UNU-IAS Working Paper No. 109
Environmental Indicators for ASEAN:
Developing an Integrated Framework
Lap Duc Nguyen
February 2004
1
Environmental Indicators for ASEAN:
Developing an Integrated Framework
Lap Duc Nguyen
Executive Summary
ASEAN is in the midst of a whirlwind of changes for economic development, many of
which have damage on environment, such as a proliferation of slum area, degradation of
air quality, encroachment on natural systems, and public health degradation from water
pollution, and poor drainage.
The reasons for this problem could be epitomized as the influence of global forces and
trends as well as environmental mismanagement, inefficient and ineffective
administration. Most policy makers in the region concerned with environmental issues
at a national level are confronted with fragmented information from a variety of sources
on several different issues.
To solve these problems, indicators can be useful tool in crystallizing key questions,
condensing the information available into a manageable form, and providing a
benchmark for measuring progress or a target to aim at.
This study takes therefore up the challenge of developing an integrated framework to
support the empirical analysis of environmental linkages, especially in terms of
2
quantifying the impact of economic policies on the environment. Premised on this
framework to examine environmental linkages as well as to identify indicators to assist
policy makers, including monitoring progress towards achieving sustainable
development.
This study explores a set of 21 environmental indicators covering a broad spectrum of
environmental issues. 7 indicators relate to the environmental pressures from total
economic activities under the headings of energy, transport, agriculture and
manufacturing. 9 state indicators focus on environmental conditions such as climate
change, air pollution, water quality, and natural resources. The remaining 5 indicators
indicate policy options, which provide a measure of the willingness and effectiveness of
a society’s responses to the changes in the state of environment. The chosen indicators
consider covering the range of primary economic impact on the environment which are
policy relevant and that are practical to measure, bearing in mind data availability and
the resource requirements to collect, process and analyze data.
As the result, this study shows that the environmental indicators are cost-effective and
powerful tools for tracking and charting environmental progress and performance.
Following the basic work that laid down the concepts, framework and principles for
developing a set of environmental indicators in the ASEAN contexts, progress is now
needed in: (i) further improving the coverage of social and economic dimensions; (ii)
improving the quality and comparability of the indicators and related basic data sets;
(iii) linking the indicators more closely to established policy goals and sustainability
issues.
3
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Developing an Integrated Framework
3. Criteria for Aggregating Indicators
4. Major Environmental Concerns in ASEAN Countries
5. The Set of Environmental Indicators for ASEAN
6. Conclusions
1. Introduction
ASEAN is in the midst of a whirlwind of changes fueled by economic development.
Many of the new pressures, such as the proliferation of slums, increases in automobile
usage, land use encroachments on natural systems, and the spread of disease and
industrial and household dumping of waste into water bodies have damaged the
environment. The depletion of natural resources are beginning to effect agricultural
productivity; are causing increasingly frequent disasters, such as floods and landslides;
and are impairing the quality of life in the region. In the 1990s, smoke haze arising from
land and forest fires spread across national borders to become a common threat to the
region. Other sources of concern include massive soil erosion, loss of biodiversity and
the destruction of marine and fresh water coastal areas.
The two main reasons for these problems include globalization and national and local
trends in environmental mismanagement, inefficient and ineffective administration.
When attempting to confront these challenges, however, most national level policy
makers have only fragmentary information on the sources of the problem, the current
conditions of the environment and variety of responses available to deal with them. In
this context, it is difficult to make thorough evaluations of the impacts of economic
4
policies, as this type of analysis requires information about the links of specific
economic activities with particular environmental outcomes. Similarly, analysts are
facing difficulties in estimating how far economic activities are contributing to, or
detracting from national sustainable development goals. In short, there is an inadequate
supply of information to meet the growing demand for understanding the relationship
between the current pressures on the environment, the environmental trends and
conditions and the impacts of policies. Therefore there is a need to: (i) identify the
environmental problems, risks and benefits related to economic activities, (ii) improve
the targeting of programmes that address environmental issues, (iii) facilitate the
monitoring and assessment of policies and programmes. The basis for approaching this
massive task is to provide baseline information on the trends and conditions of the
environment. In this regard, indicators are useful tools in crystallizing key questions,
condensing information available into manageable forms and providing benchmarks for
measuring progress toward a target goal. Moreover, in the context of ASEAN,
indicators developed in our integrated framework may provide a systematic and
effective integrating tool for environmental and economic decision-making as the region
attempts to move towards a sustainable development model.
