United Nations System-Wide Earthwatch |
|||
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
CONTENTS ANNEX 1 I. CRITICAL REVIEW
OF UNEP OBSERVING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMMES II. OTHER ENTITIES ENGAGED IN OBSERVING, ANALYSIS AND REPORTING paragraphs 46-53 III. USEFULNESS OF DATA COLLECTED paragraphs 54-67 IV. CRITICAL DATA GAPS paragraphs 68-81 ANNEX 2 1 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK paragraphs
5-8 2 CRITICAL GAPS paragraph 22 3 COLLABORATION
FOR IMPROVED OBSERVING AND ASSESSMENT paragraph 42
|
|||
ANNEX 1 | |||
1. The first section of this annex gives an historical overview of the development of the different UNEP observing and assessment programmes, together with an evaluation of their impacts and shortcomings. The first part covers UNEP's initiatives in monitoring and assessment launched prior to the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, including the recent status of long-established programmes. The second part considers UNEP's new work in the past 6 years. A third part provides some comparisons with case studies of other programmes, and draws some conclusions. 2. The second section summarizes the other entities engaged in observing, analysis and reporting and UNEP's interactions with them. The third section looks at the issue of useful data and less useful data. The fourth section provides a brief review of critical data gaps which a UNEP observing and assessment strategy should aim to fill. I.
CRITICAL REVIEW OF UNEP OBSERVING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMMES
3. UNEP was established as one of the outcomes of the UN Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in June 1972. During the 1970s and 1980s, the organization very effectively played a leading role in putting on the environmental agenda many urgent and emerging issues, such as ozone depletion and trade in hazardous wastes, and facilitated the creation of many important international environmental conventions on, for example, ozone depletion, climate change and biodiversity. 4. The Stockholm conference called for the establishment of the Earthwatch system to keep the global environment under review. At the time, environmental observing was not yet a major routine activity in most countries. Comprehensive and relevant data on the global environment were scarce. Consequently, during its first years of operation, UNEP focussed its observing and assessment programme on strengthening environmental monitoring through the Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) programme and on harmonizing existing efforts for global overviews. 5. In retrospect, UNEP's past monitoring and assessment programme has been a mix of successes and failures, as is probably true of any complex programme. However, the critical comments in this review need to be placed in the context of the developing understanding worldwide of how environmental observing and assessment should work. Many programmes of 25 years ago can be criticized in hindsight. The real issue is to learn the lessons and move forward. For instance, UNEP often failed in its catalytic role because it focussed on providing data rather than policy-relevant information, as will be evident in the discussion and selected case studies below, but this was quite common at the time. Another contributing factor was the thinly spread resources of UNEP. UNEP has repeatedly been instructed to implement ambitious mandates, but the support of governments to the Environment Fund has not followed. Even well designed and established programmes could not become self-sustaining, and when UNEP funding declined, they collapsed. Despite this, in terms of cost effectiveness, UNEP may in fact have accomplished much more than better funded national programmes. Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) 6. Initially, GEMS focussed on developing monitoring methodologies, establishing quality control systems and global databases, capacity building and technical support, and the production of status and trends overviews in specific environmental compartments. Some of these assessments, such as on Ozone, contributed directly to the launching of international environmental conventions. 7. GEMS programmes were implemented through and with sister organizations in the UN system. This respected the intent of UNEP’s mandated role to catalyze, coordinate and promote routine environmental observing in a large number of countries and by UN organizations. They were instrumental in catalyzing world-wide observing and assessment and promoting their incorporation in UN programmes. However, they only covered a limited number of environmental sectors/themes such as freshwater quality, urban air pollution, and food contamination. Furthermore, UNEP was unable to secure adequate funding to ensure their long term operation and global coverage, as the following case studies of their recent status prepared by the World Resources Institute illustrate. 