The Role of Indicators in Improving Timeliness of International Environmental Reports
Ulla Rosenström & Ja ri Lyytimä ki
Environmental indicators were developed mainly to improve information flows from scientists to policy-makers. This article discusses the importance of timely environmental data and investigates the influence of indicator-based reporting on the data timeliness of environmental reports by international organizations. Timeliness of information contributes to the quality and appeal of the reports, and to their role as early warning tools, and increases their usability by decision-makers in short-term decision cycles. The results of an analysis of 11 international reports by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) and the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) show a considerable time lag of three years on average, with only minor development towards more timely reporting. The results suggest that the introduction of environmental indicators has not improved the timeliness of reporting. In order to overcome these problems, the article recommends some methods for improving timeliness. These include better choice of indicators in smaller sets, use of preliminary data and outlooks, development of new indicators, publishing on the internet and more effective use of internet databases to avoid intermediate levels in data collection.
Keywords: environmental reporting; state of the environment reports; indicators; timeliness; EEA; OECD
Rosenström Ulla & Lyytimä ki Ja ri (2006). The Role of Indica tors in Improving Timeliness of Interna tiona l Environmenta l Reports. European Environment 16(1): 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.403
Introduction
Interna tional sta te of the environment reporting (SOER) fa ces ma ny cha llenges: for exa mple, ga thering a nd
ha rmonizing the da ta from different countries, ma king the desired impa ct on the selected ta rget group a nd eva lua ting the effectiveness of the reporting process. Reporting is difficult due to the complexity a nd scope of environmenta l issues. In a ddition, recent dema nds to integra te wide ra nge of economic, socia l a nd cultura l a spects to a ddress susta ina ble development ha ve emerged (Shea te et a l., 2003). Nevertheless, a s the sta te of the environment ha s deteriora ted a nd a wa reness of the problems increa sed, needs to produce reports providing decision -ma kers a nd the public with a dequa te informa tion ha ve increa sed considera bly.
The history of SOER da tes ba ck to 1969 to the United Sta tes with the ena ctment of a Na tiona l Environmenta l Policy Act. The Stockholm Conference on the Huma n Environment of 1972 brought the reporting to a globa l level.
Consequently, va rious reports a nd yea rbooks of environmenta l sta tistics were compiled a nd published in the 1970s (e.g.
UNEP, 1973; OECD, 1979; EPA 1980) but it took two deca des before environmenta l reporting bega n on a more regula r ba sis a nd could provide coherent a nd a ccessible informa tion on interna tiona l level. For exa mple, the Worldwa tch Institute bega n to publish a series Sta te of the World in 1984 a nd a yea rbook Vita l Signs in 1992. The Orga nisa tion for Economic Co-Opera tion a nd Development (OECD) published a n influentia l environmenta l indica tor report in 1994 (OECD, 1994) a nd the Europea n Environment Agency (EEA) reviewed the sta te of the Europea n environment for the first time in 1995 (Sta nners a nd Bordea u, 1995).
As SOER beca me a more regula r pra ctice for the environmenta l a uthorities, a new problem ca lled informa tion overloa d wa s identified. The a mount of environmental da ta a vaila ble ha s grown to be so va st a s to impa ir effective selection a nd use of the most releva nt informa tion for decision-ma king. To ta ckle the problem, the use of indica tors wa s introduced to the environmenta l field in the ea rly 1990s (Ha mmond et a l., 1995) a nd currently environmenta l indica tors a re widely used to highlight informa tion a bout phenomena that a re rega rded a s typica l for a nd/or critica l to the sta te of the environment. The roles of indica tors va ry a ccording to their users (Molda n et a l., 1997). Initia lly, indica tors were developed to mea sure progress a nd to inform decision-ma kers a s well a s the public a bout current trends in a timely a nd policy-releva nt ma nner (Atkinson a nd Ha milton, 1996). Another importa nt ta sk for indica tors is to provide ea rly wa rnings a bout the future. Indica tors ca n a lso be used a s tools for providing the common la ngua ge needed when dea ling with emerging or complex issues, to ra ise discussion a nd to set ta rgets by decision-ma kers. The importa nt role of indica tors in politica l deba te is to support discussion a nd to convince others; i.e., they a re tools for discussion (Rosenström, 2002). In a nutshell, three ma in purposes for the indica tors ca n be identified: to ga ther a nd synthesize informa tion from va rious sources, to increa se public a wa reness a bout the environmenta l problems, a nd third to provide decision-ma kers with a dequa te, relia ble a nd timely informa tion for decision -ma king.
The 1990s ca n be cha ra cterized a s ma inly a period for developing the indica tors (Rydin et a l., 2003) a nd ma ny comprehensive sets were developed in the a rea of environment a nd susta ina ble dev elopment on both interna tiona l a nd na tiona l levels (e.g. UN, 1996; Depa rtment of the Environment, 1996). Developing indica tor-ba sed reporting led to more focus on the indica tors themselves a nd their fra meworks, a t the expense of the needs of the user groups, such a s policy-ma kers, civil serva nts or the public. Consequently, a fter ten yea rs of indica tor hype, ma ny ha ve noted the limited extent to which indica tors a re a ctua lly being used (e.g. Bell a nd Morse, 2001; Gudmundsson, 2003).
These problems ha ve been confronted by efforts to increa se the policy releva nce a nd da ta a vaila bility of the indica tors.
For exa mple, the OECD Key Environmenta l Indica tors (OECD, 2004) a nd EEA Core Set of Environmenta l Indica tors (EEA, 2004b) ha ve recently been introduced. Howev er, a s discussed in the next section, the issue of timeliness ha s not been seriously a ddressed, a lthough it is potentia lly a significa nt determina nt of da ta usability in policy -ma king.
