3.0	OTHER INITIATIVES USING INDICATORS

The development of indicators is difficult and highly complex, a consensus supported by the IITF and others working on similar projects, such as the European Union (EU), Environment Canada (EC) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many monitoring programs fail because operational issues, such as data management and information transfer are not adequately addressed. As well, some concepts, such as ecosystem management are constantly being redefined. Regular monitoring and long-term funding are essential. Updating the indicators and accompanying measurements is also essential as new issues emerge.

Many governmental jurisdictions are faced with similar environmental issues, many of which cross political boundaries. Collaboration through strategic partnerships should become the norm. As the IJC has stated multi-jurisdictional agencies are playing an increasingly critical role in the coordination of efforts within the Great Lakes basin.

To advance inter-agency communication and cooperation, there is a need for an acceptable indicator framework (see Table 3) to guide local decision makers, and to provide a common language, based on clear terminology and concepts. It is important for the IJC to be aware of how other multinational agencies are implementing indicators to ensure compatibility. As well, detailed and location-specific indicators are also needed to reflect unique regional conditions and the needs of local decision makers.

3.1

OECD

In 1993, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an agency of the EU, developed a core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews. Their work is set within a pressure-state-response framework that serves to structure and classify types of indicators, similar to the approach taken by State-of-the-Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). In this model, pressure refers to stresses from human activities on the environment, state reflects the present conditions in an ecosystem and response deals with society's efforts to tackle environmental problems caused by pressures so that a feedback mechanism is enacted.

This core set of indicators is meant to form a common link to all OECD member nations and allow for cross-country comparisons. These are generally supplemented by more detailed, country-specific indicators that reflect the unique conditions of each region and the needs of decision-makers.

3.2	NAFTA and the CEC

The tri-lateral "North American Free Trade Agreement" (NAFTA), signed by Canada, the United States and Mexico in 1994, was supplemented by the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), entered into that same year. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was subsequently created to administer this side accord. The CEC primarily achieves its mandate through information exchange, consulting services, and by fostering the development of new strategies for dealing with issues affecting the continent.

Two primary components of multinational environmental cooperation were identified (CEC, 1997):

1. Respect for each nation's sovereignty in establishing priorities, policies and legal frameworks that suit the needs of each country.
2. The importance of coordinated efforts in resolving shared environmental problems.

Each country maintains its own environmental regulatory framework while agreeing to collaborate tri-laterally in support of achieving sustainable development for all three nations.

The CEC designed a framework to assess the effects of NAFTA on the North American environment (CEC, 1999). This framework will:

• develop an understanding of the connections between trade and the environment;
• assist in anticipating important environmental impacts in the context of trade liberalization; and
• develop policy tools to better mitigate negative impacts and maximize positive ones.

As with many of the other initiatives reviewed in this report, the CEC recognizes the importance of assessing pressures on the environment (e.g. pollution). The CEC also refers to "environmental supports", such as waste management practices, which mitigate pressures and which may be created through government policies.

3.3

GPI

The Genuine Progress Index was developed in 1995 by StatsCan as an holistic measure of progress integrating social, economic and environmental variables (GPI Atlantic, 1998a). In 1997, Nova Scotia was chosen by Statistics Canada for a pilot project in which they adapted the original concept to reflect local conditions and to emphasize policy applications and relevance. This work demonstrates an acknowledgment that the traditional measure of progress, based upon the Gross Domestic Product, is inadequate to address the importance of sustainable development. It is widely accepted that "new indicators of progress are urgently needed to guide our society: ones that include the presently unpriced value of natural and societal capital in addition to the value of conventionally measured economic production . . . the GPI is an important step in this direction" (GPI Atlantic, 1998a).

The Nova Scotia GPI is based upon social, economic and environmental indicators selected to reflect community well being and prosperity and to determine progress toward sustainability. The index will be developed by integrating the trends over the last 25 years with existing market statistics to construct an overall index of sustainable development for the province. The GPI is expected to be released in 2000 (GPI Atlantic, 1998b).

3.4	The State of Ohio 1998 State of the Lake Report: Lake Erie Quality Index

The Ohio Lake Erie Commission evaluated 28 aspects of the status of Lake Erie using 10 indicators and 28 metrics (measurements). The framework used existing databases and looked for short and long term trends. The three main objectives were to:

1. determine what is essential to know about Lake Erie;
2. design and implement effective measuring systems for these essential factors; and
3. establish goals and scoring systems that will allow for critical evaluation of progress.

Unlike most of the similar initiatives, this report and its indicators were intended for the public and, therefore, designed using straightforward terms and easily understood references. Three "themes" or areas of focus were used to set the context for the report, shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Framework for the Lake Erie Quality Index (OLEC, 1998)

Scores for individual metrics were weighted according to importance, then tallied to produce a descriptive rating for the overall indicators.

For example, to assess the rating for water quality, the following five metrics were used: toxic contamination, contaminated sediments, bacterial pollution, drinking water, and water clarity.

These metrics were averaged to get the overall rating of "Good" for the indicator water quality. The Ohio Lake Erie Commission views this endeavor as a starting point of monitoring and restoration efforts. Metrics and indicators must be constantly reviewed and updated if information is to be kept relevant for the Ohio public.

3.5	Results of Review of Other Initiatives

In reviewing the process and progress of each of these indicator initiatives, the IITF notes that they reinforce our own findings and that they have been incorporated into the IITF work.

• Collaboration must become the norm to allow for real improvement.
• An internationally supported framework is needed to provide a common language and to promote inter-agency communication.
• Indicators must be necessary and sufficient to portray a state of the system.
• Indicators must be tied to specific goals and objectives.
• Indicators must be continually monitored and updated as new issues emerge.
• Managing databases in an efficient and standard manner is critical.
• Frameworks need to be geared to policymakers and the public at large.
• Indicators must be placed within a proper context, otherwise misinterpretation may occur.

Building on these findings, the IITF is adopting the IETF '96 proposed framework accordingly and collaborating with the Parties through SOLEC.