8. GEMS/Air, in its early years, helped governments in some parts of the world in designing the current monitoring networks for ambient air quality. More recently, the US Environmental Protection Agency has provided significant support. The GEMS/Air database has been housed for the last five years at the USEPA's Data Center in Triangle Park, North Carolina. The USEPA donated database, software, maintenance, and other labour to provide a home and distribution center for GEMS/Air data. USEPA rarely received data directly from the 48 participating GEMS countries. Instead this data passed through the GEMS/AIR office of WHO in Geneva. Because it is administered by WHO, most of GEMS/AIR sites were originally set up in cooperation with local health ministries and were sited to help characterize human health effects within a GEMS city. The sites thus often bore no relation to environmental observing networks within a country established by other agencies. Indeed, GEMS/Air has never received data from the vast bulk of air quality monitoring stations in the world. In the mid-1990s, an attempt was made to add a capacity building component to the programme that would have given something back to the participating cities through a city twinning programme, but then UNEP's general budget decline hit. As a result, the GEM/AIR database cannot provide answers to many pertinent questions about trends in global air quality or the extent of exposed populations. In addition, there does not appear to have been quality control efforts, such as inter-calibration of equipment, to insure comparability of data among countries. 9. Until recently, EPA distributed at no cost about 50-75 copies a month of the GEMS/Air database along with software to browse and extract the data. It has since combined this database with its domestic data and continues to distribute both for free from its Internet site. But USEPA has stopped receiving data from WHO and has been told that WHO has contracted to develop its own software and plans to sell the data USEPA has previously distributed freely. 10. As presently constituted, GEMS/Air seems to have no clear purpose. It does not respond to an international constituency, supports no comprehensive policy assessment, and does not serve those few cities that have contributed to its database. Finally, instead of working with international partners -- such as the USEPA -- it has abandoned them. 11. The GEMS/Water Collaborating Centre in Burlington, Ontario is hosted by the National Institute of Water Research of Environment Canada. Like USEPA for GEMS/Air, Environment Canada, as a contribution to the global community, operates GEMS/Water. The system was intended to characterize changes in water quality along a watershed and the pollutant loadings introduced into the coastal zone by rivers. Although under-funded, GEMS/Water has recently undergone a rebirth due to greater interest, especially within UNEP. For the first time in years, new water quality data has been posted on the Internet for down-loading (1990-1993). However, many of the 600+ original stations of GEMS/Water no longer participate, and the system is not in any sense a comprehensive water quality database that could be used to answer many water-related policy questions. 12. In addition to data collection, GEMS/Water -- like GEMS/Air -- had another purpose, that of building capacity for data collection. But the capacity was solely for the purpose of contributing to the global system -- and did not help meet local or national needs. As a result, it did not engender local and national support for data collection. Like GEMS/Air, GEMS/Water does not today seem to have a clearly defined local or global audience and purpose. 13. The GEMS programme was not designed to meet the information needs of local and national decision-makers. Because these systems do not meet those needs, they have failed to develop a constituency -- especially in North America -- for continued action and cooperation, regardless of any other successes. At the same time, the very limited coverage of the data collected in the GEMS system makes its relevance to international assessment activities very questionable. Even the two global assessments of freshwater quality did not use GEMS/Water data. Given that the locus for action in environmental policy is primarily at the local and national level, it is hard to say what successes can be ascribed to GEMS. The GEMS/Air database is irrelevant to the assessment of urban air quality in any city, much less at a national level, or to characterize human exposure globally. Global Resource Information Database (GRID) 14. With the emergence of remote sensing (RS) and geographic information
systems (GIS) in the early 1980’s, UNEP spearheaded the application
of these systems in international environmental observing and assessment
through the establishment of the Global Resource Information Database
(GRID) system. GRID provides an environmental data management system
for UNEP, the UN system, international organizations and governments.