Following this introduction, section 2 considers about how to design an integrated
framework, which can assist in identifying and structuring indicators, to contribute to
the analysis of environmental linkages and sustainable development. Section 3 focuses
the choice of indicators, within the overall analytical framework, against the criteria of
policy relevance, analytical soundness, measurability and the appropriate level of
aggregation. Section 4 describes the main environmental issues in environmental
5
sustainability of relevance to ASEAN policy-makers. Section 5 introduces a set of
indicators that examines the technical background, and aspects of data and
measurability related to each issues. Section 6 concludes by outlining the future work on
ASEAN environmental indicators.
2. Developing an Integrated Framework
The integration of environmental, social and economic issues is one of the
distinguishing features of developing environmental indicators in the context of
sustainable development. These are considered important both for assessing the current
situation and for monitoring progress towards future goals.
This section makes an effort to develop an integrated framework to aid the policy-
making processes surrounding national, regional efforts to address issues pertaining to
sustainable development. The framework is specifically designed to consider the
relationships between the parts of a system and its intended use is to better understand
the holistic workings of the system being modeled. The choice of how to represent and
model a system, and the overall effectiveness of the framework depend heavily upon the
choice of a set of indicators to be followed in the framework. The set of indicators, on
the one hand, determines the direction the whole system that is moving in order to
understand at the macro level whether it is sustainable or not and hence to set macro
policies to correct the situation and, on the other hand, provides adequate information
for decision making at the micro level, where action really counts. Since the ecosphere
is clearly more than the sum of its many parts, it is necessary to try to understand things
holistically. As opposed to dissection and reintegration, one way of building up an
understanding of how a complicated system functions is to look at it as a whole from
6
several different perspectives. Therefore, an approach taken hereby reflects recognition
of the interconnection of the environment, the economy and society.
Figure 1: Integrated System
The integrated system is outlined here (Figure1). It consists of three objects, such as
social sphere, economic system and the environment; two-way interactions between the
objects; and processes that relate to objects together. In the figure, the world is
represented by three objects: the social sphere, economic system and the environment,
interacting by a big triangle. Their interactions are indicated by the arrows. The main
concept in the interaction among social sphere, economic system and the environment is
that the socio-economic system changes the environment. The interactions between
socio-economic system and the environment can be categorized as pressures of the
people and economic activities put on the environment; the resulting state or condition
of the environment; and the response of society and economic policies to environmental
conditions.
DYNAMIC
INTERACTION
7
The framework applied in the above system is based on the PSR framework developed
by the OECD1, following a cause-effect-social response logic, that considers key
environmental problems identifies driving forces that are leading to pressure on natural
resources, tracks the state of the resource and then identifies mechanisms that have been
or can be put into place in response. In the revised PSR framework (Figure 2), pressure
indicators represent human activities, processes and patterns that have an impact on
environment. These indicators provide an indication of the causes of positive and/or
negative changes in the state of sustainable development. Pressure indicators can pertain
to developments at economic sectors, as well as social trends. Examples of pressure
indicators include the population growth rate, which indicates the impact on
environmental sustainability from an increased population and emissions of greenhouse
gases that contribute to changes in the state of the composition of the atmosphere. State
indicators provide an indication of the state of environment, or a particular aspect of it,
at a given point in time. This pertains to qualitative and/or quantitative indications.
Ambient concentrations of carbon dioxide, for example, provide an indication of the air
quality in areas. Response indicators indicate policy options and other responses to
changes in the state of sustainable development. These indicators provide a measure of
the willingness and effectiveness of a society in providing responses. Some responses to
changes in the state of environment can be legislation, regulation, economic instruments,
information activities etc. Examples of response indicators include expenditure on air
pollution abatement and wastewater treatment coverage.
1 The PSR framework, initially proposed by Tony Friend, David Rapport, and others (Friend and Rapport
1979; OECD, 1991; Adriaanse, 1993)
8
Figure 2: PSR Framework Applied in the Integrated System
These three categories are the basic components of the pressure-state-response (PSR)
framework that can provide a flexible framework in which analysis can help to: (i)
improve understanding of the complexity of linkages and feedbacks between the causes
and effects of economic activities to the environment, and the responses by policy
makers and society to changes in environmental conditions; (ii) identify indicators to
explain and quantify these linkages and feedbacks. Analysis of the linkages between
pressure, state and response is a key element in shedding light on the relationship
between the causes and effects of economic activities on the environment to better guide
policy makers in their responses to changes in environmental conditions.
