Assessment Proposal NLWRA

TOWARD AN IDEAL ASSESSMENT SCHEME OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS SYSTEM
TO MONITOR NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ITS MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA
Alvaro H. Pescador R.
HSEQ International Consultant
UNEP & World Bank GEF Consultant
EMS ISO 14001 Lead Auditor.
Scope
This paper has been written as a response to the Australian National Land and Water Resources
Audit Call for Proposal Assessment of Data Requirements and Availability, to Address Natural
Resource Condition and Trend Indicators. Briefly and schematically, the paper points to the
information requirements of the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board to assess the Decision Making
Process, in order to achieve the desirable sustainability thorough an adequate Natural Resource
Management. Then, some key questions are made in relation to the desirable characteristics of an
Environmental Indicators System, which is about to be assess, so it can be able to support in the
best technical and cost-effective way, the decision making process at Ministerial Council. Some
risks are identified from the lecture of the “National Natural Resource Management Monitoring and
Evaluation Framework” which is the conceptual paper upon the system will be built, and therefore,
some suggestions are made in order to establish an Auditing Scheme from which the NLWRA could
really obtain an aggregated value.
Introduction
Establishing patterns that shift the development to its desirable sustainability in a country, a region,
or any particular landscape at the local level, requires the support of scientific, social, economic
and environmental information, for the decision making process of policies plans and programs at
the planning entities. After a period of time, planners must measure the success of such strategies
and actions by using indicators which allow them to compere the percentage of success of their
own goals. More over, indicators are also needed to set objectives and goals in a reasonable way:
key subjects and sectors that have the strongest impact over natural resources may be show
through the use of environmental indicators indeed.
Need of Information for The Decision Making Process
The decisions making process for planning the Environmental Resources Management starts from
the identification of the key resources to manage (e.g. water and land use) as well as significant
environmental impacts caused by development processes such as mine exploitation, urban
activities, industrial processes, agricultural harvesting, forest extraction, and catchments, among
others. After assessing The Land Use and water conditions (both availability and quality), and
identifying critical areas or resources: e.g., The Great Artesian Basin, or the Great Barrier Coral
Reef, it comes the definition of PPP.

2
In Australia, are so relevant The Natural Heritage Trust Act (1997), and the National Action Plan.
After it, The definition of Programs, projects, objectives and goals in function of priorities, pressures,
technical and political needs already identified. Then, actions and strategies established throughout
the regions, and next, monitoring the efficiency management in the compliment and execution of
programs and projects, as well as the impact on the economic, social, and environmental
components.
Figure 1. The Decisions Making Process
To carry out the process (Figure 1), is necessary the production of information that allows to
measure the success in getting the objectives, goals, actions and strategies taken. Naturally, the
decisions making process as well as the development process, are dynamic, which imply the
necessity of elaborating tools which permit analysis and monitoring at different levels and scales.
Thus, these processes are carry out at different levels of decision making in the country,
administrative and/or ecological (eg. Territories, Basins, etc.) and imply environmental, political,
institutional, economic, social, and cultural considerations. Therefore, when the projects and
actions are applied and executed, should be taken into account the different scales (national,
regional and local) since imply different impacts in the space and the time
1
.
Indeed, The cycle shown in Figure 1 is not quite different to the one known as the Deming Cycle or
the Continual Improvement Scheme, stated by the ISO 14001 International Standard for an
Environmental Management System, model under Australia is already working within the EMS
National Pilot Program.
1
Principle 2c of the National Framework.
SEA, EIA Assessments
and Diagnostic
Formulation of Policy,
Plans and Programs:
Eg: NHTA, NAP
EMS National Pilot
Program;
Setting Objectives and
Goals
Identification of Problems
Establishment of Actions
and Strategies
e.g. National Water Quality
Management Strategy
Monitoring and
Measurement
QA/QC
Evaluation of PPP, and
Performance of the
National & Regional
Environmental
Management System

