Commission on Sustainable Development Background Document No. 18 Sixth Session 20 April - 1 May 1998 Status Report on the Implementation of the CSD Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development Background Paper No. 18 Division for Sustainable Development Department of Economic and Social Affairs Table of Contents 1. Objectives of the Programme 2. Main Phases and Elements of Implementation 3. Follow-up of the National Testing 4. Lessons Learned and Next Steps 5. Use of Indicators in National Reporting Annexes 1. List of international meetings 2. List of national focal points I. Objectives of the Programme 1. This report reviews the status of implementation of the Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development as adopted by the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) at it■s Third Session in 1995. The programme addresses one of the objectives set out in Chapter 40 of Agenda 21: Information for Decision-Making, that calls for - recommendations for a harmonized development of sustainable development indicators at the national, regional and global levels, and for incorporation of a suitable set of these indicators in common, regularly updated, and widely accessible reports and databases, for use at the international level, subject to national sovereignty considerations■ (Agenda 21, para. 40.7). 2. The goal of the Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development is to develop a list of indicators of sustainable development accessible to decision makers at the national level by the year 2000. 3. The outcome of the CSDV and the Special Session of the General Assembly/Earth Summit+5 strongly re-emphasized the importance of indicators of sustainable development to support national decision- making. Sector specific indicators as well as gender disaggregated indicators, where appropriate, should get more attention in the future. The indicators of sustainable development are addressed explicitly in the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21: Means of Implementation (paras. 111 and 114), and in the -Future Role and Programme of Work of the Commission on Sustainable Development,■ (para. 133.b) as well as in relation to Changing Consumption and Production Patterns (para. 28.c). Based on the adoption of the new programme of work for the CSD at the Earth Summit+5, an in depth review of the cross- sectoral issue -Information for decision making and participation■ will take place in 2001 and include the indicators programme. II. Main Phases and Elements of Implementation 4. The approach to indicator development as adopted by the CSD, is supported by more than 30 organizations of the United Nations system, and other intergovernmental, non-governmental and major group organizations acting as lead organizations for the development of particular indicators. An Expert Group of approximately 45 members representing these organizations, was established to secure close collaboration and consensus on the methodological approach and modus operandi of the project. From May 1995 to April 1996, (the first phase), this cooperative arrangement resulted in the preparation of a working list of 134 indicators of sustainable development, a framework for their organization and methodology sheets for each of the indicators. The indicators include social, economic, environmental and institutional aspects of sustainable development and are placed within a Driving-Force-State-Response- Framework. The use of the DSR framework does not imply that it is possible at this stage to identify any causal relationships among driving force, state and response indicators. Rather it is seen as a way of categorizing indicators to fit the needs of the producers and the users. 5. To facilitate understanding, the methodology sheets provide a definition of each indicator, its meaning and applicability. After a first version was presented as a background paper to CSD at its fourth session in 1996 (background paper #15), the completed methodology sheets were published by the United Nations in October 1996, as: "Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies" and includes for each indicator: (a) an introduction that provides a statement of purpose, the policy relevance of the indicator and its relationship to sustainable development; (b) a methodological description of the indicators and the underlying definitions, including a short description of the indicator in relation to the framework and information on interpretation and design of the indicator; (c) an assessment of the availability of data from national and international sources; and (d) further readings and other references for additional information and points of contact. The methodology sheet publication is expected to be released in the first quarter of 1998 in French and Spanish. 6. Lead agencies have to date successfully completed the task of developing and elaborating methodology sheets for 125 of the 134 indicators in the current working list of indicators. Nine indicators in the framework are still in bookmark form providing the initial title and placement in the framework. Work is still ongoing to develop the remaining indicators, though finalization is uncertain due to methodological or conceptual difficulties. The 9 indicators include: 1) Proven Mineral Reserves; 2) Groundwater Reserves; 3) Population Growth in Coastal Areas; 4) Discharge of Oil into Coastal Waters; 5) The Algae Index; 6) Chemically Induced Acute poisonings; 7) Number of Chemicals Banned or Severely Restricted; 8) Sustainable Development Strategies; and, 9) National Councils for Sustainable Development. 