While developing indicators in the context of the integrated system and the revised PSR
framework, we shall try to avoid developing the indicators in isolation; chosen
9
indicators can provide insights for policy makers as to the economic, social and
environmental linkages and components of sustainable development. The indicators
presented in the integrated framework (Figure 3) are intended to promote the integration
of environmental concerns into economic policies and decisions. More specific
objectives are to: (i) highlight the interface between economic activities and
environmental issues, and identify how different driving forces and policy instruments
interact and affect the environmental impacts of economic activities; and (ii) provide a
basis for monitoring the integration of environmental concerns into economic policies.
Figure 3: Integrated Framework
3. Criteria for Aggregating Indicators
There are potentially a large number of indicators that could be developed to help
quantify the various components and linkages in the PSR framework. To assist in the
choice of a set of indicators within this framework each indicator is examined against
RESPONSE Legislation
Economic
instrument others
PRESSURE Population
Trade
Production Consumptio
n
STATE Air
Water
Land Forest
10
the following criteria, which are to some extent similar to the criteria used by some
organizations, but differs in their particular focus on outstanding aspects of ASEAN
countries. The inclusion of the economic, social and environmental aspects is
particularly important for ASEAN and other developing countries for whom an equal
balance between the developmental and environmental aspects of sustainable
development is important in order to ensure future sustainable growth patterns. To assist
in the choice of a set of indicators within this framework each indicator is examined
against the following criteria:
Analytical Soundness: The criterion of analytical soundness, in particular, the
extent to which the indicators can recognise the key linkages between economic,
social and environmental dimensions. The indicators should also be able to show
trends and ranges of values over time, which might be complemented by
nationally defined targets and thresholds where these exist.
Policy Relevance and Utility for Users: The criterion of policy relevance relates
to those environmental issues identified in the PSR framework as being of
importance to policy makers. Recognise the importance of a degree of flexibility
for countries to choose indicators suited to their own environmental
circumstances.
Measurability: The criterion of measurability, relates to the appropriate data
available to measure the indicator. In an effort to overcome some of these
difficulties this paper tries to stimulus discussions of developing consistent
indicator definitions and methods of measurement between countries.
As indicated in the criteria, the indicators have been developed for use at the regional
level. This means that the indicators are selected from their ability to monitor progress
towards sustainable development at the regional level. To be useful for decision-makers,
it is important that the indicators are understandable and realizable within the capacities
of national governments and regional organizations. The indicators should be
conceptually well founded, meaning that the underlying methodology is available. The
11
limitation in the number of indicators is important to ensure that the indicators provide
indication of only the main aspects of sustainable development, rather than on all
thinkable aspects of sustainable development. The indicators are, to the greatest extent
possible, based on data, which is readily available in most countries/organizations, or
data, which can be collected and analysed at a reasonable cost.
4. Major Environmental Concerns in ASEAN Countries
There is much interest in the rapid economic, social and environmental changes
sweeping across ASEAN countries. Rapid economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s
(Figure 4) has made Southeast Asia the more populous (Table 1, 2) and developed part
of the tropics in the world with megacities and intensively used agricultural land.
Urbanization and industrialization have also had deleterious impacts, leading not only to
high pollution loads but also social stress. These diverse features provide a setting for
studying human driving forces of change and their environmental consequences.
Figure 4: Comparision of Asean GDP – Industry Growth to World
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1980-90 1990-99Year
%
Asean(GDPGrowth)
World(GDPGrowth)
Asean(IndustryGrowth)
Sources: WB, World Development Indicators 2001
12
Table 1: Urbanized Population in Selected ASEAN
Country
Urban Population Population in urban
agglomerations exceeding
one million
(% of total population)
Population in
largest city
(% of urban
population)
Millions Percent of total
population
1980 1998 1980 1998 1980 1995 2015 1980 1995
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
0.8
32.9
0.4
5.8
8.1
18.1
2.4
7.9
10.3
1.7
79.0
1.1
12.4
13.7
42.7
3.9
12.8
15.0
12
22
13
42
24
38
100
17
19
15
39
22
56
28
57
100
21
20
…
7
0
7
…
12
100
10
5
…
13
0
6
9
13
100
11
7
…
16
0
7
11
15
100
15
9
…
18
..
16
…
33
100
59
27
<10
12
…
11
..
