12. Measurement and assessment of indicators

Lead Papers 

Dr. Grigori Abramia, Mark Anielski, MALIK AMIN ASLAM, Dr. Peter Bartelmus, Thomas J. Campbell,Thorkil Casse and Fabiana Issler, Ronald Colman, Karine Danielyan, David Del Porto, Dr. ir. J.Dewulf and J. Mulder and H.J. van der Kooi and J. de Swaan Arons, Dott. Giuseppe Di Vita, Michele Doncaster, Alexey Drouziaka, Germain Dufour, Louise Dunne and Frank Convery,Ken Dunsworth, David S. Evans, C. Coulthard, I. Henderson, P. Jones, Oleg Garms, Dr. Anastassios Gentzoglanis, Ramaz Gokhelashvili,Dr. Hans W. Gottinger, Nikolai Grishin and Olga Tokmakova, Dr. Tee L. Guidotti, Xiaohui Hao,Shahidul Haque, MD. Hasibur Rahman and ,Hasida Yasmin,Greg Hellyer, Alexander Heydendael, Mikylas Huba, Vladimír Hudek,Vladimir Ira, Dr. A.Jagadeesh, Kun H. JOHN and Yeo C. Youn and Jae W. Park , S. Augustinand J. Katima and E. Klawe and B. Lyimo, Natalia Knijnikova, Dr. Vladimir Kremsa, Elena Krougikova, Ms. Maria V. Kryukova, Dr. P.K. Dinesh Kumar,Van Lantz, Tonu Lausmaa, Ming Lei, Ngo Louga Madeleine, Igor N. Malakhov, Dr. Sue L.T. McGregor, Marin R. Mehandjiev (Professor) and Krassimira R. Mehandjieva, Mr. Aubrey Meyer, Laszlo Miklos, Jose H. Moya, Dr. Yew-Kwang Ng, Anatoly Nikitin and Sofia Nikitina, Vincent Otto, Roland Prelaz-Droux, Akim Rahman, Dr. C. Ramachandraiah, Professor Madireddi Venkata Subba Rao, Dr. B. Sudhakara Reddy, S. S. Sundarvel, Dirgha N. Tiwari, S.G. Patil* and L.B. Hugar* and M.S. Veerapur* and, J. Yerriswamy* and T. Cross† and A.C. vanLoon† and G.W. vanLoon†, Pavel Toma,Kamil Vilinovic and Milan Chrenko,Dr. David E. Wojick, DSc. Professor William M. Zadorsky, Dr. Katalin K. Zaim, Dr. ZhongXiang Zhang

Thorkil Casse and Fabiana Issler have obtained results that after 26 years of intensive resource use, the wood industry, currently responsible for over 80 percent of the total income generated in the economic territory of Paragominas, is now experiencing the first signs of decline. Deforestation is reaching critical levels locally, and timber scarcity is definitely the major cause of Paragominas’ current crisis. Mills are shutting down, others are moving closer to extraction areas, and the per capita income has been falling since 1992 (Figure 6). Both from an economic and an environmental perspective, the path pursued by Paragominas is clearly unsustainable. Forest resources in Paragominas will only last for another fifteen to nineteen years. The only other option left is to substitute the forestry economy with a cattle-based economy, and there are signs that this is taking place.Our attempt to compare our application of the user-cost method with cost-benefit analyses in a specific case study (Paragominas) demonstrates that a better management system is not necessarily equal to moving towards sustainability. In cases when uncertainty prevails, cost-benefit analyses will not be sufficient to detect unsustainability; they can only detect inefficiency. As an early warning system, the user-cost method has proven to be applicable with success, even in situations of uncertainty. Regarding future perspectives, it is probable that Paragominas will intensify its land uses to some extent in the coming years. But the demand for efficiency will probably weigh more heavily in decision making than environmental concerns. Therefore, intercropping will not necessarily be the choice, with perennials and long-cycle forest management in native forests, as Almeida and Uhl desire. But soybean monoculture and plantations of fast growing timber species for veneer production may become more common in Paragominas in the next five or ten years. By then, the remaining area of native forest may be reduced to a few scattered patches in the landscape.

