migration rate, human and
economic loss due to natural disasters, Gross Domestic Product per capita,
groundwater reserves, land use change, land affected by desertification, and
arable land per capita.
(d) Targets: Not available.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: Not available.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The definitions and concepts
associated with this indicator are well-known and readily available. The NMRI
gives greater weight to areas with a high agricultural potential, assuming a
roughly linear relation between total monthly rainfall and agricultural
potential.
(b) Measurement Methods: This indicator is readily computed from monthly
station rainfall data. The NMRI is easy to interpret, and consistent across
time and countries.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator represents a
climate condition. As such, it is a State measure in the context of the DSR
Framework.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: Most dryland ecosystems transcend
national boundaries. Intra-seasonal patterns (bimodal rainfall, etc.) are not
taken into account. The quality of the indicator depends on the number and
geographic distribution of suitable rainfall stations.
(e) Alternative Definitions: For large countries or for countries only
partially affected by dryland conditions, regional reporting may be more
appropriate.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: The essential data are monthly
rainfall statistics by meteorological station.
(b) Data Availability: The data required are readily available.
(c) Data Sources: The data are available from national climatological
services and international databases.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
The lead agency for the development of this indicator is the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point is the Assistant
Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO; fax no.
(39-6) 5225 3152.
7. Further Information
Gommes, R. and F. Petrassi. Rainfall Variability and Drought in Sub-Sahara
Africa since 1960. FAO Agrometeorology Series Working Paper No. 9. FAO Rome.
November 1994.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
SATELLITE DERIVED VEGETATION INDEX
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Satellite derived vegetation index.
(b) Brief Definition: A Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) of
green leaf biomass derived from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Advanced Very High Resolution Radiance (AVHRR)
satellites.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Grid cells of 50 km2.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 12: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Combating
Desertification and Drought.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: This indicator measures the evolution of vegetation activity
as a result of the combined effect of meteorological and ecological
conditions, and human activity in dryland areas.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: Desertification
and drought affect about one sixth of the world's population, 70% of drylands,
and about 25% of the total land area of the world. Strengthening the
knowledge base on biophysical factors such as vegetation biomass will
facilitate improved risk assessment and resource management. Areas under
recurrent low biomass NDVI values represent regions where the risk of
unsustainable development is high, especially if associated with high
population pressure.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: The interpretation of this indicator
is strengthened if it is linked with the other measures proposed for this
Agenda 21 chapter. It is also linked to other social, economic, and
environmental indicators, such as population growth rate, net migration rate,
Gross Domestic Product per capita, land use change, and land condition change.
(d) Targets: Not available.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The following United
Nations conventions are relevant to this indicator: Convention to Combat
Desertification; Framework Convention on Climate Change; and Convention on
Biological Biodiversity.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: The NDVI is a well known
indicator measuring the amount and vigour of surface vegetation. Its magnitude
is related to the level of photosynthetic activity in the monitored
vegetation.
In general, higher values of NDVI indicate greater vigour and amounts of
vegetation. The indicator is usually presented in map form from a geographic
information system database. Its interpretation is enhanced if it is
georeferenced with such factors as rainfall and population pressure.
(b) Measurement Methods: The NDVI is calculated using a ratio of the
radiometric value obtained respectively from the near infra red (NIR) and
visible red (R) channels of low resolution satellite data. It is represented
by the formula:
NDVI = NIR-R
-----
NIR+R
It is computed every ten days from a series of daily NDVI values at a
resolution of 7.6 km at the global level, and at 1 km for some subregions or
countries.
(c) The Indicator in the DSR Framework: This indicator is a measure of
the State of vegetation.
(d) Limitations of the Indicator: The following limitations are
associated with this indicator: (i) calibration is needed to connect
atmospheric disturbance and variation of sensor sensitivity; (ii) correlation
between NDVI and biomass remains coarse if not correlated with vegetation maps
and/or ground measurements; (iii) problems exist in distinguishing very low
vegetative cover from soil background.
(e) Alternative Definitions: Not available.
5. Assessment of the Availability of Data from International and National
Sources
(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Satellite data such as those
from NOAA's AVHRR.
(b) Data Availability: Data are available daily from the AVHRR
satellites.