24
100
55
25
Table 2: Urbanization Projections in ASEAN
Country
Total Population
(thousands)
Urban Population (%) Urban Population
(thousands)
1999 2010 1996 1999 2000 2005 2010 1999 2010
Brunei
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
ASEAN
326
11,939
209,255
5,297
22,706
48,123
74,454
3,951
61,806
76,328
514,128
400
15,500
247,500
6,400
28,400
…
91,900
4,400
67,300
94,200
556,000
70
21
36
21
54
…
55
100
20
21.1
72
23
39
23
57
…
58
100
34
23
72.2
23.5
40.2
23.5
57.3
…
58.6
100
21.6
19.7
74.8
26.6
44.7
26.4
60.6
…
62.4
100
23.7
20.6
76.9
29.7
48.9
29.5
63.6
…
65.5
100
26.2
22.1
235
2,746
81,609
1,218
12,946
…
43,183
3,894
21,014
17,918
184,759
308
4,604
121,028
1,888
18,062
…
60,195
4,400
17,633
20,818
248,936
Sources: World Development Indicators (WB, 2000)
World Resources 1998-1999 (WRI, 1998)
Sources: ADB & ESCAP, 2000
13
Table 3: Key Environmental Issues and Causes in ASEAN
Country Shared Issues Key Causes
Brunei Seasonal smoke and haze, solid wastes Transboundary pollution from land and forest
fires
Cambodia Soil erosion, sedimentation, water
pollution, deforestation, loss of
biodiversity, and threats to natural
fisheries.
Unmanaged waste & effluent discharge into
Tonle Sap lake; destruction of mangrove
wetlands through extensive industrial &
aquaculture development.
Indonesia Deforestation; loss of biodiversity; water
pollution; air pollution in urban areas;
national and transboundary seasonal
smoke and haze; land degradation;
pollution of Malacca straits.
Deficiencies in urban infrastructure - unmanaged
industrial wastes and municipal effluents and
waste; vehicular congestion and emissions;
extensive land clearance and forest fires for pulp
wood and oil palm production; extensive and
unmanaged mining activities; national and
transboundary industrial pollution; tourist
developments in coastal regions beyond carrying
capacity.
Laos Deforestation; loss of biodiversity; soil
erosion; limited access to potable water;
water-borne diseases.
Land clearance; shifting cultivation; inadequate
water supply & sanitation infrastructure.
Malaysia Urban air pollution; water pollution;
deforestation; loss of biodiversity; loss of
mangrove habitats; national and
transboundary smoke/haze.
Vehicular congestion and emissions; deficiencies
in urban infrastructure industrial and municipal
effluents; extensive land clearance and forest
fires for pulp wood and oil palm production;
unmanaged coastal developments; tourist
developments in coastal regions beyond existing
carrying capacity
Myanmar Deforestation; loss of biodiversity; urban
air pollution; soil erosion; water
contamination and water-borne diseases.
Land clearance; excessive mineral extraction;
vehicular congestion and emissions; deficiencies
in urban infrastructure – unmanaged industrial
and municipal effluents.
Philippines Deforestation in watershed areas; loss of
biodiversity; soil erosion; air and water
pollution in Manila leading to
waterborne disease; pollution of coastal
mangrove habitats; natural disasters
(earthquakes, floods).
Illegal forest cutting; land clearance; rapid
urbanization and deficiencies in urban
infrastructure - unmanaged industrial and
municipal effluents, inadequate water supply and
sanitation; tourist developments in coastal regions
beyond existing carrying capacity;
Singapore Industrial pollution; limited natural fresh
water resources; waste disposal
problems.
Seasonal smoke/haze; limited land available for
waste disposal.
Thailand Deforestation; loss of biodiversity; land
degradation and soil erosion; shortage of
water resources in dry season and
flooding in rainy season; conflict of
water users; coastal degradation and loss
of mangrove habitat; urban air pollution;
pollution from solid waste, hazardous
materials and hazardous waste.
Sporadic development and destruction of
watersheds; unmanaged aquaculture; tourist
growth exceeding growth in carrying capacity;
deficiencies in urban & rural infrastructure;
freshwater resources polluted by domestic /
industrial wastes & sewage runoff.
14
Vietnam Deforestation and soil degradation; loss
of biodiversity; loss of mangrove habitat;
water pollution and threats to marine life;
groundwater contamination; limited
potable water supply; natural disasters
(e.g. floods).
Land clearance for industry; extensive
aquaculture & overfishing; growing urbanization
and infrastructure deficiencies; inadequate water
supply & sanitation (particularly in Hanoi & Ho
Chi Minh City).
