MDG7 Pnmarch 05

UNDP Practice Note: Monitoring Country Progress Towards MDG7
MONITORING COUNTRY
PROGRESS TOWARDS MDG7:
ENSURING ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
PRACTICE NOTE
March 2005
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. The Issue and its Dimensions: Monitoring and Reporting on Country
Progress towards Achieving MDG7
3. Operational Implications: Key Principles, Approaches, and Techniques for
Effective Country Monitoring and Reporting on MDG7
4. UNDP’s Niche and Possible Entry Points
Annexes
A Checklist of Questions to Aid in Operationalising Monitoring and
Reporting of Progress Towards Environmental Sustainability, MDG7
B Examples of Country Practices

C References and Web Resources
D Acronyms and Abbreviations
E Bellagio Principles for Assessing Progress towards Sustainable
Development
1
Acknowledgements
The following individuals’ comments and inputs to the outline and draft
version of this practice note, shared on the Energy and Environment Practice
and MDG Networks, are acknowledged: Shaza Al-Joundi (UNDP Syria);
Batkhuyag Baldangombo (UNDP Albania); Mohamed Bayoumi (UNDP Egypt);
Nefise Bazoglu (UN Habitat Nairobi); Hans Peter Deigaard (Danish 92 Group,
Denmark); Stijn De Lameillieure (UN Habitat Regional Office for Latin
America and the Caribbean); Tek Gurung (UNDP Nepal); Arun Kashyup (UNDP
EEG); Lineo Mdee (UNDP Lesotho); Richard Morgan (UNICEF); Laura Rio
(UNDP Uzbekistan); Mirjam Schnupf (UNDP Mongolia); Anja Therkelsen (IBIS –
Danish Solidarity and Development Organisation); Raul Tolmos (UNDP Peru);
Happy James Tumwebaze (Sustainability Watch Project Uganda); Juha Uitto
(UNDP EEG); with contributions from Arnaud Comolet (UNDP EEG), Laura Lee
(UNDP EEG), and Leida Mercado (UNDP EEG).
Authors are Linda Ghanime and Nadine Smith (UNDP EEG). This version is
abridged from the May 2004 version, which was reviewed by the Energy and
Environment Practice Quality Assurance Committee (Charles McNeill, Iyad
Abumoghli, Bethany Donithorn, Minoru Takada, Joakim Harlin, and Gelila
Terrefe) and edited with assistance from Karen Holmes. Comments on this
practice note, as well as additional contributions particularly of country
MDG7 monitoring practices, are most welcome. Please contact Linda
Ghanime (Linda.ghanime@undp.org).
Executive Summary
Measuring progress towards environmental sustainability has proven to be a

challenge for many countries. Countries have committed themselves to
achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), including MDG7,
‘Achieving Environmental Sustainability’. Indeed, the MDGs constitute an
interconnected agenda for action, and making inroads on the environmental
goals of MDG7 is essential to sustainable progress in meeting the other
goals. This is particularly true for MDG1, on eradicating extreme poverty and
hunger, because the livelihoods of the rural poor rely heavily on natural
resources.
Under MDG7, three global targets and eight global indicators (Table 1)
provide an overarching framework for monitoring progress towards
environmental sustainability. Global progress towards MDG7 rests
essentially upon making progress on the ground at the country level, and the
global framework helps identify crucial areas that require concerted efforts
at the country level to achieve environmental sustainability. The framework,
however, does not prescribe a specific path to environmental sustainability
nor does it dictate particular actions for reaching global environmental
2
targets under MDG7.
Monitoring country progress towards MDG7 is further complicated by the

complex, holistic, cross-cutting nature of the concept of environmental
sustainability. Indeed, Target 9 under MDG7—‘Integrate the principles of
sustainable development into country policies and reverse the loss of
environmental resources’— is the sole qualitative MDG target. What is
required to meet this target, and what does a country measure to determine
its performance and whether it is making progress or falling short? A review
of more than 60 country progress reports on achieving the MDGs shows that
capacity for monitoring, analysing, and reporting on progress towards
environmental sustainability needs to be strengthened significantly.
Moreover, concerns have been expressed about the suitability of existing
global targets and indicators under MDG7 for adequately capturing progress
towards environmental sustainability.
The following practice note sets forth 10 principles to enhance and assist
country-level monitoring and reporting on environmental sustainability. In
essence, these principles hold that the results-oriented framework of the
MDGs presents an opportunity for countries to set context-specific targets for
environmental sustainability, drawing on the goals and outcomes articulated
in their various development strategies and linked to national planning and
budgeting.
The note also outlines a suggested five-pronged operational approach to

country monitoring and reporting on reaching MDG7, including:
 drawing on existing national frameworks and strategies for sustainable