Karine Danielyan has obtained results about the scale of countries, ranged according to SHDI, will undergo considerable changes in comparison with the one, based on the rating according to HDI, depending on the degree of rational use of natural resources. This technique has been successfully approved by us basing on the statistical material of Armenia (Pe = - 0,427, SHDI = 0,404) and Georgia (Pe = - 0,237, SHDI = 0,592). The evaluation has been carried out on the base of the data of 1990 (the year was chosen as the most stable and provided with statistics within the last period of time). Thus, Armenia outstripped Georgia in the scale elaborated by UNDP on the base of HDI, while taking into consideration the environmental indicator the countries exchange their places. To certain extent it can be asserted that Pe makes it possible to evaluate the portion of the contribution made by countries into the general environmental degradation on the planet. Thus, Pe of Armenia, which is equal to 0,427 (the limits are 0 and 1) may indicate the following: the country is included into the group of countries, whose environmental characteristic is entirely adequate to the general situation on the Earth and almost does not diverge for either the better or the worst.

J. Dewulf, J. Mulder, H. Van Langenhove, H.J. van der Kooi and J. de
Swaan Arons have obtained results for the electricity generation via solar cells scores better on the use of renewable resources (*=0.9676 vs. *=0.0007), since the only input of renewables in the natural gas fueled system is water for the production of steam. Just because of the extensive use of non-renewables, the gas fueled system requires a higher input of exergy for abatement of emissions resulting in a lower *1-coefficient (*1=0.9932 vs. *1=0.9617). On the other hand, the conversion of inputs into useful outputs is much higher for the gas based power system, showing an overall exergetic efficiency of *2=0.5033. In this sense, the solar cell system is inferior (*2=0.1247). Taking into account all these contributions in order to assess the overall sustainability, it is demonstrated by the sustainability coefficient S that the solar cell driven electricity generation is more sustainable than the gas powered generation (S=0.55 vs. S=0.24). However, also solar photovoltaic conversion cannot achieve 100% sustainability. First, it needs an input of non-renewables to produce the conversion facilities. Secondly, from a theoretical point of view, solar conversion by photovoltaics can attain a maximally possible efficiency of 40.8%, because only a limited range of the irradiated frequencies can be converted into electricity6. Taking into account this efficiency and neglecting exergetic inputs for production of converters and for abatement of outputs harmful for the ecosphere, a maximal sustainability S of 0.70 is found for multicristalline silicon based photovoltaic cells. The proposed judgement of the sustainability of technologies shows that 100% sustainability cannot be attained, because it would require only solar exergy resources (or other nearly 100% renewables as wind energy and hydropower) and reversible processes. On the other hand, the approach demonstrates that technologies used nowadays are always not completely unsustainable (S>0), since they all deliver a product with an exergetic content higher than zero. The developed coefficient S covers the whole life cycle of a product, starting from the resources delivered by the ecosphere, down to the emission of the waste products into the ecosphere. The current approach has taken into account the waste production of the technosphere, not only during the manufacturing of the ‘useful product’, but also during the use and in the disposal phase after the use of the ‘useful product’.

Louise Dunne and Frank Convery have obtained results with the issue of economies of scale. Doing 10 urban areas is not much more expensive than doing one, especially where national statistics are being sourced. Some key data were developed at a very low cost due to good census and transport data. A coherent and disaggregated national information strategy improves comparability and credibility in a small country. Overall findings of the project are as follows: 

• Growth in population and income and the associated energy consumption are the main pressures for many indicators. However, the move to cleaner domestic fuels, lead-free petrol, catalytic converters and increasing policy implementation has resulted in an improvement of air quality in terms of lead, smoke and SO2 in urban areas in Ireland. Conversely, the increases in the number and size of cars may be outweighing the benefits of cleaner fuels. Encouraging the use of alternative energy sources and less dependence on the car as a means of transport are the response indicators that suggest the best sustainable policy for improved air quality and urban health. 

• This exercise also had the benefit of highlighting gaps in the data availability and it would be hoped that follow-on indicators reports would show more comprehensive results, particularly regarding the indicators of environmental quality, which have a direct impact on human health. Most of the Irish national data is driven by the need to comply with EU Directives. The only specifically urban 'driver' in this respect is Agenda 21, and this explains the incomplete nature of what has happened at local level so far. 

• Inclusion of the Built Environment Indicator provides an interesting aspect of quality of life in an urban area and is in some ways an indication of the particular local authority's commitment to heritage conservation. In 2011, the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage will be completed, describing the character of each building, and giving all listed buildings a registration number, and making the development of built environment indicators for all urban areas possible. Based on the data compiled for the urban areas already, it will be possible to provide stock and flow indicators for the built environment 

• The noise levels in the ten towns and cities were found to be generally higher than recommended and are mainly due to traffic, construction and entertainment venues. 