Through a network of cooperating GRID centres, it archives, collates
and disseminates digital information which has been extracted from maps,
satellite images, statistical tables and other sources within and outside
the UN system. All these data are linked together through computerized
Geographic Information Systems and Image Processing Systems (IPS). The
basic uses of GRID, in addition to its data management function, are:
15. The GRID centres are very diverse in their functions, structures, institutional relationships, and the extent of UNEP support. Some have attracted major outside support, are highly cost-effective in terms of UNEP input, and are considered very successful, even leaders in their field. Others are fledglings requiring further capacity-building. It is not possible to review all of them here, but a case study of one centre illustrates some of the issues for this strategy. 16. The Global Resource Information Database (GRID) node at the US Geological Survey's EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, has been successful as a catalyst, coordinator, and liaison to operational divisions of the U.S. government. The GRID office convenes specialists to catalyze new analytical activities within other agencies, helping to legitimize and sometimes partially fund such efforts. For example, a small amount of money from UNEP/GRID was used by Dr. Tom Loveland to leverage much greater U.S. agency funding for his ground-breaking land cover characterization maps; WRI and Dr. Uwe Deichman were able to use partial UNEP/GRID funding to create geo-referenced population databases. 17. GRID/Sioux Falls has helped to promote the use of geo-referenced databases and it does make such data available to those analysts or agencies that request them. But the office works essentially independently from other GRID nodes; the GRID system does not function as a global network or data system in the sense that was originally envisioned. Even if GRID had become a repository of geo-referenced environmental data--the role originally envisioned for it--the changing information culture brought about by the Internet would nonetheless have rendered the need to collect data in central repositories obsolete. And the North American GRID node, while successful in catalyzing the creation of global level databases, has had less success in promoting the creation of local or national level geo-referenced databases. GRID, like GEMS, was not designed originally to meet the information needs of local and national decision-makers, and thus failed to develop a constituency, at least in North America. This error has been corrected in some regions through the recent ENRIN activities described below. 18. INFOTERRA has similarly been a casualty of the changing global information system. When UNEP was established in the 1970s, there was a great need to facilitate access to the then scarce and scattered environmental information and experience. An environmental information referral service, called INFOTERRA, was created to direct questions to the best sources of environmental information, with information guides and thesauri prepared to facilitate the process. National INFOTERRA focal points, usually within environmental ministries, were established and trained in information retrieval. Today there are over 170 such focal points officially linked to UNEP through INFOTERRA, and a steady flow of requests pass through the system. However new information technologies such as the Internet are radically transforming information access, making multiple sources of environmental information readily available, and part of the original rationale for INFOTERRA has vanished. There is still a need for referral systems with a human interface able to find answers to vague or tentative questions, queries for non-written information or in non-Western languages, etc., but a separate network for this is no longer so necessary. The referral function is important, but is more relevant to a library than to the environmental observing and assessment system as such. 19. The network of national focal points, while of variable quality since so few resources have been available to maintain it, is still a valuable resource in which UNEP has made a major investment in capacity-building over the years. It represents the only relatively complete UNEP network at the national level. Its functions can be revised and adapted to the needs of the new strategy. State of the Environment Reporting 20. Given the need for scientifically valid information for sound environmental management, most UNEP programme areas also undertook topic-specific diagnostic studies and assessments relating to watersheds, land degradation, regional seas, biodiversity, etc. However, a coherent UNEP-wide strategy to integrate these assessments and to ensure that they contributed to a global environmental overview was never implemented. UNEP's major state of the world environment reports up to 1992 were prepared by a small group of senior advisors and consultants under the direct supervision of the Executive Director, with little relation to other UNEP assessment activities. 21. While the original UNEP Earthwatch programme concentrated on the
observing and assessment of natural resources and chemicals, other UNEP
programmes focused on the industrial side of the equation, implementing
assessments regarding industrial pollution, health risks, etc. A number
of databases were developed for topics such as cleaner production, environmental
law, etc. Information networks and clearing house systems were developed