3
The important issue here is to understand that the Environmental Indicators System should be
integrated inside the Decisions Making Process, and more over, at each stage of it. In this cycle
four main phases can be defined, for which the needs and uses of the information are different: the
identification of the problems, the formulation of PPP, the establishment of the strategies and
actions based on projects, objectives and goals, and finally, the evaluation of the politics, strategies
and actions in function of the goals and objective defined.
For the decisions making process, the analysis and monitoring of the politics and strategies of
development, exist a series of data, statistical economic and social at national, regional and local
levels, that usually are used (UNEP 1993, UNDP 1994; World Bank 1995; WRI 1996).
Nevertheless, equivalent environmental information does not exist, is not found available for the
users, or is being built, as in the Australian case.
Besides, the problem of production and availability of information to support decisions making
increases when we want to monitor the interactions and relations among components such as
environmental risks and public health implications, eco-efficiency and clean production, life cycle
assessment of products manufactured in Australia and International Green Markets, among others,
as shown in figure 2
2
.
Figure 2. HSEQ Interactions at a National Level
Nevertheless, although in many cases sufficient data exist, even with statistical environmental
series that would permit to increase the use of environmental information (e.g. The National
Pollutants Inventory), one of the targets of the auditing scheme will be the principle 2b of the
National Framework due to its key importance for the System success
3
.
2
This was also one of the outcomes identified by the Auditing Scheme of (1997-2002), Recommendation 4.
3
Some times the environmental indicators are not used as widely and wisely they could be, due to National
frameworks are no easily to validate with all the stakeholders, difficulties accessing the data, or the lack of
analytical tools which allows the information to be used at different scales and levels: Australian Spatial Data
Directory seems to be a Geographical Information System (GIS) which successfully solves this fear. We find
out this, during the Assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK
PUBLIC
HEALTH
ECO EFFICIENCY
Sustainable
Development

4
Inside this context, the GIS are useful tools to incorporate environmental information inside the
decisions taking and planning process. The environmental, economic, and social integration of
indicators inside a spatial context, permits powerful and more real analysis of the ones that offer the
conventional methods (tabulated data, time series, etc.) The application and integration of these
tools (indicators and GIS) will improve the application of the National Framework, allowing a more
harmonious causes-effect analysis of the reality. More over, the selection of the units described
previously, (whether administrative or ecological) does not limit the use of the System to these
scales. Therefore, in function of the quality and availability of the data, an Environmental Indicators
System must supply planners with a cost effective tool, allowing to work and to use the information
to the necessary scales, in order to assess in the more accurate way the decisions making cycle.
Planning the Assessment
In the following paragraphs we will ask some key questions to identify the essential patterns and
the ideal characteristics of an Environmental Indicators System, in order to set the criteria that will
be used to assess the Australian Environmental Indicators System.
1. Does allow the Environmental Indicators System to get aggregated information, by the
way, expressed in Indices as shown in figure 3?
Figure 3, The Information Pyramid
Agreggation
1
Indices
The production of indicators requires an aggregation and synthesis process in different steps which
can be visualised by means of the well known information pyramid (Hammond et al. ,1995, Figure
5
10
100
1,000 Primary Data
Analyzed Data
Simple
Indicators
Aggregated
Indicators