• It was hoped to measure the extent of re-population of the inner urban locations under the Urban Renewal Schemes, but specific population statistics for the areas covered were not available. It was found, however, that new construction still dominates refurbishments, a significant percentage of land is derelict and the mix of investment across the sectors (residential, office, commercial etc.) varies widely from urban area to urban area. 

• The Ecological Footprint, as a concept, provides an interesting dissemination document, but its main use is as a comparison between countries, not as a comparison of urban areas within a specific country or across time. 

• Areas highlighted by the literature review, and the subsequent chosen indicators closely match those recently prioritised by the latest technical report by the Working Group on Measuring, Monitoring and Evaluation in Local Sustainability, Expert Group on the Urban Environment (EC, 2000), which lists amongst the core indicators: Local mobility and passenger transportation; availability of local public green areas; quality of local outdoor air; children's journeys to and from school; and noise pollution.
  

Kun H. JOHN,Yeo C. Youn and Jae W. Park have shown that according to the annual statistic book of the Choelwon local government, the average number of the visitors to the Choelwon area is 369,500 per year. Assuming that the total number of visitors in 1997 is the same as the annual average and also 84.1% of them show preference for keeping the current status of the FFER, the total use value of the ecological resources is 1.05 billion won (US$840,000). The estimated use value is 2.7 times greater than the average annual revenue of the entrance fee. Use value of ecological resources represents only a part of the total benefits of the FFER. In addition, preserving the FFER embraces non-use values perceived by existence, option, and bequest preferences. Existence value is the willingness to pay for the satisfaction of knowing that natural environment is protected. Option value is defined as the annual payment of a kind of insurance premium to retain the option of possible future use. Bequest value is defined as the willingness to pay for the satisfaction derived from endowing future generations with irreversible biological resources (Brookshire,et al. 1983; Loomis, 1988; Walsh, et al. 1984). In July of 1998, the non-use value of preserving the ecological resources of the DMZ and CCZ was surveyed. To simplify presentation, only the estimation result is introduced here. The tax is used as the payment vehicle for the CVM to measure non-use value, i.e., WTP of additional tax to preserve the FFER as it is. The total use plus non-use values of the FFER in the Choelwon is about 23billion won (US$18.4million) per year. If we extrapolate the use value to the next 50 years using 12% interest rate, the present value of the benefits for keeping the current status of the FFER is approximately 191billion won (US$152.8million).

 S. Augustin, J. Katima, E. Klawe & B. Lyimo have demonstrated that establishment of Pines and Eucalyptus plantations is seen as an efficient way to create carbon sinks due to rapid increment rate soon after establishment. Brown et al. (1985) predict that the sink function to become more significant in the future, attributed to the increase in the rate of establishment and the large areas of young plantations, which will sequester more carbon as they develop and grow into older age classes.

  S.G. Patil, L.B. Hugar, M.S. Veerapur, J. Yerriswamy, T. Cross, A.C.
vanLoon, and G.W. vanLoon have obtained  data in the Tungabhadra
Project (TBP) area of Karnataka State in South India to show  that biodiversity of the indicator species is much reduced in areas where there is a high input of synthetic chemicals. With regard to human health, it is well documented that a significant fraction of hospital admissions in the TBP region are associated with pesticide-related symptoms. Finally we consider that equity is an issue that must be included in any definition of sustainability. A focus of our study is on the status of women in the villages of the various regions. We will report data assessing their relative health situation, educational opportunities and position with regard to decision making in the home, concerning agriculture, and in the village as a whole.