Data from the Syste`me Probatoire d'Observation de la Terre (SPOT) 4 satellite
(vegetation passenger data) will be available in 1997.
(c) Data Sources: Data at the global scale is available from NASA/NOAA or
SPOT (from 1997). Data at higher resolution are available for several
countries and regions from various national or regional remote sensing
centres. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in the
framework of the Application Research and Test for Emergency Management
Intelligent Systems (ARTEMIS) project and several remote sensing projects has
data for Africa and the Near East.
6. Agencies Involved in the Development of the Indicator
(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency for the development of this indicator is
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The contact point
is the Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO;
fax no. (39-6) 5225 3152.
(b) Other Organizations: The Agrhymet Centre of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), and the Regional Centre for Services in
Surveying, Mapping and Remote Sensing (RCSSMRS) in Kenya have been involved in
the development of this indicator.
7. Further Information
Not available.
LEAD AGENCY: FAO
LAND AFFECTED BY DESERTIFICATION
Category: Environmental
1. Indicator
(a) Name: Land affected by desertification
(b) Brief Definition: This is a measure of the amount of land affected by
desertification and its proportion of national territory.
(c) Unit of Measurement: Area (Km2) and % of land area affected.
2. Placement in the Framework
(a) Agenda 21: Chapter 12: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Combating
Desertification and Drought.
(b) Type of Indicator: State.
3. Significance (Policy Relevance)
(a) Purpose: The indicator describes the extent and severity of
desertification at the national level. It should be: (i) a measure of the
state of the problem at any one time; (ii) an indication of the trend in the
severity of the problem over time and success of response mechanisms; and
(iii) a means of comparing the severity of the problem from one country to
another.
(b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development: The indicator
should be a mechanism for determining the importance of this issue at the
national level. Trend data over time can indicate success of response
mechanisms. For dryland areas, desertification is a central problem in
sustainable development. While many dryland ecosystems have generally low
levels of absolute productivity, maintenance of that productivity is critical
to the present and future livelihood of many hundreds of millions of people.
Combating desertification is the core of sustainable development for large
areas of the world. Severe degradation is a major impedent to sustainable
development; moderate or slight degradation is also a significant barrier.
(c) Linkages to Other Indicators: This state and trends indicator needs to
be considered in conjunction with related driving force and response
indicators, integrating physical and socio-economic processes, for meaningful
interpretation and policy relevance at the national level. It is closely
linked with indicators concerning land use, such as area affected by soil
erosion, deforestation, use of marginal land, area affected by waterlogging
and salinization, protected area as a percent of total land area, area of land
reclaimed, and population living below the poverty line in dryland areas.
(d) Targets: No specific targets have been defined, however, the goal
should be to reduce the area and percentage of land affected by
desertification, and/or reduce the severity of desertification.
(e) International Conventions and Agreements: The two most significant
agreements are: Agenda 21 of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and
Development; and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, 1994.
4. Methodological Description and Underlying Definitions
(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: For the purposes of this
indicator, desertification is defined as -land degradation in arid, semi-arid,
and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic
variations and human activities~ (UN Convention to Combat Desertification,
1994). Land degradation means reduction or loss, in arid, semi-arid and dry
sub-humid areas of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of
rainfed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest and woodlands
resulting from land uses or from a process or combination of processes,
including processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns,
such as: (i) soil erosion caused by wind and/or water; (ii) deterioration of
the physical, chemical and biological or economic properties of soil; and,
(iii) long-term loss of natural vegetation. Land degradation, therefore,
includes processes which lead to surface salt accumulation and waterlogging
associated with salt-affected areas.
Arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas means areas, other than polar and
sub-polar regions, in which the ratio of annual precipitation to potential
evapotranspiration falls within the range from 0.05 to 0.65 (UN Convention to
Combat Desertification, 1994)
(b) Measurement Methods: Measurement for this indicator initially requires
an assessment of the extent of land degradation throughout the arid, semi-
arid, and dry sub-humid zones of the nation. This is best done by a
combination of previous assessments represented in map form, carried out by
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) with the United Nations
Office to Combat Desertification and Drought (UNSO), and the Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO); and updates from a combination of remote
sensing and local knowledge.
The creatio