Providing up-to-da te informa tion ca n be considered a s one of the ma in cha llenges for SOER. For exa mple, the Globa l Reporting Initiative defines timeliness as follows: ‘Reports should provide information on a regular schedule that meets user needs a nd comports with the na ture of the informa tion itself ’ (GRI, 2002). This definition ma y be problema tic when the informa tion is cha ra cterized by unforeseea ble developments; the regula r schedule ma y lea ve sudden cha nges unnoticed for too long a time. Bishop (2003) identifies timeliness a s one of the ten key principles of wha t she ca lls
‘authentic communication’. She defines timeliness as follows: ‘Information is provided when it is known and is communica ted ea rly enough tha t the a udience ha s time to provide input before a ctions a re ta ken or ma jor decisions a re made’. This definition includes two aspects, namely the timely data and the timely communication procedure. Our main focus here is on the timeliness of the da ta within indica tor reports a nd SOERs. It must be noted, however, tha t the these a spects a re intertwined; it ma kes little sense to build a n indica tor set with timely da ta if the publica tion of the report is to be dela yed by a slow editing process. On the other ha nd, it is possible to communica te the informa tion too ea rly, before the indica tors a re found to be relia ble enough by the scientific community. One importa nt point is a lso tha t the ta rget groups for a n indica tor report ma y be very different a nd the needs with the timeliness ma y va ry a ccordingly.
In this pa per we will exa mine selected SOERs a nd indica tor reports to ide ntify the time la gs within the indica tors used.
Compa rison of SOERs a nd indica tor-ba sed reports will show whether the increa sing use of indica tors ha s a ctua lly resulted in more timely da ta . Discussion a nd recommenda tions will follow on the implica tions of time la gs a nd potential wa ys to overcome them. These recommenda tions a re ba sed to a grea t extent on our own experiences of producing
na tiona l sta te of the environment a nd indica tor reports a nd pa rticipa ting in interna tiona l working groups tha t dea l with these issues (e.g. Heinonen et a l., 2005; Lyytimä ki, 2004; Rosenström, 2003, 2002; Vä limä ki, 2002a , 2002b;
Rosenström a nd Pa losa a ri, 2000; Rosenström et a l., 1996).
The Importance of Timeliness
Interna tional environmenta l reporting ha s improved in ma ny fields over the pa st 25 yea rs, including ha rmoniza tion of da ta , interna tiona l compara bility a nd covera ge of new issues. However, a ccording to the OECD (2000) the timeliness of reporting ha s genera lly not improved since the ea rly 1980s. Instea d, there seems to be a tendency to provide less timely informa tion, a lbeit better documented. More empha sis ma y ha ve been given to the presenta tion of the indica tors, which ha s hindered their timely publica tion. Furthermore, environmenta l da ta still la g behind economic da ta , limiting their use in policy performa nce eva lua tion a nd public informa tion (OECD, 2000).
In the Europea n policy field, indica tors a re a ctively developed to monitor key stra tegies such a s the Lisbon Stra tegy a nd the Ca rdiff Process tha t led to the EU susta ina ble development stra tegy (Europea n Commission, 2001). The Lisbon Stra tegy is monitored by structura l indica tors tha t conta in ma inly economic a nd socia l indica tors tha t a re upda ted regula rly. The EU susta ina ble development indica tors, however, conta in more environmenta l da ta , which is more difficult to obta in from a ll 25 member countries. The 2005 revision used the indica tors to monitor, a ssess a nd review the old stra tegy (Europea n Commission, 2005). Unfortuna tely most of the da ta a vaila ble wa s not more recent tha n 2002 a nd thus progress since 2001 wa s difficult to a ssess (Eurosta t, 2005).
Severa l studies on the communica tion success fa ctors confirm the importa nce o f timeliness. Ba sed on a survey
conducted on the wa ter utilities in the United Sta tes, Bishop (2003) reports tha t the most frequent a nswer to the question on what the water utility would do differently next time was ‘communicate earlier’. Interviews with Finnish politicians a nd senior civil serva nts showed tha t one of the key criteria for useful informa tion is its timeliness (Rosenström, 2002).
In some ca ses, prompt reporting a lso permits ea rly detection of emerging problems a nd thus the a ttention of decision- ma kers ca n be obta ined in time to a ct (Munn et a l., 2000). Timeliness a lso rela tes to the qua lity of the informa tion (Dwyer a nd Wilson, 1989). A messa ge tha t conta ins recent informa tion seems more a ccura te a nd correct tha n a figure tha t rela tes to four yea rs ba ck in time. The a bility to produce up-to-da te informa tion signa ls the competence of the providers.
The cha nges in the sta te of the environment a re often slow from the tempora l perspective of huma n a ction. If the cha nges a re ha ppening on a timesca le of hundreds or thousa nds of yea rs, it ma y not ma tter very much tha t the most recent da ta a re five yea rs old. However, the most cha nges a re not linea r a nd ea sy to predict, but non-linea r,
cha ra cterized with a broa d ra nge of time la gs, rhythms tha t a re very short or extremely long a nd different embedded times of orga nisms, ecosystems, economic systems etc. (Held, 2001). As the thresholds a re exceeded, the cha nges ma y a ccelera te exponentia lly a nd unexpectedly (Hukkinen, 2003). If these cha nges a re not identified ea rly enough, they ma y ha ve serious effects on huma n well-being a nd ecosystem hea lth. When the diversity of tempora l perspectives a nd unforeseea ble na ture of cha nges a re ta ken seriously, timely informa tion becomes a va lua ble a sset for environmenta l policy.