 Dr. Katalin K. Zaim has obtained results about the IPPS method developed by the PRDEI in the World Bank allowed us to compute the yearly pollution intensities, toxic and metal pollution emissions to air, water and land for the industrial activities. The computations are performed for the years 1985 and 1992. The results indicate that the most relevant pollutants produced by industries are TSS, SO2, and CO. Toxic and metal pollution effected land mostly. Sectors responsible for the highest level of pollution are manufacture of other chemical product (31), manufacture of plastic product (35), manufacture of glass and glass product (36) and manufacture of cement (37). Manufacture of other chemical products created the largest amount of BOD emission. Plastic production caused NO2, VOC and polluted air, water and land with toxic pollution the most. Glass production results in the highest levels of PT and PM10 pollution. Cement manufacturing on the other hand caused the highest level of CO, SO2, TSS, metal air, metal water and metal land pollution. The regional distribution of pollution intensities, benefits of abatement, abatement costs and benefit/cost ratios are also computed for the year 1992. The results indicated that region 1 experienced the highest level of pollution, and region 3 the second highest. The other regions were exposed to lower level of pollution intensities. Similar results are obtained for the pollution per capita per km2. Since region 1 is exposed to the highest level of pollution, the abatement costs are also the most significant ones in this region; hence, the benefit/cost ration is greatest in this region at each level of abatement. As pollution abatement decreased from 100% to 80%, 50%, 25% and 10% the abatement costs and benefit/cost ratios for each region decreased proportionally. However, at 50% of abatement the benefit/cost ratio is the highest compared to 100% and 25% of abatement. This indicates that the most cost efficient policy would be to request a 50% of abatement in all regions, since at a higher level of abatement the benefit gained per cost of abatement is decreasing at an increasing rate, whereas the benefit/cost ratio reaches its highest value at 50% of abatement.

The environment is our life-support system, and is certainly the most important quality system(Dufour). It is hoped that the evaluation of GESDI was helpful  in bringing us closer to sustaining Earth. GESDI is the global indicator that includes all others but it should be made clear that all other indicators and indices proposed in this World Congress are standing by themselves as well and their values are not diminished. There are hundreds of indicators and indices in GESDI and they all make GESDI what it is: a meaningful global indicator.

To make our evaluation successful we need first to understand the effects of man's activities on the environment and second, find what things we should do to ameliorate the adverse effects. 

Every country has different ways of evaluating environmental quality. For instance in the United states the National Wildlife Federation has developed the Environmental Quality Index to evaluate several natural resources including air, water, soil, wildlife, forests, minerals and living space. As in the evaluation of GESDI, a number of value judgments are made during measurements. But when one focus on sustaining the Earth and its biosphere these judgments are usually fair. Trends are often used to eliminate gross errors. The costs of pollution versus the cost of pollution control  or abatement is also included in an evaluation. In the evaluation of GESDI the costs of pollution with respect to the components of the four interacting systems (environment, social, resources, and economic) are addressed head on. For instance in an urban community site, the costs of pollution with respect to property values, health, materials, vegetation, quality of life, land use, recreational activities, and aesthetics are important, and are highlighted.

Again in the United States, the most important bodies of data and standards are developed, regulated, monitored, managed and made available to the public by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality. In the evaluation of GESDI for this country, data and statistics from these agencies are mainly used along with information obtained from other sources such as the National Wildlife Federation.

Not every country has a government agency as developed as the EPA, and it can be very costly to actually make our own measurements in other countries. Permission has to be obtained. We usually rely on whatever we can obtained from government officials and groups from those countries. Satellite observations are another source of data. 

If we are to achieve effective management of Earth and its environment we need comprehensive data about the status and changes in the air, land, water and in other natural resources; the issue of the effects of  potentially hazardous chemicals on the natural resources. 

Other requirements are for making the evaluation of GESDI meaningful with respect to each of the four quality systems: environment, social, resources, economics; evaluating those aspects or impacts which are directly representative and those which are not; correlating the data; interpreting the data for the purpose of determining whether trends are interfering; predicting the environmental impact of proposed public and private actions; determining the effectiveness of programs of protecting and enhancing environmental quality; developing environmental policies; and processing the useful data into the GESDI.

The scientific community contributes enormously to the evaluation of GESDI. Our professional members are certainly and by large the most important leading representatives of the scientific community. Beyond their own university training and life experience, the World Congress on Managing and Measuring Sustainable Development has been the training grounds that have sharpened their judgment on all issues. All of our members together are certainly ready for an effective Earth Management.

An indicator measures the number of violations of environmental regulations and license requirements. Responsible industries have a high degree of compliance with environmental regulations and license conditions designed to protect the environment. A high incidence of non-compliance can show that industries are not working towards sustainable development.

An indicator measures the per cent of regulations stating the required standards to be met but not dictating how standards will be achieved. Government gives industry flexibility in how it meets standards; this way industry will be better able to find innovative and efficient ways of meeting those standards.