The root causes of different environmental problems vary considerably in ASEAN
countries (Table 3). Much of the increasing severity of problems is driven by the
demographic situation, although other aspects of the human condition-such as social,
and economic status have played a significant role. High population growth is exerting
pressure on the environment and on natural resources in the region. Rapid population
growth has contributed to depletion of forests (Table 5, Figure 5 ) not only through
land-clearing for cultivation but also through over harvesting of forests for fuelwood,
roundwood, and fodder. The high population growth rate has been found to strongly
correlate with rates of deforestation, expansion of agricultural land, and increasing
water scarcity in some countries2. In recent decades, pressure on arable land resulting
from expansion of human settlements, the clearing of land for cultivation, intensive
agriculture for intensified food production, and overgrazing has been noted, and has led
to the expansion of agricultural areas into forest areas and marginal lands. The major
environmental problems associated with urban development, as described earlier, are
increasing pollution levels due to the concentrated discharge of gaseous, liquid, and
solid wastes into the environment and the consequent destruction of fragile ecosystems.
2 ESCAP, 1995a
15
Table 4: Population Estimates of ASEAN 2000-2050
Country
Land Area
(sq km)
Population in 2000 Population projections
Thousands % of
ASEAN
Persons
per sq km
2015 2025 2050
Brunei
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
ASEAN
5,765
184,800
1,812,000
236,800
332,665
676,553
299,404
683
513,115
331,042
4,392,827
330
13,100
212,090
5,280
22,220
48,123
75,650
4,018
62,810
78,140
521,761
0.1
2.5
40.7
1.0
4.3
9.2
14.5
0.8
12
15
100
57
72
117
23
67
71
252
5,885
122
236
119
420
18,590
250,070
7,330
27,910
55,260
95,880
4,760
72,490
94,410
679,930
470
22,310
272,900
8,720
31,330
60,240
107,070
5,000
77,480
105,490
691,010
570
29,880
311,300
11,440
37,850
68,550
128,380
4,620
82,490
123,780
798,860
Source: World Population Prospects 2000 (WPP, UNDESA, 2000)
Table 5: Deforestation in Selected ASEAN
Average Annual
Deforestation Sq.km
Decline in
Forest Area
%
Cambodia
Indonesia
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Thailand
600
13,00
2,400
5,200
900
1,100
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
0.7
Figure 5: Deforestation Rate by the Region 1990-2000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
World Asia Africa N/C America ASEAN South America
DeforestationRate (% year)
Source: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000(FAO, 2000)
16
The impact of industry on the environment has become increasingly evident: resource
depletion; contamination of water, air, and land; health hazards; and degradation of
natural ecosystems3. Industrial sources contribute a relatively high share to air pollution
in this region because the main source of industrial energy is fossil fuels, with a high
share of coal, and the major air polluting industries, such as iron, steel, fertilizer, and
cement, are growing in the region. Significant health threats also arise from indoor air
pollution resulting from the use of low-quality solid fuels, such as coal, wood, crop
residues, and dung for cooking and heating in lower-income urban households and in
rural areas throughout the region4. Transboundary air pollution also becomes a problem
that has accompanied economic growth and high-energy consumption. The effects of
coal burning tend to spread over a large area, resulting in acid deposition in areas near
the coal burning plants as well as further away. The accumulation of fly ash adds
suspended particulate matter into the air and leads to air quality deterioration. In
addition, slash-and-burn agriculture leads to haze problems that extend beyond national
boundaries. Unfortunately, only a limited number of quantitative analyses of
transboundary air pollution have been done in the past. Urban air pollution is a serious
problem in many major cities of the region (Table 6).
Table 6: Urban Air Pollution
City
TSP SO2
Indonesia-Jakarta 271 …
Malaysia-Kuala Lumpur 85 24
Philippines-Manila 200 33
Thailand-Bangkok 223 11
Japan-Tokyo 49 18
Sweden-Stockholm 9 3
Source: WB, World Development Indicators, 2001
3 Asian Environment Outlook 2001
4 Second ASEAN State of the Environment Report, 2000
17
The transportation sector has become a key accelerating factor for economic growth as
well as environmental degradation. A relatively heavy concentration of road networks
and vehicles in a few cities has resulted in high levels of pollution5.
Agriculture in the Southeast Asia region has witnessed accelerated structural changes.
In terms of direct impact on the environment, farming activities are major contributors
to soil erosion, land salinization, and loss of nutrients. Shifting cultivation has been an
important cause for land degradation in almost countries of this region6. As noted earlier,
natural habitats are being destroyed, degraded, and depleted, accompanied by
significant loss of wild species.
Take a look at the table; the fresh-water withdrawals in Singapore, Thailand and
Vietnam respectively are 56%, 16% and 15% of total internal resources (Table 7).
Agriculture accounts for 70-90 per cent of the annual water withdrawal in most
countries of the region, with the highest proportion in Cambodia (94 %). The demands
for domestic and industrial uses are increasing in the region due to the high rates of
urbanization and industrialization. The demand for water will continue to rise in the
region in parallel with population growth. Fresh-water availability of below 1,000 cubic
meters per capita per year indicates water scarcity. Singapore is already water-scarce,
with considerably less than 1,000 cubic meters per capita of water available per year.