The importa nce a tta ched to timeliness of reporting va ries a mong the reporting institutes. The significa nce of up-to-da te informa tion is reflected in severa l reports such a s the EEA indica tor report of 2002 (EEA, 2002). This is a lso clea rly sta ted in the Globa l Reporting Initia tive Guidelines (GRI, 2002), intended ma inly to ha rmonize the corpora te susta ina bility reporting. The OECD (2000) na mes a va ila bility, timeliness a nd a ccura cy a s the three ma in a spects tha t define useful informa tion. Information ca nnot be used if it is not a va ila ble a nd it ha s to be a va ila ble on time.
Informa tion a lso ha s to be a ccura te, otherwise it ca nnot be used correctly.
However, timeliness is not mentioned in the so-ca lled Bella gio Principles, serving a s guidelines for susta ina ble development reporting (Ha rdi a nd Zda n, 1997). In the EEA guidelines for SOER, timeliness is referred to a s ‘Time series, whenever possible, should be extended to a ccommodate the most recent da ta , a nd ca n be supplemented with projections’ (Kristensen et al., 1999). The criteria for the new EEA core set of environmental indicators (EEA, 2004b) list timeliness a s tenth criterion for its indica tors. The deta iled criteria sta te tha t a n indica tor should ‘be produced in reasonable and useful time’. However, these formulations are rather vague, leaving open what is ‘useful time’, or what is mea nt by a ccommodating the most recent da ta ‘whenever possible’. These exa mples suggest tha t timeliness is understood a s a seconda ry criterion for selecting environmen ta l indica tors a nd oversha dowed by more importa nt criteria , such a s da ta a vaila bility a nd relia bility.
We a rgue tha t timeliness is a n issue to be trea ted more seriously, not only a s a seconda ry criterion. The discussion a bout the criteria of susta ina bility indica tors ha s been domina ted by the ‘production side’ of the informa tion, putting most of the a ttention on issues such a s ha rmonizing the da ta , selecting a nd building the indica tors a nd developing fra meworks for indica tor systems (e.g. Kuik a nd Verbruggen, 1991; Molda n et a l., 1997; Da le a nd Beyerler, 2001; Heinonen et a l., 2005). As McCool a nd Sta nkey (2004) point out, the sea rch for indica tors ha s been domina ted by technica l exp lora tion by scientific elites. However, timeliness is a more serious issue from the ‘consumption side’ of the informa tion (EEA,
1999). For exa mple, Ca sh et a l. (2003) empha size tha t the informa tion produced by science must be sa lient, a s well a s credible a nd legitima te. Timeliness ca n be seen a s one key fea ture of the sa liency of the informa tion.
Approach and Description of the Material
The ma in purpose of the study wa s to investiga te the extent to which time la gs exist within environmenta l informa tion provided by interna tiona l orga niza tions. The fa ct tha t indica tor reports ha ve ga ined popula rity in compa rison to tra ditiona l SOERs ra ises the question of whether the indica tors used in them a re more up to da te.
The empirica l pa rt of the a rticle is ba sed on interna tiona l environmenta l reports published by the Europea n Environment Agency (EEA) a nd the Orga nisa tion for Economic Co -Opera tion a nd Development (OECD). The a na lysis wa s ca rried out using 11 reports. These reports were identified a s importa nt key reports, prepa red with substa ntia l resources a nd a imed to influence na tiona l a nd interna tional policyma king.
Five of these reports were described a s indica tor reports. The a ssumption is tha t the indica tors in indica tor reports a re more ca refully selected a nd fewer in number tha n in the conventiona l environmental reports. These EEA indica tor reports were used a s a reference to define wha t were indica tors in the other reports.
Besides written text, the reports ma ke use of time series, ma ps, ta bles a nd photogra phs to convey environmenta l informa tion. An indica tor ma y comprise a ny of these forms of informa tion (e.g. Mea dows, 1998; Bossel, 1999). Often a n indica tor is a combina tion of visua l a nd textua l informa tion. In this a na lysis, the indica tor wa s defined to be a visua lly distinctive (gra ph, ma p or ta ble), qua ntita tive presenta tion of informa tion. Photogra phs were not included, even though they ca n a lso function a s powerful visua l indica tors, a ddressing certa in problems a nd suggesting a certa in a pproa ch a nd interpreta tion (Seppä nen a nd Vä liverronen, 2003).
The key inclusion criterion for indica tors in the a na lysis wa s a clea r indica tion of the la test yea r of informa tion.
Indicators lacking this information or expressing the time vaguely, such as ‘late 1980s’ were not included. Some country compa rison indica tors sta ted va rious different ‘la test yea rs’. These were included if one yea r wa s clea rly prominent. Applying this definition of a n indica tor a nd selection criterion a llowed us to rea ch a n extensive a nd diverse picture a bout the timeliness of different indica tors, while keeping the a mount of indica tors ma nagea ble a nd the selection process tra nspa rent a nd una mbiguous.
The a vera ge a nd media n time la gs were ca lcula ted by subtra cting the la test da ta yea r from the yea r of publica tion. The timing of the publica tion wa s identified for EEA reports tha t ha d been published since 1996. Both the EEA SOERs a nd indica tor reports (Signa ls series) were published in Ma y –June a nd thus the timing of the publica tion did not a ffect the compa ra bility of these reports. Ma ximum a nd minimum va lues for time la gs were identified a s well to show the va ria tion in the da ta used. The use of scena rios wa s recorded for the EEA indica tor series.