An indicator measures the value of all environmental permits sold for a particular contaminant, such as sulphur dioxide. The use of tradeable permits is a type of economic instrument whereby permits are issued to emission producers authorizing them to emit a specified amount of a pollutant over a specified period of time. Portions of the emissions allowed under these permits can be traded or sold if the company's emissions are below the level allowed in the permit. Declining permit prices indicate that companies have reduced emissions below permit levels and no longer require their full allotment of allowable emissions. As more permits become surplus and are available for trading, prices will decline.

An evaluation of sustainable development consists of ranking risks relative to each other and to help deciding which practice is better than another. In 1988, the author has developed a scale of values, and has designed and tested indicators to represent quality of development. Hundreds of indicators were measured and integrated into an overall expression called the Gross Environmental Sustainable Development Index (GESDI). GESDI was developed to measure sustainable development locally and globally. It expresses the quality of our growth or development, and it describes environmental quality rather than merely measuring different environmental variables.

An other indicator was developed to measure the costs of development: the Gross Sustainable Development Product (GSDP).

The GSDP is defined as the total value of production within a region over a specified period of time. It is measured using market prices for goods and services transactions in the economy. The GSDP is designed to replace the Gross Development product (GDP) as the primary indicator of the economic performance of a nation. The GSDP takes into accounts:

•  the economic impacts of environmental and health degradation or improvement, resource depletion or findings of new stocks, and depreciation or appreciation of stocks;

•  the impact of people activity on the environment, the availability of resources, and economic development;

•  the "quality" of the four major quality systems and the impacts of changes in these systems on national income and wealth;

•  global concerns and their impacts on the economy;

•  the welfare, economic development and quality of life of future generations;

•  expenditures on pollution abatement and clean-ups, people health, floods, vehicle accidents, and on any negative impact costs;

•  the status of each resource and the stocks and productive capacities of exploited populations and ecosystems, and make sure that those capacities are sustained and replenished after use; and

•  the depreciation or appreciation of natural assets, the depletion and degradation of natural resources and the environment, ecological processes and biological diversity, the costs of rectifying unmitigated environmental damage, the values of natural resources, capital stocks, the impacts of degradation or improvement, social costs, health costs, environmental clean-up costs, and the costs of the environment, economic growth, and resources uses to current and future generations and to a nation’s income.


The measurement of GSDP shows that consumption levels can be maintained without depleting and depreciating the quality and quantity of services. It indicates the solutions to the problems as well as the directions to take, such as:



•  invest in technology, R & D, to increase the end-use efficiency;

•  increase productivity;

•  modify social, educational programs and services;

•  slow down or increase economic growth;

•  remediate components of the four major quality systems; and

•  rectify present shortcomings of income and wealth accounts.

The measurement of GSDP also gives a proper and sound signal to the public, government and industry about the rate and direction of economic growth; it identifies environmental, health, and social quality; it identifies sustainable and unsustainable levels of resource and environmental uses; it measures the success or failure of sustainable development policies and practices; and it identifies resource scarcity. Values obtained enable us to make meaningful comparisons of sustainable development between cities, provinces, nations over the entire planet.

We are here to find ways to measure sustainable development on an annual basis, propose policies to The Global Community, and show the direction to take to better sustain Earth.

Comments and Recommendations from Participants

Report on the Measurement of the Gross Environmental Sustainable Development Index The GESDI of a Home and the Community it Belongs to

By Joseph-Germain Dufour

Our names: JHY Katima, S. Augustin, B. Lyimo and E. Kilawe

Our Opinion

The Model is very good. It gives a value which can easily be used to present a case to decision makers on the sustainability of a given project.

However, during our discussion there are issues which we would like some clarification.

1. The weighting method is subjective. These mostly will depend on ones belief, perception and values. Have you experienced this in your research? One may think the weighting should be done by a team of experts, if yes how many?

2. How does the model account for external factors which influence local processes. For example the IMF and World Bank prescribing some economic recovery measures which at times are not even applicable in the developed world, e.g. prescribing removal of subsidies from farm implements while you have a highly subsidized agricultural industry in the developed world.

3. Can the model be used to assess the global sustainable development. Here we are looking at the current trend of local environmental problems with local impact are left to be solved locally with consequence to sustainable development (the majority of these are found in developing world). Locally produced environmental problems with global impact (mainly from developed world) to be handled by the global community with consequence to sustainable development to the developing world.