5 Asian Environment Outlook 2001
6 Global Environment Outlook 2000
18
Table 7: Fresh Water Resources and Withdrawals in ASEAN
Country
Annual Internal
Renewable Resources
Annual Freshwater
Withdrawals
Sectoral Withdrawal (% of total)
Total
(cu km)
Cu
m/capita
2000
% total
internal
resource
Per
capita
(cu m)
Domestic Industry Agriculture
Brunei
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
8.0
120.6
2,838.0
190.4
580.0
880.6
479.0
0.6
210.0
366.5
…
10,795
13,380
35,049
26,074
19,306
6,305
155
3,420
4,591
…
0
3
1
2
…
12
56
16
15
…
66
407
260
633
102
811
109
596
814
50
5
6
8
11
7
8
55
5
4
…
1
1
10
13
3
4
45
4
10
…
94
93
82
76
90
88
0
91
86
Source: World Resources 2000-2001
The largest water user on a regional scale is the agricultural sector, with more than two
thirds of the water abstracted from the region's rivers, lakes, and aquifers being used for
irrigation. With regard to the impacts of agro-chemicals, there is now considerable
evidence that the leaching of fertilizer into water bodies is a significant source of water
pollution. In particular, excessive levels of nitrates and other nutrients resulting from
fertilizer application are a major cause of eutrophication in surface water throughout the
region. The region's use of fertilizers reached nearly 7 million tons in 1998 (Table 8).
The intensification of agriculture in recent years has also been accompanied by the
extensive use of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides).
19
Table 8: Agriculture Inputs in 1998
Country Pesticide Trade (US$’ 000) Fertilizer
Consumption (MT) Imports Exports Brunei
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
ASEAN
2,900
760
18,589
120
51,865
…
50,140
50,468
115,000
20,000
309,840
25
---
41,822
---
60,713
…
5,575
81,479
17,000
---
206,614
---
12,716
2,772,900
10,166
1,406,111
121,000
627,930
2,350
1,660,863
1,947,400
6,614,036
Source: FAO website
5. The Set of Environmental Indicators for ASEAN
The above analysis shows that there are underlying economic and social factors that
drive the pressures on the environment and that most of these pressures arise from
activities in specific economic sectors. Based upon that analysis, this study explores a
set of 21 environmental indicators covering a broad spectrum of environmental issues. 7
indicators relate to the environmental pressures from total economic activities under the
headings of energy, transport, agriculture and manufacturing. 9 state indicators focus on
environmental conditions such as climate change, air pollution, water quality, and
natural resources. The remaining 5 indicators indicate policy options, which provide a
measure of the willingness and effectiveness of a society’s responses to the changes in
the state of environment.
20
Pressure Indicators 1. Population growth rate
2. Rate of growth of urban population
3. Per capita consumption of fossil fuel by motor vehicles transport
4. Annual energy consumption
5. Use of agricultural pesticides
6. Use of fertilizers
7. Wood harvesting intensity
State Indicators
1. Ambient concentrations of carbon dioxide
2. Ambient concentrations of sulphur dioxide
3. Ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide
4. Access to safe drinking water
5. Annual withdrawals of ground and surface water
6. Ground water reserves
7. Land use change
8. Irrigation percent of arable land
9. Forest area change
Response Indicators
1. Expenditure on air pollution abatement
2. Wastewater treatment
3. Protected forest area as a percent of total forest area
4. Programmes for national environmental statistics
5. Mandated environmental impact assessment
The set of indicators present information through graphs and tables and, for each
indicator, provides a brief explanatory text to help interpretation. An attempt was made
to maximize the country and time period coverage for each indicator, but data gaps
remain important. Of the 21 indicators, 10 are considered conceptually sound and data
are available for at least 7 Member countries. A further 11 indicators are also considered
conceptually sound, but suffer from statistical data gaps.
21
Sample of Pressure Indicator (1): Fertilizer Use
Technical Background: Annual fertilizer use refers to nutrients in terms of nitrogen
(N), phosphate (P2O5), and potash (K2O). These three major nutrients are used as
synthetic chemical fertilizers in agriculture. The application of these fertilizers “reflects
the specialization and intensification of cropping practices.” These chemical fertilizers
pose a threat to human health and the environment, particularly with respect to water
quality. Nitrates from fertilizer can accumulate in groundwater and can reduce the
ability of human blood to carry oxygen. Infants are particularly susceptible to nitrate
poisoning – a phenomenon known as blue baby syndrome.