OECD Environmental Reports
The OECD reports included in this study were published in 1979, 1985, 1991 a nd 2001. They a re a ll rela tively concise publications of some 200 pages each. The first three are called ‘environmental reports’ and the last one is called ‘OECD Environmental Indicators’. The SOERs cover traditional environmental issues with references to economic sectors. The reports were divided into three sections foresha dowing the OECD ‘pressure–sta te–response’ fra mework. From 1991 onwa rds the OECD published five environmenta l indica tor reports, of which we studied the publica tions for 2001 a nd 2004. As the OECD Key Environmenta l Indica tors of 2004 (OECD, 2004) conta ins only 10 indica tors a nd the la test yea r of da ta is unclea r for ma ny va ria bles, it wa s not considered compa ra ble with the other reports studied a nd wa s therefore excluded.
The first SOER (OECD, 1979) covers environmenta l cha llenges by economic sector, environmenta l conditions by environmenta l medium complemented by wildlife, chemica ls a nd noise a nd societa l responses to a llevia te the pressures on the environment. The report conta ins 19 figures a nd 19 ta bles usua lly including time series for a round ten yea rs.
The second SOER (OECD, 1985) begins with the environmenta l conditions cha pter divided by environmenta l medium a nd resources, followed by the pressures by economic sector a nd ending with t he responses section. The number of figures ha s tripled from the previous SOER, the number of ta bles rema ining a lmost the sa me.
The third SOER (OECD, 1991) includes la rgely the sa me cha pters a nd is divided into three sections. The na mes of the sections a re now slightly different, but the underlying sta te–pressure–response thinking is still clea r. The number of figures ha s decrea sed slightly.
The 2001 environmenta l indica tor report (OECD, 2001) is divided into three ca tegories of indica tors: environmenta l, socio-economic a nd key environmenta l indica tors. The number of ‘regula r’ indica tors is 34 a nd there a re 10 key environmental indicators. However, indicators such as ‘air emissions’ include sub-indicators that show sulphur dioxide a nd nitrogen oxide emissions sepa ra tely. Furthermore, this report includes ma ny indica tors without a precise la test yea r
for the da ta ; most of the key environmenta l indica tors especia lly presented da ta either without yea rs or with reference to
‘late 1990s’.
EEA Environmental Assessment Reports
The first Europea n environmenta l a ssessment wa s published in 1995 (Sta nners a nd Bordea u, 1995). It conta ins a ma ssive tota l of 676 pa ges with text, gra phs, ma ps, ta bles a nd photogra phs. The contents a re divided into five pa rts conta ining a tota l of 40 cha pters. As this wa s the first a ttempt to describe environmenta l issues a nd problems a rching over Europe, a la rge a mount of spa ce is devoted to a n expla na tion of different environmental problems such a s clima te cha nge. A distinctive fea ture is tha t much of the da ta is from interna tiona l institutes a nd not from Europea n sources.
Instea d of gra phica lly presented time series, the use of ma ps is frequent.
The second environmenta l a ssessment (EEA, 1998) is much sma ller in size with less tha n 300 pa ges. The book concentra tes on environmenta l issues, a nd sectors such a s energy a nd forestry a re dea lt with a s driving forces. The number of time series is considera bly sma ller, but the da ta sources a re now increa singly EEA a nd Eurosta t.
The third a ssessment (EEA, 2003) is a bout the sa me size a s the second one. The 14 cha pters include developments in the socio-economic sectors, environmenta l problems a s well a s perva sive impa cts a nd policy ma na gement issues. The environmenta l a ssessm ent ha s clea r linka ges to susta ina bility issues. The ma in empha sis is on time series a nd ma ps ha ve been virtua lly omitted.
EEA Environmental Signals
The EEA published environmenta l indica tor reports (Environmenta l Signa ls) for three consecutive yea rs (EEA, 2000, 2001, 2002) a nd a fourth in 2004 (EEA, 2004a ), which differs slightly from the others. The ta rget rea dership of the reports is senior policy-ma kers in the EEA countries a nd the EU. The reports do not a ttempt to confine the EEA to a certa in set of environmenta l indica tors but ra ther to select indica tors for ea ch report depending on current issues. In 2004, however, the EEA introduced a more sta ble core set of indica tors for its member countries to consider (EEA, 2004b).
All four Environmenta l Signa ls reports present the indica tors a ccording to ma in economic sectors a nd environmenta l problems. Some of the cha pters cha nge from yea r to yea r; for exa mple, environmenta l ta xes a re not included in a ll reports, but issues such a s clima te cha nge a nd eutrophica tion persist. The number of pa ges increa ses yea r by yea r until 2002. In the 2004 version a dra stic selection ha s been ma de a nd the number of indica tors ha s been reduced to 30, which is close to the number of the core set indica tors (37). The issues in the fourth indica tor report a re presented very differently from the ea rlier publica tions: sectors a nd issues a re mixed a nd links to policy a nd messa ges ha ve been strongly empha sized.
Results: Timeliness of the Indicators
The a na lysis of the 11 environmenta l reports demonstra tes tha t the a verage time la g of indica tors is 3.4 yea rs. The first OECD environmenta l report from 1979 displa yed da ta ma inly of 1975, lea ding to a 3.6 yea r time la g. The results show tha t timeliness ha s not significa ntly improved over the pa st 25 yea rs, since the next two OECD reports of 1985 a nd 1991 ha d time la gs of less tha n three yea rs in the ea rly reports (2.96 a nd 2.84). The EEA reports on the other ha nd improved since the initia l 4.8 yea r time la g in the first SOER of 1995, with a 3.1 yea r time la g in its la test indica tor report of 2004. The results a re illustra ted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Time la gs in sta te of the environment a nd indica tor reports. *The 1991 report included severa l gra phs with va gue da tes a nd they were not included in the study.