7. The second phase of the programme from May 1996 to December 1997, focused on issues of capacity-building, training and the inauguration of national testing of the indicators. At the fourth session of CSD in 1996, the CSD invited governments to test, develop and use the indicators, stressing the usefulness of twinning arrangements and other voluntary partnerships for further implementation of national indicators programmes. Criteria for selecting countries to be monitored were suggested by the second and third meetings of the Expert Group in 1995 and 1996. It was agreed that monitoring should begin in a few interested countries, on a voluntary basis, taking into account equitable geographical distribution, ecosystem diversity, the presence of adequate institutional infrastructure and, to the extent possible, the availability of information related to the indicators. Testing was to proceed in countries based on national interests and priorities of sustainable development. 8. Subsequently, The governments of Belgium and Costa Rica, in November 1996 hosted the Second International Workshop in Indicators of Sustainable Development in Ghent, with the objective to structure and launch the testing process. The workshop succeeded in harmonizing the methodological approach to the testing and endorsed a set of Guidelines for National Testing prepared by DPCSD in consultation with the Expert Group. The countries that have confirmed their participation in the three year testing phase, includes from: Latin America and the Caribbean: Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico and Venezuela; From Africa: Ghana, Kenya, Morocco and South Africa; From Asia and the Pacific: China, Maldives, Pakistan and the Philippines; and, from Europe: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. India has recently indicated its interest to become a testing country. Several twinning arrangements were established during the first year of national testing, including between Finland and South Africa, between Brazil and Germany and, between France and Tunisia. Several other countries including Canada, USA, The Netherlands and Japan have noted that they already have indicator initiatives active at the national level and expressed their continued interest in the CSD indicator programme. 9. To address the need for training and capacity building at the regional and national levels, a series of regional briefing and training workshops were initiated from November 1996 through June 1997. These were hosted by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) supported by the Government of the Netherlands and DPCSD for the Asian and Pacific Region; by the Government of Costa Rica for the Latin American and Caribbean region; and, by the Government of Ghana for the African region. The African regional workshop was co-organized with UNDP■s Capacity 21 Programme and DPCSD. 10. The main objective of all the workshops was to provide an introduction and in-depth training in the use of indicators as tools for national decision-making, to explore the related methodologies and review the Guidelines for National Testing. Participants included government officials and experts from testing countries as well as other interested countries, one representing the planning office, the other representing either the National Council for Sustainable Development or the ministry responsible for the environment or sustainable development. 11. Several similarities in the outcomes of the regional meetings can be highlighted. There was a consensus and recognition of the framework and methodology sheets as valuable tools in assisting countries to get national indicators programme off the ground. The Guidelines for National Testing were acknowledged as useful for organizing the testing programme, though concern was raised about the tight timetable for participating in the testing process. The need for further capacity- building and technical assistance to secure implementation and follow-up at the national level was stressed with possible solutions proposed as a way to further link indicator programmes to national planning activities in order to promote mobilization of resources. Availability of the methodology sheets in French and Spanish was also seen as crucial for the national implementation, as well as further development of institutional and sector specific indicators according to regionally identified priorities. 12. In contrast to the similarities observed from the three regions, differences were viewed to be fewer although fundamental. It became clear that the current level of indicator knowledge and use differed not only between but within regions as well. National priorities and goals of sustainable development were seen as less harmonized. Moreover, the possibilities or concrete action taken to coordinate indicator efforts at the regional level differ substantially. It was noted that for Asia and the Pacific region, ESCAP has taken the lead in guiding the regional process towards developing indicators of sustainable development, with some support available for national governments to facilitate the implementation. A set of Terms of Reference for national implementation in the region were developed based on the Guidelines for National Testing, and seed money had been made available to support national training workshops and other related activities. For other regions, the possibilities for, and current regional follow-up was less elaborated. 