5
3). At the base of the process we find data obtained through monitoring and analytic process; with
which statistics and time series can be created, and these, in turn, contribute to the creation of
indicators and indices
4
.
The Planning strategy and the environmental management implies a process of synthesis and
aggregation in different phases. This process should be done in agreement with the decisions
making cycle (Figure 1), and implies the development of an specific selection methodology to build
the information (Figure 3). The obtaining and elaboration of data, statistical and the monitoring are
splits fundamental of the information elaboration process, requiring besides to choose a capable
assembly core of indicators to integrate the data and statistical, in order to produce useful
information for monitoring the process of development, projects, goals and objective, in relation to
the environment.
In this manner, the system will permit to improve and to do more efficient the process of exchange,
diffusion and communication of the information, structuring the different sources, analysing and
synthesising the problems and areas arising to the planning and management, so much as the
interactions among variables and components of the development. Of such form, the System will
be able to guide and to perfect the data harvesting process, as well as to help to identify areas and
fear where the available information is inadequate or non existent, to incorporate all the elements of
the decision making cycle (Winograd,1998).
2. Does the Environmental Indicators System conciliates scales, levels and uses of
indicators?
The dynamic of relationships between land use and the environment does not allow for a separation
of their spatial and time frameworks. The development process implies a sequence of interactions
where cause-effect relationships can be direct, indirect, non-lineal or have synergistic effects. The
existence of these types of relationships means that in many cases the relevant information about
sustainability will be provided by the combination of values from a set of indicators in a geo-
referenced way, or by the picture shown by the overlay of indicators maps and not only by their
addition, aggregation or listing (Gallopin, 1996).
At the same time, it is becoming clear that environmental and development issues have features
that change in time and space (Holmberg, 1995). Many of them have turned the local character of
some decades ago into a regional and global issues (for example, climate change in the case of
environment and trade in the case of development). This is how many environmental issues do not
come from a single identified source but from many and small widespread sources, as in the case of
urban pollution. This change in the character and scale of issues means that the time of impact is
shortening while de scale is enlarging: for example modification in land use with important impacts
on river basins and water supply.
Thus, environmental problems can not be understood or solved only in the administrative domain,
since many human or natural disturbances can result in impacts that do not respect political
borders. The definition and knowledge of spatial borders, to delimit political, geographical and
ecological units for the survey, can have a deep impact on the effectiveness of responses, actions
and management strategies.
4
Pages 11-12 of the National Framework states the importance of this idea at a National level, but also the
relevance of having de-aggregated data at Regional and local levels.

6
3. Are the Environmental Indicators being develop in agreement with the requirements of
the information needed by all the users?
The information production should be analysed from the perspective of the users. The specialists
and the planning entities shown in page 8 of the NLWRA Strategic Plan (2003-2007) as well as the
stakeholders need information detailed on different aspects related to the environment and the
development process. For this reason, special attention should be taken into account in order to
design the inter phase, agreed what institution will do the custody and maintenance as well as Data
Atlas and Libraries to be used in order to manage the data bases inside the Information System.
The inter phase should allow the reconciliation and efficient use of the indicators core in the
different levels (administrative and ecological) and scales (global, national regional and local) since
in function of these, the information and warning necessary for monitoring the development
process, and the projects, change.
4. Is the Conceptual Framework consistent enough to build an Environmental Indicators
System which support with accurate information the decision making at the Natural
Heritage Ministerial Board of Australia?
The information production to assess the decision making process implies the knowledge of what
and how we should measure and monitor. For this reason it is necessary to define a framework of
reference that permit to organise the information in agreement with priorities and user’s needs.
There are various conceptual frameworks available that can be used to guide the selection, the
development and use of indicators. The existing models to obtain, analyse and to organise
environmental information are generally of two types (Adriaanse,1993; Bakkes et al. ,1994):
a) Models to assess the decision making process and application of strategies and actions, that
define the relation among the environmental information with the social and/or objective values of
political goals (CCME,1994; EPA,1994). These models have been used particularly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Canadian Counsel of Ministers of Environment
(CCME) to delineate a strategy for the development of goals, objective and warnings for the
management of the ecosystems.
b) Models for monitoring the environmental processes and the environment institutions interactions,
that try to classify the environmental problems in causes-effect chains terms, or in a spatial base to
know where these processes occur and interact (Friends and Raport, 1979; OECD, 1993;
Environment Canada, 1994; World Bank,1995).
The National Framework Structure, downloaded form the Internet is shown schematically in Fig. 4:
Figure 4. National Framework Structure
Natural Resource
Condition
Program, Strategy and Policy
Performance
Monitoring • Natural resource
condition monitoring at
local, regional,
State/Territory and
national levels
• Monitoring of resource condition
against Standards and Targets
Framework)
• Management action monitoring
Evaluation Evaluating progress towards
improved natural resource
condition at the national
level
• Performance evaluation of
programs and strategies
Evaluating
models &
assumptions