A possible rea son for more up-to-da te da ta on OECD SOERs could be tha t they conta in socioeconomic da ta tha t a ffect the overa ll a vera ge. The 2001 OECD environmenta l indica tor report ma kes a distinction between environmenta l a nd socio-economic indica tors. The a vera ge time-la g for 20 environmenta l indica tors is 3.4 yea rs, a nd for 18 socio -
economic indica tors 2.6 yea rs. The socio-economic indica tors include those rela ted to energy consumption a nd fertilizer use in a griculture. The sa me trend ca n be detected in the other reports a s well, for exa mple the da ta on the price of ga soline or the number of tra ffic a ccidents is more recent tha n purely environmenta l da ta. If purely economic indica tors a re trea ted sepa ra tely (such a s ta xes a nd prices) in the EEA reports, it shows tha t the time la g is one yea r shorter tha n tha t for environmenta l indica tors. However, if the EEA indica tors a re grouped a ccording to the OECD 2001 division into environmenta l a nd socio-economic indica tors, there is no sta tistica l difference in the timeliness of the da ta (Ta ble 1). The number of ea ch type of indica tor is roughly the sa me in a ll the EEA reports. The rea son for this could be tha t the OECD receives socio-economic da ta fa ster tha n a n environmental a gency a n d hence the difference in timeliness is so ma rked within the OECD reports.
Yea r of publica tion Avera ge time la g for environmenta l da ta
Avera ge time la g for socio-economic da ta
2001(OECD) 3.4 2.6
2000 (EEA) 3.5 3.7
2002 (EEA) 2.8 2.7
2004 (EEA) 3.0 3.1
Ta ble 1. Avera ge time la gs for OECD 2001 environmenta l indica tors a nd EEA Environmenta l Signa ls indica tor reports.
The first EEA a ssessment conta ined the oldest da ta with rega rd to the da te of publica tion. Most of the time series end a t 1990, which mea ns tha t there wa s a five-yea r time la g. Appa rently new issues such a s clima te cha nge were la gging more behind tha n a lrea dy esta blished issues such a s freshwa ter pollution, where the a vera ge time la g wa s slightly shorter, a t 4.5 yea rs. The number of time series wa s quite sma ll overa ll, a nd no indica tors a t a ll a ppea red in some cha pters, such a s the one on chemica ls.
All the reports a re a ble to show some very recent da ta (0 –1 yea r old), but the oldest da ta a re a la rmingly old. In the la st indica tor report of 2004, the indica tor ‘observed cha nges in growing sea son length’ gives a longer term perspective on clima te cha nge from 1960 to 1995, which mea ns tha t users a re offered sta tus informa tion a lmost ten yea rs old.
The fa ct tha t the 2001 OECD indica tor report gives imprecise informa tion a bout the la test yea r of da ta is proba bly due to differences in da ta a vaila bility in different countries. The a ttempt is to include the la test yea r a va ila ble a nd thereby serve decision-ma kers’ needs for up-to-da te informa tion. It could be a sign of either little concern for giving the precise da tes or a n a ttempt to hide the a ppa rent time la gs by sta ting ‘la te 1990s’. Ta bles compa ring different countries with da ta from different yea rs (i.e. the la test yea r a va ila ble) ca n a lso be mislea ding. For exa mple, in the Nordic countries the household energy consumption is heavily dependent on climate conditions and thus the same year’s data should be used for purposes of compa rison.
Moving towa rds indica tor-ba sed reporting ha s not obviously improved the timeliness of environmenta l da ta . In the ca se of EEA the cha nge is more noticea ble: the a vera ge time la g for 2000 a nd 2004 is 2.4 a nd 3.1 yea rs respectively,
wherea s for the 2003 SOER it is 3.6 yea rs. The media n, however, is 3 yea rs for a ll. For the OECD reports the
development seems to be the opposite. The a vera ge time la g for the 1991 SOER is 2.8 yea rs a nd 3.0 yea rs for the 2001 indica tor report.
Possible Methods to Improve Timeliness
There a re va rious rea sons why some da ta ca n be provided quickly a nd others a re a la rmingly old, including the level of integra tion of different policy-fields a nd sectors of society, geogra phica l covera ge, difficulties rela ted to the multi- disciplina ry scientific work typica l of susta ina bility issues, the limited ca pa city to use ma thematica l models a nd build scena rios a nd the level of co-opera tion between da ta providers, indica tor builders a nd people communica ting the indica tors to ta rget group (Molda n et a l., 1997; Mea dows, 1998; Bossel, 1999). In wha t follows we propose some possible methods to improve the timeliness.
Shorter Reports with Carefully Selected Indicators
In the light of our results, the use of indica tors ha s not significa ntly served to condense the environmenta l informa tion presented in the reports studied. Neither ha s da ta qua lity improved with rega rd to timeliness. Especia lly for the EEA reports, the overa ll size of the reports clea rly diminished with the shift to indica tor reporting, but a s the indica tor reports evolved they sta rted to grow a ga in until 2004.
In the ea rly yea rs of environmenta l indica tors, the na tiona l sets were quite la rge, including more tha n 100 indica tors (see, e.g., Depa rtment of the Environment, 1996; Rosenström et a l., 1996). The upda ting of such collections soon
proved a tremendous effort, a nd consequently discussion on hea dline indica tors wa s initia ted (e.g. DETR, 1998). The ra tiona le behind a sma ll number of hea dline indica tors wa s to show policy-ma kers the most importa nt a nd policy releva nt, a ppea ling indica tors. Wha t ha s not been so clea rly a rticula ted is tha t due to the sma ller number of indica tors a nd more frequent upda tes, hea dline indica tors ca n provide more timely da ta . The dra stic cut in the number of indica tors in the EEA 2004 report follows developments in other institutions a nd countries.