13. For the European region, Eurostat undertook a pilot study following the CSD methodology using statistics from European Union Member States. The compilation has been made available in the publication -Indicators of Sustainable Development■ in July 1997, and presents 46 indicators from the CSD list, illustrating trends over time, and comments on trends observed, where relevant. 9 economic, 14 social, 21 environmental and 2 institutional indicators were selected. Future activities of EUROSTAT include comparison of experiences with the European testing countries and feedback of results for the revision of the CSD indicators and methodology sheets, improvements of data availability and quality of environmental indicators, cooperation with other international organisations and a possible follow-up indicator publication. III. Follow-up of the National Testing 14. The status of national implementation was the main focus of discussion at the Fourth international Workshop on indicators of Sustainable Development, hosted by the Government of the Czech Republic in January 1998. A full report of the meeting will be submitted to the sixth session of the CSD by the Czech Government. Nineteen of 21 testing countries participated and the results and issues discussed, in addition to interim reporting by countries to the CSD Secretariat, provides the basis for the conclusions and recommendations highlighted in the following section. All interim reports received have been made available at the indicators programme website at: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/isd.htm. A. National organization of testing 15. To date, almost all of the 21 testing countries have reported the name of the Focal Point and Coordinating Mechanism as requested in the Guidelines for National Testing. It is seen as crucial for the implementation of the testing programme, that all countries facilitate the communication and coordination among all actors participating in the project. In most cases the national Focal Point has been located in ministries of environment, planning, or statistical offices. However, irrespective of location, it is vital that the focal point have close working partnerships with all departments in government, including the national CSD focal points to ensure consistency and involvement in the process. 16. In many cases, making use of existing structures, such as national committees or Councils for Sustainable Development was seen as useful in organizing the National Coordinating Mechanism. On the other hand, in some countries, the testing of indicators acted as a positive catalyst in the establishment of new mechanisms for the development of both national indicators programmes and sustainable development strategies. 17. The involvement of major groups and stakeholders has been recognized as essential to secure a full integration of user needs in the elaboration of national sustainable development initiatives and indicator programmes to monitor the implementation of such initiatives. In many cases, the involvement of NGOs, the private sector and other major groups referred to in Agenda 21, can provide continuity and long term stability for national priorities, independent of changes in national governments. It has been noted that in many developing countries, NGOs, the private sector and other major groups are already involved in the national coordinating committees for environment and sustainable development, and their participation has given impetus to the national process. 18. As recommended by the CSD and the Expert Group, twinning arrangements have been established in various forms, ranging from cooperation among -equal partners■ where twinning merely involved sharing of information and expertise, and partnerships where one country was providing significant support and advice to enable testing to be carried out by their counterpart. A main recommendation that can be drawn from the experience in this first year of testing, is the need, in developing countries, for technical support and expertise to carry forward the indicators development and use. Countries such as Kenya and Ghana have explicitly called attention to the need for twinning arrangements, with emphasis on the fact that twinning need not be limited entirely to indicator development, but could cover broader sustainable development issues. B. Implementation 19. In the incubation phase of organizing the national testing, some countries found it useful to establish a clear mandate or legal framework as a basis on which to initiate work on sustainable development indicators. The complexity of the legal process has been mentioned as a drawback in some countries, while providing a context for enabling legislation was found useful in others. The active involvement of Ministries of Planning or other Governmental agencies, is essential in emphasizing the wider government responsibility for indicators of sustainable development. In this regard, broad public awareness, understanding and support for the process was seen as important to the institutional strength and continuity of the national programme. C. National Strategies and Indicator Selection 20. It is recognized among participating countries, that national experience with regard to the adoption of national strategies (or other methods to establish national priorities) for sustainable development is quite diverse though required for selecting and testing indicators of sustainable development. However, the use of indicators can contribute to improved policy formulation and priority setting nationally. D. Assessment