Fertilizer Consumption per hectare (1968-1998)
Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia
Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam
Source: World Resource Indicators (WRI, 2001)
Relevance of Data: Fertilizer use is calculated using a trade balance approach. As
nations sometimes increase or decrease their stocks of fertilizer in a given year, actual
use may be larger or smaller than the figure given. If the sale of fertilizer stocks is
particularly large, there is the potential for a negative fertilizer use value. Most fertilizer
use data are reported yearly for the period July 1–June 30. For information on which
Brunei
22
countries report their data in ways that differ from the July 1–June 30 year, please refer
to the FAO website noted in reference.
Sample of Pressure Indicator (2): Annual Energy Consumption:
Technical Background: Consuming energy causes a wide range of health and
environmental impacts, from the habitat loss associated with exploration for fossil fuels
and the construction of hydroelectric facilities to the pollution resulting from the
burning of fossil fuels.
Environmental impacts are caused by the actions required to produce energy, including
oil and gas exploration and development, coal mining, and the construction of nuclear
reactors, hydroelectric dams and reservoirs. Environmental impacts also include the
pollution generated by burning oil, gas and coal or disposing of nuclear waste and the
impacts of dams on aquatic ecosystems. Fossil fuel combustion is the main source of
three major air pollution problems – climate change, acid deposition and urban smog.
Annual Energy Consumption (1990-1997)
Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia
Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam
Source: World Resource Indicators (WRI, 2001)
23
Relevance of Data: Energy consumption from all sources is the amount of energy from
all sources used by each country in the year specified. In addition to solid, liquid, and
gaseous fuels and nuclear electricity, the total also includes hydropower, geothermal,
solar, combustible renewable and waste, and indigenous heat production from heat
pumps. Per capita shows the amount produced per person for that country.
Energy consumption from solid fuels is the total energy produced from all types of coal.
Energy consumption from liquid fuels is the energy consumed from liquid fuels such as
crude oil or natural gas liquids. Energy consumption from gaseous fuels is the amount
of energy consumed from natural gas. Energy consumption from nuclear fuels shows
the primary heat equivalent of the electricity consumed from nuclear power plants.
Heat-to-electricity conversion efficiency is assumed to be 33 percent.
Sample of State Indicator (1): Ambient Concentration of Carbon Dioxide
Technical Background: The scientific community acknowledges that atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 have continued to increase, and that “the balance of evidence
suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. Future climate change is
expected to have major impacts on e.g. agriculture, water resources, ecosystems and
human health. The main source of CO2 emissions is fossil fuel combustion. Emissions
are directly related to the relative share of fossil fuels in total energy consumption, the
energy intensity of an economy and the GDP of a country. Total anthropogenic carbon
dioxide (CO 2) emissions from the sectors energy, industrial processes, solvent and
other product use, agriculture, land use change and forestry, and waste (as defined by
IPCC ). Since CO2 removals are also accounted for, this indicator concerns net
24
emissions. Natural emissions are not accounted for. The unit of measurement is tonnes
CO2 per year.
Ambient Concentration of Carbon Dioxide (1950-1998)
Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia
Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam Source: World Resource Indicators (WRI, 2001)
Relevance of Data: Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are often calculated and reported
in terms of their content of elemental carbon. For this table, their values were converted
t o the actual mass of CO2 by multiplying the carbon mass by 3.664 (the ratio of the
mass of CO2 to that of carbon). These data from CDIAC represent a complete
harmonized global dataset of CO2 emissions. However, individual country estimates,
based on more detailed information and a country-specific methodology, could differ.
Guidelines were developed to assist in the preparation of national greenhouse gasses
inventories. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) accepted these
guidelines at its Twelfth Session in Mexico City on September 11–13, 1996. The
guidelines were published in Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories (IPCC, Cambridge, England, 1997). Such data are currently available
for an increasing number of countries, but long time series are rare. Methods used by
25
CDIAC have the advantage of calculating CO2 emissions from a single common dataset
available for all countries.
Sample of State Indicators (2): Surface & Ground Water Resources
Technical Background: Some urban areas are experiencing shortages of water or bad
water quality. In this context, it is important to monitor withdrawals of water and the
amounts of available water. The indicator measures withdrawals of ground and surface
water as a percentage of available water (local/regional and residential /industrial/
agricultural/ other). The total annual gross volume of ground and surface water
extracted for water uses, including conveyance losses, consumptive uses and return
flows, as a percentage of the total average annually-available volume of freshwater.