4. In a list of people or social aspects we think that issues like Stopping trading in arms or in items that fuel conflicts (case example is Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Siera Leon), Position of disadvantaged groups, Imbalance world trade should be included. Under economic development aspect. The issues of competitiveness of economies in the world and ensuring sound sustainable development, we think the concept of MIGHT IS RIGHT AND MIGHT WILL PREVAIL will be the end result if there is no measures to empower the weak economies to grow. Under the same topic we think issues like Listening All Voices (Equal bargaining Power), and World Trade Organisation should be included in the list.

5. Under availability of resources aspect. We think issue like Appropriate technology, Technology transfer and Affordability should be included.

The paper is good and model should probably be tested in other environmental setting (especially the third world environment).

 Evaluation of Indicators

A.    Indicators of environmental quality
        A.1    Biological indicators: pollutants in human
        A.2    Biological and biochemical indicators
        A.3    Sense of smell
B.    Facts about the state of the environment
C.    Global indicators and indices
        C.1    The threat of global warming
        C.2    Destruction of the ozone layer
        C.3    Other environmental stresses
D.    Noise pollution indicators
E.    Environmental indices for radioactivity releases
F.    Land, plants and animals indicators and indices
        F.1    Land indicators
        F.2    Preserving natural areas and protecting plants indicators
        F.3    Wildlife indicators
        F.4    National park indicators
        F.5    Forest indicators
        F.6    Sustainable forest management
        F.7    Sustainable forestry development
        F.8    Logging and pulp mills issues
        F.9    A sustainable agricultural development,land strategy and organic food production
        F.10    Soil quality index
        F.11    Getting information on land use and resource issues
G.    Air indicators and indices
        G.1    Acid and toxic rain
        G.2    Air pollution indicators
        G.3    Air quality indices and indicators
        G.4    Plants as indicators of air quality
        G.5    Air pollutants from mobile and stationary sources
        G.6    Emission of air pollutants from energy facilities
        G.7    Environmental pathways and impacts of air pollutants
        G.8    Economic consequences of air pollution from combustion facilities
        G.9    Methods of abatement of air pollution from stationary sources
        G.10    Costs of reducing emissions from mobile sources
H.    Water indicators and indices
        H.1    Water management indicators
        H.2    Water quality objective
        H.3    Protection of fresh water resources indicators
        H.4    River water quality
        H.5    Sustainability in fishery
        H.6    Water pollution issues
I.    Pollution indicators and indices
        I.1    Management of pollutant indicators
        I.2    Waste management indicators
        I.3    Toxic substances indicators
        I.4    Costs of pollution and abatement indicators 

Evaluation of Environment Issues and Concerns

1. Arctic
2. The role of the Environment as a source of natural capital
3. Biological Diversity
4. Protected natural Areas
5. Ecological Protection
6. Endangered Species
7. Protection of Wild Fauna
8. Protection of Wild Flora
9. Migratory wild species
10. Marines mammals and birds
11. Legal mechanisms to ensure coverage of damage to renewable natural resources
12. Heritage Sites
13. Regulations related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous wastes/dangerous goods
14. Toxic Product and Waste
15. Hazardous Materials
16. Solid Wastes
17. Radioactive Wastes
18. Pesticides
19. Industrial Pollution
20. The Pacific Salmon
21. Oceans
22. Coastal Areas
23. Mountains
24. Desertification
25. Drought
26. Land
27. Wetlands
28. Soils
29. Wildlife
30. Physical values
31. Forestry
32. Water Pollution
33. Marine Issues
34. Air Issues
35. Air Pollution
36. Protected Areas
37. Atmosphere
38. Global Warming
39. Ozone Layer
40. Ozone Depleting Substances
41. Climate Change:
i) The Global Climate Observing System
ii) International Council of Scientific Unions
iii) Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
iv) World Meteorological Organization
v) United Nations Environment Programme
vi) Earthwatch
vii) Agenda 21
42. Measurement of Indicators
43. Monitoring
44. Making results of measurements available on the Internet
45. Ecosystems
46. Acid rain damage
47. Water quality
48. Recreational areas
49. Soil productivity
50. Watersheds
51. Forest soil erosion
52. Vegetation
53. Soil carrying capacity
54. Old-growth trees
55. Air quality
56. Fresh water
57. Ozone depletion substances