A simila r a ctivity to British hea dline indica tors is the use of thema tic indica tors tha t ca n rela te the informa tion more closely to policy-ma king. The Finnish Na tiona l Commission for Susta ina ble Developmen t experimented with the use of theme indica tors supporting the ma in issue a t ha nd in the meetings. The sma ll lea flets of eight indica tors a ccompanied by clea r policy messa ges a re intended to serve a s ba ckground ma teria l, concretiza tion of the theme a nd initia tors for discussion (Finnish Environment Institute, 2004). Simple lea flets a re a lso cost-effective to produce a nd conta in the most recent da ta a vaila ble. Together these frequently published indica tor lea flets ca n provide a comprehensive a nd upda ted picture of the susta ina bility trends in Finla nd.
The current EEA pla ns to keep the 2005 SOER to less tha n 100 pa ges a nd supplement it with other short reports simila r to the solutions described a bove. By keeping the environmenta l reports concise, the publishing times ca n be shortened considera bly, thereby ensuring the timeliness of the informa tion.
Streamlining of Data Collection
Unfortuna tely, neither tight publishing schedules nor concise reports ca n help if the da ta collection a nd stora ge ta kes very long. Environmenta l informa tion is currently collected a nd stored by va rious interna tiona l orga niza tions. This enta ils numerous questionna ires for countries to complete. Recent efforts to decrea se the reporting obliga tions of the countries ha s been ta ken up a nd networks such a s the EIONET of EEA ha ve been founded to ensure smoother da ta flows, but these efforts ha ve not rea lly a imed a t limiting the a ctua l da ta submission. Wha t ha s ha ppened is tha t da ta collection ha s been centra lized in the countries, but they a re still collected ma nua lly by a few people who then forwa rd the da ta . Currently this pra ctice a mounts to three-yea r time la gs on the interna tiona l level, wherea s most of the na tiona l level da ta a re a lrea dy a va ila ble the following yea r, i.e. da ta f or 2003 a re a va ila ble in 2004.
There is a lso some evidence tha t the length of the ma nuscript publishing process ha s become shorter. This ma y be due to improved technologies in both la yout a nd printing. Signa ls 2000 wa s published in Ma y 2000, yet the forewords by the EEA director were da ted November 1999 a nd the report does not use da ta from 1999 with the exception of ozone concentra tions from the RIVM for April 1999. The 2002 edition of Signa ls wa s a lso published in Ma y. However, this time the editors were a ble to modify the ma nuscript a s la te a s Ma rch, since the la test da ta on EU flower a wa rds a re from 28 Februa ry 2002. Of the four Signa ls reports, this 2002 version ha d the shortest a vera ge time la g, 2.76 yea rs.
Furthermore, in Signa ls 2000 motor ca r fuel prices da te ba ck to 1998, wherea s in Signa ls 2002 the figures da te to the Ja nua ry 2002 situa tion. Either the da ta flows or the efforts of the da ta compilers ha ve improved significa ntly.
The omission of centra l da ta collection in countries could speed up t he process. If the origina l da ta providers could log on directly to the international organization’s database and submit the data, the time lags could be shortened by 1 to 1.5 yea rs. However, this would require a dditiona l motiva tion a nd resources for the a ctors a t na tiona l level.
Developing New Indicators
Developing new indica tors is one obvious method to improve the timeliness of the informa tion. However, ba sed on our results, it seems tha t when timeliness is not ta ken a s a key criterion for indica tor development the time la gs a re not substa ntia lly shortened. On the contra ry, it seems tha t the new indica tors a re more complex tha n older ones a nd therefore more time consuming to produce. The tota l ma teria l requirement (Adria a nse et a l., 1997) a nd the ecologica l footprint (Wa ckerna gel a nd Rees, 1996) serve a s two exa mples of popula r recently introduced indica tors tha t involve a grea t ma ny va ria bles a nd a re time consuming to produce.
One exa mple of a promising new indica tor is presented by Sutton (2003), who develops a n empirica l environmenta l susta ina blity index from nighttime sa tellite ima gery a nd ecosystem service va lua tion. Compa red to the ecologica l footprint or the environmenta l susta ina bility index sponsored by the World Economic Forum, this indica tor involves fa r fewer va ria bles a nd is simpler to produce. In pa rticula r, the use of nighttime sa tellite ima gery is a promising tool for the development of a timely indica tor of environmenta l pressure ca used by va rious huma n a ctivities.
Use of Preliminary Data and Outlooks
Due to the complexity of environmenta l issues, the development of environmenta l indica tors is often more time consuming a nd complica ted tha n for the economic a nd socia l sectors. Scientific uncerta inties need time to be resolved a nd scientists a nd sta tisticia ns a re usua lly relucta nt to publish prelimina ry da ta . However, if environmenta l reporters want to compete with the ‘quartal economy’ that produces figures four times or more a year they need to consider new methods. Ma ny emissions ca n be ca lcula ted, but this requires more resources a nd interest in the ma tter. We could, for
exa mple, give prelimina ry va lues for greenhouse ga s emissions a s soon a s we ha ve economic va lues tha t include energy sta tistics.
The use of outlooks a nd scena rios ma y be a more powerful tool tha n prelimina ry da ta . Outlooks could provide the decision-ma kers with proba ble, desira ble a nd undesira ble scena rios a nd a lso highlight outcomes of optiona l a ctions.
Scena rios a re especia lly helpful in stra tegy pla nning, a s a ctions for the future a re decided. The use of projections ha s gra dua lly increa sed in the EEA Signa ls reports. The first of the series in 2000 used none, but the third report in 2002 used seven a nd the fourth in 2004 used four scena rios or future projections.