and evaluation of the CSD ISD working list 21. The indicator list has proven to be a good starting point, as it has built awareness of indicators and of sustainable development issues. It has been clear from the initiation of the programme that countries needed to select those indicators that are relevant to their national priorities and goals. While some indicators may be common to most countries, others may vary in relevance depending on local conditions or levels of development. A main point in the revision of the current indicators is exactly to establish commonalities, while allowing for regional or national disparities. Relatively few countries have experience in developing linkages or aggregated measures at this stage, however it is clear that a political demand exists for arriving at a few key indicators/indices measurable at the national level, to limit the current information flow that national decision makers are presented with. This demand is likely to guide the required work on linkages and aggregation in the present framework and list of indicators. 22. Data availability is often a problem, particularly with environmental data where there is no tradition of national compilation, and departments holding data may not be willing to share them. Statistical offices should be more involved in the assessment of data sources and collection of data required for the compilation of indicators of sustainable development. Indicators can help to define clear data requirements. Guidelines for quality assurance of data are needed. Countries should select important indicators even if the data are not immediately available. E. Reporting Requirements 23. The CSD Secretariat developed a format for annual reporting in consultation with the Expert Group to secure some harmonization in the structure of information to be received. This is seen as essential to make sure adequate detailed information exists that will allow for the final revision of indicators and methodology sheets, by the end of the testing period. To date, only a few countries have actually used the reporting format and further experience and comments are expected to be available as the testing progresses. It is however recommended, to go through regular review of reporting requirements for the testing process in order to adapt to national/international needs regarding other reporting requirements on sustainable development. It is essential in this process, to secure, through adequate internal organization in the countries, a regular reporting process to the CSD Secretariat. IV. Lessons Learned and Next Steps 24. The indicator development process has promoted the establishment of coordinating mechanisms and cooperation among other agencies and bodies at the national and international level, which has improved the overall knowledge and interrelationship between sectors and institutions at various levels. Indicator development has in some cases been an important catalyst in the debate on major sustainable development issues and a good opportunity to involve major groups to increase public acceptability and understanding of indicators. It has influenced policy identification and implementation both inside and outside the government. 25. The indicator process has provided a good opportunity to bring together users and producers of indicators, and therefore deserves increased attention and support. An indicator development process needs highly dedicated people with adequate resources, and clear institutional support, to secure satisfactory implementation. 26. Next steps of the implementation should focus, inter-alia on: the provision of appropriate technical assistance, where needed, for launching and implementation of the indicators development programme in interested countries; encouragement of twinning arrangements with appropriate technical assistance and start-up funding; hosting and organizing international meetings related to the issue, in order to promote national acceptance of the process and promote the exchange of information and experiences both nationally as well as internationally. It is recommended that international organizations play a more active role in this capacity building effort. Greater support could be provided by the Regional Economic Commissions, UNDP■s Capacity 21 Programme as well as the regional programmes, and the regional development banks. Additional resources could be provided to DSD/DESA to help meet the capacity building needs of the testing countries. 27. All experiences show clearly that the development of national indicators of sustainable development, is indeed a complex iterative process, which requires commitment, time and funds from all parties involved. In each experience countries have established a programme or project to define and construct the indicators, usually consisting of different phases, which will take several years to complete. Although further elaboration exists, the experiences gained to date mainly concern the first steps of the development process of indicators. A. Phase III of the work programme 28. Phase III of the work programme is scheduled for implementation from January 1998 to January 2000 in accordance with the Implementation Plan adopted by the CSD in 1995. It focuses on the development of the Driving Force - State - Response framework (DSR), possible linkages and aggregation and further refinement of the indicators contained in the current list. Working partners were invited to the Fourth Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Sustainable Development in October 1997, to review current initiatives relevant to phase III of the work programme, solicit inputs for a longer term strategy and how these parallel programmes may compliment and fit into the CSD indicator process. The meeting proposed an implementation plan for phase III by identifying key research and indicator development needs that should be pursued and discussed how the multiple indicator initiatives may converge into something useful for the CSD and National Governments. 