UNEP / Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA)

EEA TACIS PROJECT “DEVELOP MENT OF C.S.I. ENV’L INDICATORS METHODOLOGICAL GUIDE AND COMPENDIUM” FOR EECCA.

Presentation for the 8th Session of the UNECE/CEP “Working Group on Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (WGEMA)” held at the U.N.

Palais des Nations, Geneva, 12-13 June 2007

The Global Authority on the Environment

Towards the EEA’s Belgrade Report

The “Core Set of Indicators Compendium for EECCA Countries” as a companion product to…

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Quic kTime™ and a TIFF (Unc ompres sed) dec ompres sor are needed to see t his pic ture.

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) dec ompressor are needed to s ee this pic ture.

…the Belgrade Report of the EEA.

EEA TACIS Project Background

Main Purpose:

Improve capacities in the EECCA countries to develop, apply and maintain an agreed “core set of env’l indicators” (CSI), using a guidelines manual prepared by UNECE, to support pan European reporting on env’l state and trends.

Main Output:

An “Indicators Compendium” covering part of the CSI, to accompany the next (4th) pan European ~ Belgrade Assessment report.

EEA TACIS Project Players/Roles

  

Overall Project Coordination:

EEA

Project Management:

UNEP/DEWA

Project Consultants:

L. Gornaja (EEA / independent); G. Giuliani and S. Kluser (UNEP/GRID-Europe); and E. Veligosh (UNEP/GRID-Arendal).



Project collaborators:

Above plus EEA and UNECE staff; EECCA country expert participants (WGEMA et al.); workshop organisers from partner centres in Dushanbe, Kyiv and Tbilisi, and others…

EECCA Indicators Compendium

Activities up until publication in 2007:



Preliminary indicators and their analyses (trends etc.) prepared and translated (Jan.-March).



Consultation on-line on preliminary indicators with EECCA country experts; “gap-filling”

(late March through mid-May; extended).

   

Revised version Indicators prepared (late May).

Present to UNECE WGEMA 8th Session 12 June

Final indicators and translation (late June). Layout and printing of CSI Compendium for EECCA Countries (throughout July).



Launch with Belgrade Report (10 October)

EECCA Indicators Contents/Structure

     

What is the key What key Overall The Policy question Message(s) Assessment are derived/explained?

for each of ~15 indicators.

Policy context / link addressed?

for all 15 indicators.

Methodology / References for each indicator.

Link to Definition and Rationale in UNECE’s Indicator Guidelines document.



Each indicator in four pages text & graphics

(English/Russian, so eight pgs. overall).



All 12 EECCA countries covered, within the limits of data availability…

EECCA Indicators Development



A reminder that the 15 indicators selected as a subset of the CSI (36 altogether) were chosen for reasons of practicality (data available from international sources).



More details on the methodology (i.e., how the 15 indicators were developed & modified).

(Elena Veligosh)



More details about the on-line consultation and results based on participants’ inputs.

(Stephane Kluser)

UNEP’s GEO-4 Assessment Report

Originally slated for release and joint launch with the Belgrade Report at the Ministerial Conference, this is now delayed until late October 2007…

Annual “GEO Yearbooks”

First two volumes covered 2003 and 2004/05

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Third volume dated 2007 covers the year 2006

Other recent UNEP Assessments

Just released on 5 June for World Environment Day

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Thematic along with global and regional GEO reports

Merci

Spasebo

Thank you

EECCA Indicators Compendium

Lessons Learned and Remaining Challenges:

 

Data are not always available, or adequate, to support the indicators and their analyses. Standardised “international” data sources are sometimes contested - or even contradicted by - national sources (how to resolve?).



Gap-filling on a “voluntary” basis is not most efficient or effective method, particularly w/o strong participation at the country level.

 

Further corrections and harmonisation needed. To serve as a useful stand-alone product, even while being closely linked to the Guidelines document and the Belgrade Report itself…