7
Here we have something of Major Importance. This scheme is going to give a structure and a
shape for the whole Environmental Management Systems which is turn will support the decision
making process in Australia, along the years.
We are going to compere it with the one developed by the OECD, category b, of the Frameworks
discussed above, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 The P-S-R Framework
This framework is probably the most accepted one at World level due to its simplicity, facility of use
and the possibility of application to different levels, scales and human activities. The framework has
been applied at global level (World Bank,1995), continental (Winograd, Project CIAT-UNEP in Latin
America and the Caribbean, 1995), National (Environment Canada, 1994, CIAT-DNP, 1997, and
regional CIAT-CARDER, 1996).
The model P- S - R is a simple framework which allows to organise the information in a causal
progression of the human actions that produce a pressure on the natural resources, and that at the
same time involve a change in the state of the environment, then the Governmental Organisations
responds with measures or actions, to reduce or to prevent significant environmental impacts. It
gives the possibility to focus the environmental management in a cause/effect relationship to the
driven forces which produces the degradation of the natural resource conditions.
There is an slight but important difference with the Australian Framework. Another category is being
taking into account, and indeed, is the one over the Environmental Management has to focus, over
the causes which affect the natural conditions
5
.
Nevertheless, given the characteristics and nature of the development problems and environment in
their different scales, the relations causes-effect of the environmental problems and/or of
development are not easy to establish. Thus, we know that the environment has the capacity to
absorb pressures caused by the human activities; the data and statistical can show the presence of
the pressure, but we do not have the certainty that some change of importance in the state of the
environment occurs as a result of said pressure or an action taken. But any way, if there is a Natural
Resource Undesirable Condition shown by the State indicators, and we do not know the cause(s),
or why is this happening, it will be very difficult to decide, or to design an answer, or correct a
management strategy.
5
For instance, if we want to control urban atmospheric pollution we might measure the concentration of
pollutants in the air, but the action we really have to do is to identify and reduce some emissions sources.
The same may happens with a turbid river: we can measure the Suspended Solids, and then for instance
realise that the increment of this indicator is caused by an erosion process. But we don’t know if this is due to
a deforestation activity done upstream by a farmer, or due to a land use change e.g., mining exploitation.
PRESSURE STATE RESPONSE

8
On the other hand, while preparing this proposal and browsing in the Internet, I have realise that
fortunately you are working within OECD model already. Maybe, it would be better to explicit it in
the National Framework
6
.
5. Does the Conceptual Framework allows the consecution of the following targets?
• To Connect the data, statistical series and environmental information related to the political
needs of management at national, regional, and local levels.
• To Integrate assemblies of data in a geographical base in order to support the decision making
process in function of the different levels (country, ecosystem, basin).
• To Improve and to facilitate the exchange and the quality of information used in Planning
Australia’s Environmental Resource Management Institutions.
• To Communicate to different types of users, national, regional and local information, useful to
support decisions.
6. Is there a building indicators methodology based upon a systematic approach, beyond
the development of Structure Sheets of Data Protocols for each indicator?
It is very important to establish a methodology to elaborate information in the shape of
environmental indicators and indices. The following process has been successfully used at
Regional, National (administrative) and Basin (ecological) management levels:
a) To identify the problems for which we should seek for information.
b) To define themes and variables to select the necessary core of indicators.
c) To know the spatial borders for delimiting ecological, geographical, and political units, in
order to carry out a monitoring of the environment and the natural resources.
d) To select an assembly of indicators based on the defined variables and a series of criteria in
function of the of the data accuracy, the relation with the problems and fears, and the utility
for the user.
e) To search for information, and to analysis the quality assurance / quality control process
involved in monitoring the resources, quantity and availability of data for the development and
use of the indicators.
7. Is it each one of the indicators developed under a scientific and cost effective approach?
To build information is always expensive. As it is shown in table 1, there is a selection criteria
assembly that can summarise in three basic groups to be kept in mind: 1) Accuracy of the data; 2)
Relation with the problems and driven forces, and 3) Utility for the users
7
.
6
The perspective of a user will be frequently adopted by the consultant.
7
National Framework, p. 13 under review, bears in mind some of the criteria shown in Board 1, but not all of
them. On the other hand, experiences such as NRA at the United Kingdom to assess Fresh Water Quality by
developing the BMWP Indices, could be taken into account.