29. Building on the pragmatic consensus driven approach pursued since the beginning of the CSD work on indicators, and drawing on the work already undertaken by a large number of organizations in the areas of linkages and aggregation, a proposed implementation plan for phase III was drafted and discussed at the recent Czech International Workshop. The proposed implementation plan is included in the current version of the work programme, as of January 1998. The implementation plan includes elements such as continuing close follow-up and information exchange related to the national implementation of the indicators programme, revision of the current working list of indicators and methodology sheets, information exchange and follow-up of parallel national and international initiatives and processes also underway to define additional sectoral and cross-sectoral indicators. Work in the context of the Conventions and i.e. in the areas of forestry, land management, vulnerability of small island developing states, biodiversity and changing consumption and production patterns is proceeding and should be incorporated at a certain stage. More work is needed, and will be pursued, to understand the interlinkages between indicators and to integrate their economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions in more aggregated measures. V. Use of Indicators in National Reporting 30. Once the testing has been completed, the indicators of sustainable development, as used in national policies, may also be used in voluntary national reporting and country profiles to the CSD and other intergovernmental bodies. This could complement the qualitative information now provided by Governments and provide a more succinct basis for tracking trends and monitoring progress. 31. The success of this, however, will depend to a large extent on availability of data and coordination of data collection. This is particularly true for those indicators for which information is not already collected and reported to the relevant organizations of the United Nations System. For this reason, the Secretariat, in formulating guidelines for reporting to the sixth session of the Commission, has included indicators with the following properties: (1) they are among the CSD indicators of sustainable development; (2) they are relevant to the agenda of CSD VI; and (3) data for these indicators are not yet being reported to the United Nations System. These indicators are now being used to augment the national information data base and, more importantly, to encourage countries to improve their data collection capabilities to assist their policy-makers in national decision-making. Annex I: List of International Meetings: First Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development for Decision-Making (Ghent), 9-11 January 1995, hosted by the Governments of Belgium and Costa Rica, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE). First Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Sustainable Development (New York), 14-15 February 1995, hosted by UN DPCSD/DSD in cooperation with UN DESIPA/UNSD. Expert Workshop on Methodologies for Indicators of Sustainable Development (Glen Cove, New York), 6-8 February 1996, hosted by the Environment Agency of the Government of Japan in cooperation with UN DPCSD/DSD. Second Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Sustainable Development (New York), 25-26 July 1996, hosted by UN DPCSD/DSD. Third Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Sustainable Development (Geneva), 23 September 1996, hosted by UN System-wide Earthwatch in cooperation with the UN DPCSD/DSD. Second International Workshop "Launching the Testing of Sustainable Development" (Ghent), 20-22 November 1996, hosted by the Governments of Belgium and Costa Rica. ESCAP Regional Consultative Meeting on Environmentally Sound and Sustainable Development Indicators (Bangkok), 26-29 November 1996, hosted by ESCAP, in cooperation with the Government of the Netherlands and UN DPCSD/DSD. Regional Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development for Latin America and the Caribbean (San Jose), 10-12 March 1997, hosted by the Government of Costa Rica in cooperation with UN DPCSD/DSD. Regional Workshop on Capacity-Building in Developing and Implementing on Indicators of Sustainable Development (Accra), 3-6 June 1997, hosted by UN DPCSD/DSD and UNDP Capacity 21 Programme. Fourth Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Sustainable Development (New York), 23-24 October 1997 hosted by UN DESA/DSD. Fourth International Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development (Prague), 19-21 January 1998, hosted by the Government of the Czech Republic supported by the European Commission. Annex II: Testing of the CSD Indicators of Sustainable Development Focal Points ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Region Country Focal Points ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Latin America Barbados The Permanent Secretary (Environment) and the Ministry of Health and the Environment Caribbean Sir