and maintained. With the recent creation of UNEPnet, a start has been
make to link these disparate systems, but it is clear that further integration
and streamlining are necessary to make these information sources more
relevant and accessible to the users. 22. In the 1990s, UNEP was confronted with the entry of many new players in the field, both at policy and assessment levels. On the policy level, UNCED created the Commission on Sustainable Development and installed a new coordinating mechanism within the UN, the Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development. A special UN International Negotiating Committee was given the mandate to negotiate the Climate Convention. Although UNEP still plays an important role in the scientific assessment of climate change (as co-host of the IPCC with the WMO), the Convention is a policy framework that is rather detached from UNEP. More generally, the proliferation of issue-oriented multilateral conventions has resulted in an increase in the number of institutional players and policy fora and has exacerbated the problem of policy coordination between the various conventions. 23. In early 1992 in the run-up to UNCED, UNEP instituted a UN system-wide Earthwatch Coordination function to coordinate, harmonize and integrate observing, assessment and reporting activities across the UN system. After UNCED, UNEP was designated by the Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development as Task Manager for Earthwatch in reporting to the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). Earthwatch has stimulated increased strategic planning and collaboration with a wide range of partners in the UN system and beyond. It succeeded in obtaining UN system-wide agreement to better coordination and collaboration, in building strong cooperation and policy development on information for decision-making in support of the CSD, in advancing work on indicators of sustainable development, in building an extensive system-wide Earthwatch web site, in providing UN system inputs to the GEO reports, in establishing close collaboration between the Global Observing Systems and their sponsors, and in supporting the Integrated Global Observing Strategy. However the minimal support that UNEP has been able to provide to Earthwatch Coordination has prevented it from reaching its full potential. 24. Just after UNCED, and in response to the expansion in the number of institutes and organizations dealing with environmental observing and assessment, and the identified need to improve access and disseminate the resulting data for assessment purposes, UNEP established the Environmental and Natural Resources Information Networking (ENRIN) component in GEMS in 1993. ENRIN’s stated objective was to build institutional linkages and facilitate the flow of information for environmental assessment between governmental, inter-governmental and non-governmental institutions in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The ENRIN projects were established to catalyze the formation of cooperative assessment networks as a conduit for information flows and a mechanism for regional consultations on priorities, policies and implementation of assessments of transboundary environmental issues. ENRIN also provided a channel for technical assistance to participating institutions to build their capacities in data management and analysis for environmental reporting. A number of these assisted institutions have subsequently indicated a desire to become members of the GRID network. 25. Over the years, as environmental problems became better known, governments and the public began to ask how the issues could be resolved or managed. The definition of the task of international environmental assessment was therefore expanded from the scientific assessments of status and trends, towards the provision of integrated information on critical linkages between the environmental/ecological and human/economic subsystems. Agenda 21 confirmed the need for this type of environmental data and information for decision making purposes. 26. Consequently, in response to the adoption of Agenda 21, UNEP developed a new series of biennial assessment reports, the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) series, to evaluate the environmental implementation of Agenda 21. The GEO process represents a radical change, providing integrated, forward looking assessments through global participation and consultation. It revealed the need for better integration of UNEP’s observing and assessment activities, which historically had followed rather separate tracks. It also identified a need to redefine observing activities that reach beyond the state of the environment proper. The long term goal was to provide a set of integrated policy relevant assessments and reports from the subregional and regional to the global level, drawing on the expanding networks developed by the GEO and the ENRIN projects, input from UN specialized agencies through Earthwatch, sectoral assessments conducted by the Programme Division of UNEP and supported by GIS/RS data sets derived through the GRID system. The first GEO report was released in 1997 to support the 5-year review of Agenda 21 and had considerable impact. The second will be issued in early 1999. 27. However, especially after UNCED, many intergovernmental (World Bank, UNDP, regional organizations, development banks, etc.) and non-governmental organizations have engaged in global and regional environmental data collection and assessment activities. At the same time, UNEP was faced with a steady decline in funds to execute its work programme, including its observing and assessment activities. As a result, UNEP lost the leading role it had played during the 1970s and 1980s. This weakened UNEP’s position in the UN system and precipitated a review of UNEP’s role in international environmental policy making. 