9
Board 1. Main Criteria Issues to be taken into account when selecting
a core o Environmental Indicators (EPA,1995; Rump,1995)
DATA Accuracy Relation with the problems Utility for the USERS
Scientific Support
Measurement Techniques
Representatively
Convenience of the Scales
Applicability
Not Redundancy
Availability Geographic area involved Compressibility and
Interpretability
Quality Sensitivity to the changing
conditions
Value of Reference
Cost-effective development Specificity Retrospective-Predictive
Statistics Series
Accessibility
Connectivity Comparability
Opportunity
Afterwards there are some specific series of requests associates to each one of these three criteria
groups, that should be bare in mind for the selection, elaboration and use of the indicators
8
.
Executing the Assessment
The results in answering the 7 Key Questions formulated above, would be cross with the 4
Strategic Directions stated in the NLWRA Strategic Plan 2003 – 2007, in the following way:
1. Strategic Direction 1 with questions 2, 4 and 7.
4. Strategic Direction 4 with question 3 and 5.
Nevertheless sometimes the questions interact one to each other and so does the Strategic
Directions. For instance, it would be hard to establish the difference between the Performance
Indicator formulated in Strategic Direction 2 as National Consistent Standards established for the
collection of NRM data and information, with the one of Strategic Direction 3 formulated as National
Standard and protocols being applied in the collection and collation of data and information.
8
Besides there is an operating series of criteria that allows to differentiate the types of information. The basic
information, in general is presented in form of data and its unit (pluviosity in mm, vegetable cover in km2
).
Nevertheless these basic data in the case of a reserve or resource can be an indicator (water volume in
m3/seg, surface of forests in Km2
) particularly when series of time are presented and is observed then
changes in the reserve or resource. The indicators are in general information that relates a parameter with a
variable and are presented in form of data in function of the time, the space and/or the population
(agricultural lands in hectares per capita, density of population by km2
). Finally, the indices are the result of
the combination of two parameters related to a variable (e.g. relation reforestation/deforestation).

10
On the other hand, in agreement with the objectives and work to be undertaken with the Audit as
stated in pages 2-3 of the Terms of Reference, the following Activities are proposed along the time,
in order to provide a structure to the project.
Specific Activities to be undertaken
1. Framework Review
2. Assessing Data Protocols and Data Production
3. Development of the capture information format
4. Running the format at all Levels
5. Data Recovery, Analysis of Information building and information use
6. Assessment of gaps identified in points 4 and 5
7. Preparation and presentation of the final report
9
A more detailed Plan of the activities is shown in Board 2, which is the Timetable of the project, and
can be seen in the following page. Once the proposal has been approved, it will be possible to
cross also these activities with the suggested methodology being each activity assessed with some
of the key questions among Governmental Institutions, and how the information provided by the
indicators is used to plan, redirect and evaluate PPP at a national level -also crossing the key
questions with the strategic directions as explained before-, being a full assessment over the
National Water Quality Management Strategy the conductive path, but not the only one, to analyse
how Institutions access data, exchange communications, and use the information provided by the
indicators to execute and evaluate Programs and Projects.
It will be also possible to find some other attributes of the information. What experience shows is
that a National Environmental Indicators System is not better for having a lot of indicators, but for
understanding users necessities in order to provide the key information that supports the decision
making process, which afterwards, must be cost effective in its development, maintenance and
use.
9
Besides the Methodology to Analyse the collected data, and a DOSA (Debilities, Opportunities, Strengths and
Awareness) Analysis of the Environmental Indicators System, with strategies to fill information gaps, how to
aggregate information, main Conclusions and Recommendations for collecting data as well as building and
using information provided by The Environmental Indicators System, the Final Report will contain an
Appendix which include the data collected within the format and a Data Base or Spread Sheets in a CD-
ROM.