Frank Walcott Building, Culloden Road, St. Michael, Barbados Tel.: (246) 431-7680, Fax: (246) 437-8859 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Bolivia Mr. Jorge Gonzalez Roda, Director and Coordinator Capacity 21 Project, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Planning Av. Arce No. 2147, La Paz, Bolivia Tel.: (591-2) 372-063/372-378 Fax: (591-2) 361-855 E-mail: CAP21@cap21.rds.org.bo Brazil Dra. Marilia Marreco Cerqueira Diretora do Departamento de Gesta"o Ambiental Ministerio do Meio Ambiente, dos Recursos Hidricos e Amazo^nia Legal Esplanada dos Ministe'rios, bloco "B", Sala 838 Brasilia, Brazil CEP 70068-900 Tel.: (55-61) 317-1215, Fax: (55-61) 317-1352 E-mail: email@example.com Costa Dr. Adrian G. Rodriguez, General Coordinator Rica National System for Sustainable Development Advisor to the Minister of National Planning Oficina de Asesores, P.O. Box 10127-1000, San Jose', Costa Rica Tel.: (50-6) 221-9524/256-3340, Fax: (50-6) 221-3282 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org/ email@example.com Mexico Ms. Luz Maria Gonzale'z, Deputy Director of Environmental Indicators National Institute of Ecology,Me'xico City, Me'xico Tel.: (52-5) 624-3454/55, Fax: (52-5) 624-3584 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Mr. Roberto Lo'pez Pere'z, Deputy Director of Environmental Statistics National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics He'roe de Nacozari 2301, puerta 11, primer nivel Aguascalientes, Me'xico Tel.:(52-49)181-169, Fax no.:(52-49)182-650 E-mail: email@example.com Venezuela Ms. Maria Legorburu, Director Centro de Informacion y Estadisticas Ambientiales Ministerio del Ambiente y de los Tecursos Naturales Renovables Esquina y Edif. Camejo, Mezzanina Este, Caracas 1010, Venezuela Tel.: (58-2) 541-4364, Fax: (58-2) 541-3820 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Africa Ghana Mr. Edwin P. D. Barnes, Director Policy, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology P.O. Box M 232, Ministries Post Office, Accra, Ghana Tel.: (233-21) 666-049/662-013/780-305 Fax: (233-21) 666-828 E-mail: email@example.com Kenya Mr. B. O. K'Omudho, Director National Environment Secretariat Box 67839, Nairobi, Kenya Tel.: (254-2) 229-261 Fax: (254-2) 216- 951/214-175 Morocco Mr. Ahmed Gouitaa, Chef de la Division des Programmes Sociaux Minister de'le'gue' aupre`s du Premier Ministre charge' de la Population Rabat, Morocco Tel.: (212-7) 761-490/765-165 Fax: (212-7) 766-462/763-585 South Dr. J Rudi Pretorius, Director, Africa Sustainable Development Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Private Bag X447, Pretoria, South Africa Tel.: (27-12) 310-3713 Fax: (27-12) 322-6287 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Asia and China Mr. ZHANG Kunmin, Deputy Administrator the Pacific National Environmental Protection Agency No. 115, Xizhimennei Nanxiaojie Beijing 100035, The People's Republic of China Tel.: (86-10) 6615-1933 Fax: (86-10) 6615-1762 Maldives Mr. Mohammad Khalil, Deputy Director, Environmental Affairs Ministry of Planning, Human Resources and Environment Government of Maldives, Male, Maldives Tel.: (960) 313-039, Fax: (960) 327-351 Pakistan Mr. Melsboob Elahi, Director General Ministry of Environment Local Government and Rural Development Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan Tel.: (92-51) 920-1145, Fax: (92-51) 920-2211 Philippines Mr. Raphael Perpetuo M. Lotilla, Deputy Director-General, NEDA Coordinator, Philippine Council for Sustainable Development NEDA sa Pasig Building, Amber Avenue, Pasig Metro Manila 1600, Philippines Tel.: (63-2) 631-2187, Fax: (63-2) 633-6011 E-mail: email@example.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Europe Austria Ms. Ingeborg Fiala Ministry of the Environment, Youth and Family Affairs/Executive Department/Unit 7, Stubenbastei 5, A-1010 Wien, Austria Tel.: (43-1) 51522-2545/51522-2549 Fax: (43-1) 51522-7548 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Belgium Ms. Nadine Gouze'e, Coordinator Task Force "Sustainable Development" - Federal Planning Office 47/49 Avenue de Arts, B-1000 Bruxelles, Belgium Tel.: (32-2) 507-7311, Fax: (32-2) 507-7373 E-mail: email@example.com Czech Dr. Bedrich Moldan, Director Republic Charles University Environmental Center Petrska 3, CZ - 110 00 Prague 1, Czech Republic Tel.: (420-2) 231-5334, Fax: (420-2) 231-5324 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Finland Ms. Ulla Rosenstrom, Research Scientist Monitoring and Assessment Division, Finnish Environment Institute P.O. Box 140, FIN-00251 Helsinki, Finland Tel.: (358-9)40-300-329, Fax: (358-9)40-300-391 E-mail: email@example.com Germany Ms. Christa Ratte, Deputy Head of Division Division G I 4 (Economic Aspects of Environmental Policy) Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Bernkasteler Str. 8 53175 Bonn, Germany Tel.: (49-228)305-2453, Fax: (49-228) 305-3524 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. France Mr. Thierry Lavoux Institut Franc'ais de l'Environnement (IFEN) 61, Boulevard Alexandre Martin, 45058 - Orleans Cedex 1, France Tel.: (33-2)3879-7885, Fax: (33-2) 3879-7870 E-mail: Thierry.Lavoux@ifen.fr United Mr. John Custance, Statistician Kingdom Environmental Protection Statistics and Information Management Division, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Romney House, Room A 121, 43 Marsham Street London SW1P 3PY, United Kingdom Tel.: (44-171)276-8421, Fax: (44-171) 276-8748 E-mail: email@example.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.
Date last posted: 8 December 1999 15:15:30