28. In response to UNEP’s political and financial difficulties, the UNEP Governing Council formulated, in the 1997 Nairobi Declaration, a new policy to revitalize the Programme. It restated that UNEP should continue to be the principal United Nations body in the field of the environment and that the role of the United Nations Environment Program is to be the leading global environmental authority that sets the global environmental agenda, that promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of sustainable development within the United Nations system and that serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment . 29. At the same time, the Governing Council decided to add to the governance structure of UNEP by establishing a High-Level Committee of Ministers and Officials as a subsidiary organ of the Governing Council. In this way it sought both to strengthen UNEP’s executive powers so as to enable it to act more swiftly and effectively, and to enhance its policy support through increased high-level policy involvement and participation. The decision also reflects the wish for a strengthening of regionalization and decentralization within UNEP through the increased involvement and participation of regional ministerial and other relevant forums within UNEP, complementary to the central coordination role of the Programme’s headquarters in Nairobi . Even more important for UNEP’s effectiveness was that the Governing Council succeeded in agreeing on policy priorities and a corresponding allocation of budgets, while the previous decline in the fulfilment of financial commitments by donors was halted. 30. So after a difficult period, UNEP may again regain its former leading role, but only if it is able to adjust to new circumstances and policy needs. Its role in raising awareness and initiating the development of new international environmental policies and law has become relatively less important. For most issues, some global or regional frameworks have been developed. Although the identification of newly emerging issues remains important, many issues have matured to the policy formulation or policy implementation stages of the policy life-cycle. 31. As a consequence, assessment of policy options and monitoring of policy implementation and environmental progress have become more important. Moreover, priority setting, policy coordination (between issue-oriented policies) and the integration of environmental issues into sector policies have become prominent matters to be addressed in integrated environmental assessments. This was clearly illustrated in GEO-1. 32. More than before, UNEP’s observing and assessment activities should serve the attainment of all its stated goals and not just those related to continual review of the state of the global environment. However, at the same time it becomes more important to demarcate clearly its field of work, including in observing and assessment. This is essential if it is to keep activities focussed and effective and to define its relations with other actors in the field. 33. The noted maturation of international environmental policy development not only has implications for the contents of environmental observing and assessment, but also for their methodologies. The assessment of policy options and the development of effective strategies for their implementation require the increasing involvement of stakeholders in the policy development process and a gearing of environmental observing and assessment activities to their needs. As the stakeholders are the ones on which the effectiveness of environmental policies depend, their involvement in policy development is crucial for securing their support for the implementation of policies. Moreover, by involving the envisaged users of the outcomes of the assessment in the process, there is a better guarantee that the information produced is properly geared to their information needs and that it will be used in policy development. A third reason to include stakeholders is because they have expert knowledge about their own domain and/or region that is very relevant to the assessment process (e.g. to assess the vulnerability of sectors or regions to environmental pressures or the feasibility and acceptability of particular policy options). Comparisons with Other Programmes 34. Some of the external reviewers were requested to compare UNEP's experience with that in their own regions, such as in North America. While the lessons from these case studies are enlightening, any comparison of UNEP programmes with those in the United States needs to consider the great difference in resources available to UNEP and to U.S. Federal programmes. In terms of cost effectiveness, UNEP may come out reasonably well. 35. The Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) has stations around the world to assemble information on the background atmospheric composition so as to be able to characterize the atmosphere by location and over time. GAW is a special purpose network of existing monitoring stations to achieve global coverage. Because it monitors the atmospheric baseline, its purpose can be served by a small number of observing stations distributed around the globe. Unlike the GEMS system, the GAW network does have a clear policy audience--those concerned with atmospheric chemistry and the relevant global conventions on global warming and ozone depletion. It depends for its functioning on the strong cooperation of many national efforts--each of which has independent reporting responsibilities, but each of which is also used by the World Meteorological Organization for a global synthesis. U.S. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) 36. It is not only international monitoring schemes like GEMS that have fatal flaws. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, for example, promoted the creation of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). EMAP was intended to provide policy makers with information on the state of U.S. ecological domains through a complex scientific sampling scheme. The effort was finally abandoned, in part because, even in principal, it would only provide information at a very high cost. Equally, however, it became clear that EMAP would probably never provide useful information to decision-makers--local or national. EMAP was a classic case of a monitoring system designed by scientists for scientific purposes and lacking a clear connection to policy-relevant issues. 37. The US Environmental Protection Agency has created an exemplary observing system for national water quality by building up from local and state water quality monitoring systems. The US EPA helps localities to define issues and set up systems to meet their own needs; at the same time, it also sets standards and harmonizes systems. It assembles local information--indeed, many states use the EPA Office of Water Internet site to disseminate their own findings--makes it publicly available, and uses it to analyze national water quality issues including a national indicator map of water quality and vulnerability. 38. The Internet site also makes available access to other databases that are relevant to understanding water issues in each watershed and for the nation as a whole. These databases include air quality, water use and availability, population, and agency jurisdictions. 39. The power of this observing system is that it builds from, and includes, all data that are collected and considered relevant by local policy makers and managers. Even though the provision of the data is mandated by law, the system rewards cooperating institutions by publishing the data in a common form, providing comparisons across space and time, and giving local information a national context and a national purpose alongside local and state purposes. 40. One of the most powerful examples of local information aggregated to regional, national, and global levels is that of the U.S. National Weather Service and the World Weather Watch of which it is a part. While a centralized organization, the Weather Service has 52 Weather Service Forecast Offices, 204 Weather Service Offices, 13 River Forecast Centres, and 3 National Centres distributed around the country. Reporting stations are manned by its own employees as well as a variety of volunteers, private sector employees, and employees of other public sector institutions. These stations serve to document climate, river flows, or weather. There are about 12,000 observing stations run on a cooperative basis. 41. Local weather observations are valuable to the public, farmers, utility planners, businesses, and local government. Forecasts received back from the National Weather Service provide all of these with necessary information to plan both normal activities as well as to provide advance response to coming hazardous weather conditions (e.g., hurricanes, floods, etc.) at the local, regional and national levels (as well as contributing U.S. data to the global weather picture). The National Weather Service not only coordinates local observations and supports local and regional non-official forecasting, it also mobilizes and manages strictly observational stations that are more reasonable under national management (buoys, regional radar, satellite observations, aircraft) as well as providing forecasts at all geographic levels, including global. It is the official source of severe weather information and disseminates its observations and forecasts through many means, including traditional media, NOAA Weather Radio, and private weather services. 42. The National Weather Service has a clear purpose and audience. It serves decision-makers at all levels from private and local to global and public. And it repatriates information to local institutions from which it was derived. 43. Observations of urban air quality are useful to local and regional public sector managers, policy makers and the public. In the United States, over 4800 local air quality monitoring stations provide real time information to local policy makers on what can become a health emergency requiring a quick policy response. Analogous to weather stations, this real time information is also accumulated and provided to the USEPA so that they can assess the national experience, compare cities, and formulate policies, as well as to harmonize and calibrate information. Essentially U.S. national assessment of air quality has the same relationship to local air quality observations as climate assessments do to weather data in meteorology--the long-term builds directly on the short term. 44. The USEPA sets health guidelines and operating parameters for cities, and they in turn are obligated to supply information to the national system. These data and resulting analyses are made available to all and support both local and national policy responses. The programme illustrates how national goals and guidance can inter-relate with and support local observations and assessments for mutual benefit. 