Surface & Ground Water Resources (2000)
Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia
Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam Source: World Resource Indicators (WRI, 2001)
26
Relevance of Data: Average annual internal renewable water resources refer to the
average annual flow of rivers and recharge of groundwater generated from endogenous
precipitation. Caution should be used when comparing different countries because these
estimates are based on differing sources and dates. These annual averages also disguise
large seasonal, inter annual, and long-term variations. When data for annual river flows
from and to other countries are not shown, the internal renewable water resources figure
may include these flows. When such data are shown, they are not included in a
country’s total internal renewable water resources. Actual annual renewable water
resources available for use is usually less than the sum of internal renewable resources
and river flows. This is due to the fact that not all resources can be mobilized for use
and that part of the f low coming from upstream countries or leaving for downstream
countries might be reserved to t hose countries by treaty or her agreement.
6. Conclusions
This study shows that the environmental indicators are cost-effective and powerful tools
for tracking and charting environmental progress and performance. Indicators presented
in the framework provide valuable information by revealing where a problem may be
emerging that might require a policy response, and as contribution to monitoring the
environmental effects of actions taken to response to changing policy incentives or
disincentives. However, this study also shows significant lags between the demands for
indicators. Analysis of the linkages between pressure, state and response is a key
element in shedding light on the relationship between the causes and effects of
economic activities on the environment to better guide policy makers in their responses
to changes in environmental conditions. When indicators are used to compare
27
environmental performance among countries, the national circumstances of each
country must also be taken into account. These include factors such as country size,
population density, natural resource endowments, energy profile, economic structure
and stage of economic development.
Following the basic work that laid down the concepts, framework and principles for
developing a set of environmental indicators in the ASEAN contexts, progress is now
needed in: (i) further improving the coverage of social and economic dimensions; (ii)
improving the quality and comparability of the indicators and related basic data sets;
(iii) linking the indicators more closely to established policy goals and sustainability
issues.
28
Reference
ADB website
ADB. 1997, Emerging Asia changes and challenges, Manila: Asian Development Bank.
350pp.
Adriaanse A et al. 1989,Information requirements of integrated environmental policy
experiences in Netherlands, Environmental Management 13(3): 309-315
Adriaanse A. 1993, Environmental policy performance indicators: a study of the
development of indicators for environmental policy in the Netherlands, The Hauge:
SDU Publishers. 175pp.
Asian Environment Outlook, 2001
Azzone G and Raffaella M. 1994, Measuring strategic environmental performance,
Business Strategy and the Environment 3: 1-14
Comolet A. 1991, How OECD countries respond to state-of-the environment reports,
International Environmental Affairs 4(1): 3
Duinker P N and Ronald M P. 1994, Measuring up: indicators of forest sustainability,
Thunder Bay: Lakehead University School of Forestry.
Dumanski J, Gameda S, and Pieri C. 1998, Indicators of land quality and sustainable
land management, Washington, DC: The World Bank. 123pp.
ESCAP website
FAO website
Hammond A, et al. 1995, Environmental indicators: a systematic approach to
measuring and reporting an environmental policy performance in the context of
sustaqinable development, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 43pp.
International Energy Agency. 1997, Indicators of energy use and efficiency, Paris:
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 330pp.
Kuik O and Verbruggen H (eds.) . 1991, In search of indicators of sustainable
development, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 126 pp.
Moldan B, Billharz S, and Matravers R. 1997, Sustainability indicators, New York:
Wiley.
29
OECD. 1993a, OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews,
Environment Derectorate Monograph Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development.
OECD. 1993b, Indicators for the integration of environmental concerns into energy
policies, Environment monographs No. 79 Paris: Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
Ott W R. 1995, Environmental data and statistics, Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. 313pp.
Scott S, Nolan B, and Fahey T. 1996, Formulating environmental and social indicators
for sustainable development, Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute. 120pp.
UN. 1994b, Towards a framework for indicators of sustainable development, Working
paper ST/ESA/1994/WP.7 New York: United Nations. 15pp.
UN. 1996a, Indicators of sustainable development: framework and methodologies.
New York: United Nations. 448pp.
UNEP. 1994, Environmental data report 1993-94, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 408pp.
UNEP. 1997a, Global Environmental Outlook, Nairobi: United Nations Environment
Programme. 264pp.
UNEP. 2000, Global Environmental Outlook, Nairobi: United Nations Environment
Programme.
UNEP/ASEAN Secretariat 2001, Second ASEAN State of the Environment Report 2000,
Indonesia. 211pp.
UNEP/RIVM. 1994, An overview of environmental indicators: state of the art and
perspectives. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
World Bank website
World Resources Institute website