Internet Based Reporting
Using the Internet for reporting is often considered to improve timeliness. Discussing corpora te reporting, Scott a nd Ja ckson (2002) a rgue tha t it ta kes much less time to uploa d a website tha n it does to publish a ha rd-copy report. They a lso note tha t the reported da ta is more current a nd new informa tion ca n be a dded to websites a s soon a s it is a va ila ble.
Internet ba sed reporting ca n lea d to shorter publishing times a nd the existing publica tions ca n be upd a ted more ea sily tha n conventional pa per reports. This could mea n a move a wa y from the old concept of the periodicity of SOER to a more flexible concept of continuous reporting or even to rea l time reporting.
However, there a re a lso some pitfa lls. Designing high-qua lity web-reports ca n ta ke a t lea st a s much effort a s designing ha rd copy reports, a nd on the other ha nd digita l printing technologies ena ble very fa st printing of ha rd copy reports. The new technologies used in web publica tions ha ve a lso ma de the prepa ra tion of a sta te-of-the a rt webpa ge more time consuming tha n a simple pa ge utilizing only HTML (Hyper Text Ma rkup La ngua ge). However, once the site ha s been published, the upda ting ca n be efficient a nd quick.
The options for fa st upda ting of the da ta a re undoubtedly one of the a dva ntages of the web reports. Unfortuna tely, publishing new numbers is only a pa rt of the problem. Ma king the new da ta a vaila ble might fulfill the informa tion needs of some ta rget groups, but most of the ta rget groups need informa tion tha t is more ta ilored a ccording to their specific needs. Ca reful considera tion of the mea nings a nd implica tions of the new da ta must be included, the releva ncy of the da ta expla ined a nd the relia bility a scerta ined with the qua lifica tions of the ta rget group in mind.
Conclusions
Improving the timeliness of indica tors is a n importa nt cha llenge for environmenta l reporting. Producing geogra phica lly wide-ra nging a ssessments incorpora ting va rious issues a nd requiring in ma ny ca ses a multi-disciplina ry a pproa ch a re time a nd resource consuming a nd the la test reports a va ila ble often describe the situa tion severa l yea rs previously. In recent deca des the reports ha ve improved considera bly, both in qua lity a nd in the a ccura cy of the da ta . However, it seems tha t the efforts to improve the qua lity a nd qua ntity of the da ta have ha d only a limited impa ct on improving the timeliness of the da ta . Ba sed on the a na lysis of 11 reports the a vera ge time la g is currently over three yea rs a nd ha s not recently improved. In order to minimize the time la gs timeliness needs to be recognized a s a n importa nt criterion for environmenta l reporting.
The qua lita tive resea rch on the issue is a n importa nt future resea rch need. Qua lita tive interroga tion could be helpful to find out more a bout the specific rea sons for the la ck of timeliness a nd a bout possible obsta cles to implement the methods to improve the timeliness suggested here. For exa mple, differences between na tions or orga niza tions a re undoubtedly grea t, a nd the rea sons for these differences ma y va ry substa ntia lly. However, building more knowledge a bout the rea sons for the la ck of timeliness will ha ve only a limited impa ct, unless the question of timeliness is ta ken seriously by the people a nd institutions dea ling with the production of indica tors a nd prepa ra tion of the reports. The production of indica tors a nd their use in policy contexts a re not independent of ea ch other. Even though the production of indica tors is ma inly done by scientific experts, it must involve sta keholders (Chess et a l., 2005; McCool a nd Sta nkey, 2004). One key cha llenge is how to incorpora te va rious sta keholders into the process of producing indica tors without compromising the timeliness.
References
Adriaanse A, Bringezu S, Hammond A, Moriguchi Y, Rodenburg E, Rogich D, Schutz H. 1997. Resource Flows: the Material Basis of Industrial Economies. World Resources Institute (USA)–Wuppertal Institute (Germany)–Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment–National Institute for Economic Studies (Japan). Washington, D.C.
Atkinson G, Hamilton K. 1996. Accounting for progress: indicators for sustainable development. Environment 38(7): 16–20.
Bell S, Morse S. 2001. Breaking through the glass ceiling: who really cares about sustainability indicators? Local Environment 6(3): 291–309.
Bishop B. 2003. Water utility communication practices – what contributes to success? Journal AWWA 95(1): 42–51.
Bossel H. 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications, a report to the Balaton Group. IISD:
Winnipeg, Canada.
Cash DW, Clark W, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 100(14): 8086–8091.
Chess C, Johnson BB, Gibson G. 2005. Communicating about environmental indicators. Journal of Risk Research 8(1): 63–75.
Dale VH, Beyeler SC. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators 1(1): 3–10.
Department of the Environment. 1996. Indicators of Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom. HMSO: London.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). 1998. Sustainability Counts. DETR: London.
Dwyer D, Wilson R. 1989. An empirical investigation of factors affecting the timeliness of reporting by municipalities. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 8: 29–55.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1980. State of the Environment. Office of Public Awareness of the United States.
European Commission. 2001. A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: a European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development, COM(2001)264 final. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0264en01.pdf [2 September 2005].
European Commission. 2005. The 2005 Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy: Initial Stocktaking and Future Orientations,
COM(2005) 37 final. http://europa.eu.int/comm/sustainable/docs/COMM_PDF_COM_2005_0037_F_EN_ACTE.pdf [2 September 2005].
European Environment Agency (EEA). 1998. Europe’s Environment: the Second Assessment. EEA: Copenhagen.
European Environment Agency (EEA). 1999. A New Model of Environmental Communication for Europe from Consumption to Use of Information, Environmental Issue Report 13. EEA: Copenhagen.