Board 2. Timetable - Activities and Products along the Project
ACTIVITIES March April May June
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16
A1. Framework review, discussion
and agreement (National Level)
A2. Assessing Data Protocols by
Themes defined, and assessing
required data for each indicator
A2.1 Atmosphere
A2.2 Biodiversity
A2.3 Estuaries and Seas
A2.4 Human Settlements
A2.4 Inland Waters
A2.6 Land
A2.7 Local and Community Uses
A2.8 Natural and Cultural Heritage
A3. Development of a format to report
availability of data required
for completion at national,
jurisdictional and regional levels
A4. Trawl at National, Jurisdictional
and Regional Level using the format.
Death Line of data collection in yellow
A5. Data availability determination,
access requirements, and analysis of
Institutional information exchange
A6. Assessing gaps in available data,
data access, information building,
information use, and Institutional
communications
A7. Preparing final reports & products
A7.1Final Version of the
National Framework
A7.2 P-S-R Australian Indicators Matrix
A7.3 Indicators Data Protocols By
Theme with ATAG Theme's Specialists
A.7.4 Final Report, Recommendations
and Conclusions
Conventions: Blue for the activities while yellow for the products. Source: Alvaro H. Pescador R., Feb 11, 2004

12
ABREVIATIONS
ATAG – Audit Technical Advisory Group
BMWP - Biological Monitoring Working Party (UK)
CCME – Canadian Council Ministry of Environment
CIAT – International Centre of Tropical Agriculture
EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment
EMS – Environmental Management System
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency (USA)
GEF – Global Environmental Facility
GIS – Geographical Information System
GO – Governmental Organisations
HSEQ – Health Safety Environment & Quality
IOC – International Oceanographic Commission
ISO – International Standard Organisation
MEWG – Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group
NLWRA – National Land & Water Resource Audit
NRA – National River Authority (UK)
OECD – Organisation for the Economic Cooperation and Development
P-S-R – Pressure – State – Response
PPP – Policies, Plans and Programs
QA/QC – Quality Assurance / Quality Control
SEA – Strategic Environmental Assessment
UNEP – United Nations Environmental Program
WRI – World Resource Institute

BIBLIOGRAFIA
Adriaanse A.; 1993; Environmental Policy Performance Indicators, General of Environment of the
Dutch Ministry of Housing, VROM, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Bakkes J. A., van den Born G., Helder J., Swart R., Hope C., Parker J.; 1994; An Overview of
Environmental Indicators: State of the Art and Perspectives, Environment Assesment Technical
Reports, RIVM in co-operation with The University of Cambridge and, UNEP-RIVM.
CCME; 1994; A Framework for Developing Goals, Objectives and Indicators for Ecosystem Health:
Tools for Ecosystem-Based Management, Water Quality Guidelines Task Group and the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment.
DPCSD; 1995; Implementation Plan for CDS Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable
Development, United Nations, New York.
EPA; 1994; Indicators Development Strategy, Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program,
EMAP Center, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA 620/R-94/022.
EPA; 1995; A Conceptual Framework to Support the Development and Use of Environmental
Information for Decision-Making, Environmental Statistics and Information Division, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, EPA 230-R-95-012.
Hammond A., Adriaanse A., Rodemburg E., Bryant E., Woodward R.; 1995; Environmental
Indicators: A Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy
Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development, World Resources Institute, Washington,
D. C..
Linares C., Seligman D., Tunstall D.; 1992; Developing Urban Environmental Indicators in Third
World Cities, Final Draft Report to USAID, Center for International Development and Environment at
the World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington, D.C.
McQueen D., Noack H.; 1988; Health promotion Indicators: current status, issues and problems,
Health Prom. 3:117-225.
Ministry of Agriculture and Foresty, 2002, Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management in Finland, Helsinki.
Natural Heritage Trust; 2003; National Land & Water Resources Audit Strategic Plan 2003-2007,
Camberra.
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council; 2003; National Natural Resource Management
Monitorial Framework, Camberra.
OCDE; 1993; OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews, Environmental
Monograph # 83, OCDE, Paris.
O'Connor J.; 1995; Coping with Complexity, Paper presented at 50 Session of ISI (International
Statistical Institute), 21-29 August, 1995, Beijing, China.