45. Past experience in observing systems as illustrated in the case studies seems to support several conclusions: (a) Observing systems designed to support global purposes seem to work best when they also serve local and/or national purposes; that is, they are built on the back of local/national systems and add value by aggregating and summarizing data in a global context, and they return something to the local/national entities that are the source of the data, usually information that provides geographical context or is based on more detailed analysis, but also sometimes standards, training or other forms of capacity building, or direct financial support. Purely global systems that have dense enough networks to be useful are rare, and the available evidence suggests that adequate financial resources to support global networks are unlikely to be sustained unless the networks also serve local/national needs. (b) Observing systems that provide specific information products in a form useful to decision-makers seem to be far more successful than those that simply collect and make available data; indeed, the greater the variety of information products provided and audiences served, the more robust the support for the observing system and the greater its success. The World Weather Watch and the televised daily weather maps we take for granted are the classic example. Thus analysis and simplification or visualization--the process of turning data into information, into products useful to decision-makers--is a critical component of successful observing efforts. (c) Most older global monitoring systems were designed around a centralized database and management; in the Internet age, distributed databases are equally feasible and may fit better with the concept of broad participation and ownership in a monitoring system, eg, a more bottom-up approach that helps to ensure the system also serves local/national needs. Some combination of the two types may be needed. Centrally-coordinated systems can provide sampling frameworks, classifications and global models, and feed back results in a wider context. Local networks spread ownership and involvement, and can provide unique types of information to be cross-checked with more standard sources. II. OTHER ENTITIES ENGAGED IN OBSERVING, ANALYSIS AND REPORTING 46. A summary of the other entities engaged in observing, analysis and reporting and UNEP’s interaction with them can help to put UNEP's strategy in perspective. Space does not permit describing all UNEP's interactions, so only highlights are given here. 47. In the 26 years since Stockholm, the world has seen a largely uncoordinated explosion of environmental data, information and related research activities, driven partly by new technological developments and possibilities, and partly by increasing political and public attention to environmental issues. A plethora of governments, UN organizations, research organizations, NGO’s, the private sector, etc. are involved in environmental observing and assessment. Some major UN organizations, international research organizations and development banks now have observing and assessment programmes in place that are far greater in scope than UNEP programmes. The major global assessments and reports are listed in Table 1. |
Assessment | Agency | Frequency | Comments |
Ozone | Scientific Panel (UNEP) | Two years | Based on satellite measurements and estimates of ozone depleting substances |
Climate | Intergov. Panel (UNEP, WMO) | 5 years | Based on the best scientific evidence |
Forest Assessment | FAO | 10 years | Based on a combination of compilation of existing national statistics, deforestation modelling, and remote sensing data |
Biodiversity | UNEP | Irregular | Based on expert opinion |
Human induced Land degradation | UNEP | Irregular | Based on expert opinion/limited analysis of data |
Freshwater | UN, UNEP | Irregular | Based on expert opinion; synthesis of existing information |
Global Environment Outlook Report/SOE | UNEP | 2 yrs./10 yrs | Based on existing regional SOEs, reports, models, scenarios and regional consultations |
Human Development Report | UNDP | Annual | Human Development Index, based on compilation of national socio economic statistics + thematic focus |
World Resources Report |
WRI, UNEP UNDP, WB | Biennial | Based on compilation of statistics from different sources, thematic focus |
World Development Report | World Bank | Annual | Based on compilation of national economic statistics, often thematic focus |
Monitoring Environmental Progress | World Bank | Irregular | Analysis of selected themes |
The State of the World Report | Worldwatch Institute | Annual | Analysis of key global environmental issues |
Earth Council Report | Earth Council Foundation | Irregular | NGO’s perspective on environment |
Global Oceans Assessment | GESAMP (incl. UNEP) | 10 years | Based on expert opinion, regional reports, analysis of data |
Economy | background scenarios, sector interactions; economic impacts |
Population/health | demographic trends, determinants for health, health impacts |
Land/food | land use and cover, food production potential, interaction with economic measures, terrestrial ecological effects |
Water | water use, water quality, demand and supply policies, aquatic ecological effects |
Energy/materials | demand and supply policies, effects of economic measures |
Cycles | changes in the cycling of water, nitrogen, sulphur and carbon through the environment and their interactions; issues here include climate change and acidification |