European Environment Agency (EEA). 2000. Environmental Signals 2000. European Environment Agency Regular Indicator Report, Environmental Assessment Report 6. EEA: Copenhagen.
European Environment Agency (EEA). 2001. Environmental Signals 2001. European Environment Agency Regular Indicator Report, Environmental Assessment Report 8. EEA: Copenhagen.
European Environment Agency (EEA). 2002. Environmental Signals 2002 – Benchmarking the Millennium, Environmental Assessment Report 9. EEA: Copenhagen.
European Environment Agency (EEA). 2003. Europe’s Environment: the Third Assessment, Environmental Assessment Report 10.
EEA: Copenhagen.
European Environment Agency (EEA). 2004a. EEA Signals 2004. A European Environment Agency Update on Selected Issues.
EEA: Copenhagen.
European Environment Agency (EEA). 2004b. Criteria for the Selection of the EEA Core Set of Indicators.
http://www.eea.eu.int/coreset/CSI-criteria.pdf [22 September 2004].
Finnish Environment Institute. 2004. Theme Indicators for the Finnish National Commission for Sustainable Development.
http://www.environment.fi/default.asp?node=15132&lan=en [28 December 2004].
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 2002. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 2002.
http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/2002/contents.asp [10 August 2004].
Gudmundsson H. 2003. The policy use of environmental indicators – learning from evaluation research. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies 2(2): 1–12.
Hammond A, Adriaanse A, Rodenburg E, Bryant D, 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: New York.
Hardi P, Zdan T. 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice. International Institute for Sustainable Development: Manitoba.
Heinonen S, Hietanen O, Lyytimäki J, Rosenström U. 2005. How to approach the sustainable information society? Criteria and indicators as useful tools. Progress in Industrial Ecology – an International Journal 2(3/4): 303–328.
Held M. 2001. Sustainable development from a temporal perspective. Time and Society 10(2/3): 351–366.
Hukkinen J. 2003. From groundless universalism to grounded generalism: improving ecological economic indicators of human–
environmental interaction. Ecological Economics 44(1): 11–27.
Kristensen P, Anderson L, Denisov N. 1999. A Checklist for State of the Environment Reporting, Technical Report 15. European Environment Agency: Copenhagen.
Kuik O, Verbruggen H (eds). 1991. In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Lyytimäki J. 2004. Producing multidisciplinary state of the environment reports: two tales from Finland. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies 3(2): 1–10.
McCool SF, Stankey GH. 2004. Indicators of sustainability: challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy.
Environmental Management 33(3): 294–305.
Meadows D. 1998. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development, a report to the Balaton Group. The Sustainability Institute. Hartland Four Corners.
Moldan B, Billharz S, Matrevers R (eds). 1997. Sustainability Indicators. Report of the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development. Wiley: Chichester, UK.
Munn T, Timmerman P, Whyte A. 2000. Emerging environmental issues. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 81(7):
1603–1609.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 1979. The State of the Environment in OECD Countries.
OECD: Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 1985. The State of the Environment 1985. OECD: Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 1991. The State of the Environment. OECD: Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 1994. Environmental Indicators: OECD Core Set. OECD:
Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2000. Proceedings of the OECD Seminar on Public Access to Environmental Information, Athens, 2000, ENV/EPOC/GEP(2000)8. Environment Directorate, Environment Policy Committee.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2001. OECD Environmental Indicators. Towards Sustainable Development. OECD: Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2004. OECD Key Environmental Indicators.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/20/31558547.pdf [8 March 2005].
Rosenström U. 2002. The potential for the use of sustainable development indicators in policy-making in Finland. Futura 21(2): 19–
25.
Rosenström U. 2003. Final Report from ISEI Twinning Light Project in Czech Republic.
Rosenström U, Lehtonen M, Sisula H. 1996. Trends in the Finnish Environment. Indicators for the 1997 OECD Environmental Performance Review of Finland, Finnish Environment 63. Finnish Environment Institute: Helsinki.
Rosenström U, Palosaari M (eds). 2000. Signs of Sustainability. Finland’s Indicators for Sustainable Development 2000, Finnish Environment 404e. Ministry of the Environment: Helsinki.
Rydin Y, Holman N, Wolff E. 2003. Local sustainability indicators. Local Environment 8(6): 581–589.
Scott P, Jackson R. 2002. Environmental, social and sustainability reporting on the web: best practices. Corporate Environmental Strategy 9(2): 193–202.
Seppänen J, Väliverronen E. 2003. Visualizing biodiversity: the role of photographs in environmental discourse. Science as Culture 12(1): 59–85.
Sheate WR, Dagg S, Richardson J, Aschemann R, Palerm J, Steen U. 2003. Integrating the environment into strategic decision- making: conceptualizing policy SEA. European Environment 13: 1–18.
Stanners D, Bourdeau P (eds). 1995. Europe’s Environment. The Dobris Assessment. European Environment Agency: Copenhagen.
Sutton P. 2003. An empirical environmental sustainability index derived solely from nighttime satellite imagery and ecosystem service valuation. Population and Environment 24(4): 293–311.
United Nations (UN). 1996. Indicators of Sustainable Development Framework and Methodologies. UN: New York.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1973. State of the Environment. UNEP.
Välimäki J. 2002a. Sustainable development reporting: frameworks. Background paper for discussion at EEA SoE expert group workshop, Copenhagen, 2002.
Välimäki J. 2002b. Tiedon mitalla kestävyyteen [Information for sustainability]. Suomen Ympäristö 556, Ympäristöpolitiikka.
Ympäristöministeriö: Helsinki (in Finnish).
Wackernagel M, Rees W. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society.
Copyright