14
Pescador A; 1997; “Hacia un Sistema de Indicadores de Segumiento de los Recursos Naturales y
la Gestión Ambiental en Colombia”, Revista Ambiente y Desarrollo, CEJA, Bogotá.
Pescador A, 1998; “Design and Development of Environmental Indicators for The Integrated
Coastal Area Management in the Caribbean”, UNESCO-IOC, Cartagena.
Rodemburg E., Tunstall D., van Bolhuis F.; 1995; Environmental Indicators for Global Cooperation,
Working Paper #1, Global Environmental Facility (GEF), UNDP/UNEP/The World Bank,
Washington, D.C..
Rump P.; 1995; State of the Environment Source Book, Draft Report, RIVM-UNEP, Bilthoven, The
Netherlands.
SCOPE; 1995; Indicators of Sustainable Development for Decision- Making, Report of the
Workshop of Ghent, Published by the Federal Planning Office of Belgium.
Swart R., Bronswijk H., Heij B. J., Niessen L.; 1995; Towards a Global Environmental Outlook:
Integrated Global and Regional Environment Assessment, Discussion paper prepared for GEO
International Expert Meeting (CIAT, Cali, Colombia), RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
TCA; 1995; Regional Workshop on the Definition of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainability of
Amazonian Forests, Tratado de Cooperación Amazónico, Tarapoto, Febrero 25, Perú.
UNEP; 1994; Human Development Report 1994, Oxford University Press, New York.
UNEP; 1984; A Framework for the Development of Environmental Statistics, Statistical Papers
Series # 78, New York.
UNEP-DPCSD; 1995; The Role of Indicators in Decision-Making, Discussion Paper prepared for the
Indicators of Sustainable Development for Decision Making Workshop, 9-11 January, Ghent,
Belgium.
UNEP, 1996, Indicators of Sustainable Development Framework and Methodologies, New York.
Winograd M.; 1995; Environmental Indicators for Latin America and the Caribbean: Toward Land-
Use Sustainability, GASE in collaboration with IICA/GTZ, OAS and WRI, Washington, D.C.
Winograd M., Pescador A., et al; 1997; “Marco Conceptual para un Sistema de Indicadores de
Gestión y Panificación Ambiental”, CIAT-DNP, Bogotá.
Winograd M.;1998; Tools for Making Decisions in Latin America and the Caribbean: Environmental
Indicators and Geographical Information Systems CIAT/UNEP, CIAT, Cali, Colombia, 58 pp.
World Bank; 1994;Making Development Sustainable: From Concepts to Action, I. Serageldin and A.
Steer (editors), ESD Occasional Paper Series # 2, The World Bank, Washington, D.C..
World Bank; 1995; Monitoring Environmental Progress: A Report on Work in Progress, ESD Series,
The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
World Bank,1997,World Development Indicators, The World Bank, Washington DC.

Assessment Proposal NLWRA

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Assessment Proposal NLWRA

More from Alvaro H. Pescador

Assessment Proposal NLWRA