development to establish verifiable, time-bound, country-specific
environmental sustainability targets;
 using analytical frameworks, such as the Pressure-State-Response
(PSR) model, to determine what to monitor;
 selecting indicators, preferably embedded in existing national
development and/or poverty monitoring systems, to track progress
towards environmental sustainability;
 revisiting analytical frameworks to analyse and interpret monitoring
results; and
 communicating the results of monitoring progress towards MDG7 to
policymakers and the public to inform decisions and adjust responses
accordingly.
1. Introduction
The Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

provide new impetus for monitoring country progress towards ensuring
3
environmental sustainability, a task that has proven to be challenging for

most countries. Environmental sustainability is a cornerstone of the
Millennium Declaration, adopted by 147 Heads of State in September 2000,
and the global agenda of eight development goals and multiple time-bound
targets contained within it.
Achieving progress towards MDG7 (‘Ensure environmental sustainability’)

entails examining human welfare and ecosystem health, as well as the
interrelationship between the two. Indeed, the Road Map for implementing
the Millennium Declaration warns that if we do not act to contain existing
environmental damage and mitigate future harm, we will inflict irreversible
damage on the ecosystems that support human life, livelihoods, and
wellbeing, and thus compromise our ability to achieve the other MDGs,
particularly MDG1 of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. However,
environmental sustainability is a complex, multi-faceted, holistic, value-laden
concept that is not easily quantified. While it is generally recognised that
environmental sustainability is about meeting human needs without
undermining the capacity of the planet’s ecological systems to support life
over the long term, there is no universal agreement what environmental
sustainability means at an operational level.
This practice note offers guidance to assist and enhance country monitoring
of progress towards achieving MDG7, drawing on relevant environmental
monitoring literature and country practices. The note is structured in four
sections, including this introduction. Section two outlines key issues
surrounding the challenges of monitoring country progress towards
environmental sustainability. Section three discusses operational
implications, including a set of principles for action as well as suggested
approaches, techniques, and steps for monitoring and reporting on country
progress towards achieving MDG7. Section four portrays UNDP’s niche in
supporting countries in this area. The Annexes contain a checklist of
questions to aid in operationalising MDG7 monitoring and reporting at the
country level, potential resources, examples of country practices, a
bibliography, links to web resources, and a list of acronyms and
abbreviations for further reference.
2. The Issue and its Dimensions: Monitoring and Reporting on

Country Progress towards Achieving MDG7
2.1 Environmental Sustainability in the Global MDG Framework
Environmental sustainability is integral to and a key pillar of sustainable

development. While the term ‘environmental sustainability’ that is at the
heart of MDG7 is not explicitly defined in the Millennium Declaration,
countries concur that ‘we must spare no effort to free all of humanity, and
above all our children and grandchildren, from the threat of living on a planet
4
irredeemably spoilt by human activities, and whose resources would no

longer be sufficient for their needs’.1 World leaders identify ‘respect for
nature’ as a fundamental value required in the 21st Century and call for a
‘new ethic of conservation and stewardship’. They also reaffirm support for
the principles of sustainable development, including those articulated in
Agenda 21.
As is the case for the other seven goals, the global MDG framework contains
targets and indicators that can be used to measure global progress towards
reaching MDG7. Table 1 lists the three global targets and eight global
indicators for MDG7. These targets and indicators are illustrative of key
global environmental issues and commitments. By their global nature,
they require responses from both developed and developing countries, with
common but differentiated responsibilities.
Table 1: MDG7 Global Targets and Indicators

MDG7 – Ensure Environmental Sustainability
Targets Indicators
9. Integrate the principles of 25. Proportion of land area covered by forests
sustainable development into country 26. Ratio of area protected to maintain
policies and programs and reverse the biological diversity to surface area
loss of environmental resources 27. Energy use per $1 GDP
28. Carbon dioxide emissions (per capita) and
consumption of ozone-depleting
chlorofluorocarbons
29. Proportion of population using solid fuels
10. Halve, by 2015, the proportion of 30. Proportion of population with sustainable
people without sustainable access to access to an improved water source, urban and
safe drinking water and sanitation rural
31. Proportion of population with access to
improved sanitation
11. Have achieved, by 2020, a
significant improvement in the lives of 32. Proportion of households with access to
at least 100 million slum dwellers secure tenure
Source: The Millennium Declaration Road Map
The above set of indicators and targets used to assess global progress
towards achieving MDG7 is not a perfect system. One complexity in
monitoring MDG7 progress is lack of a framework or means of
integrating different components of environmental sustainability.
While MDG7 contains elements that contribute to environmental
sustainability, when added together, they do not yield a full portrait. Issues
such as the availability of quality arable land and the productivity of fish
stocks are not flagged and tracked in the framework. This weakness can be
exacerbated at the national level if countries mechanically adopt the global
set of targets and indicators without explicitly linking them to national
priorities and policies, local context, and sub-national or ecosystem
specificities.
Moreover, unlike the other MDGs, there are no universal standard
5
quantitative targets set for MDG7, nor a universal understanding.

Indeed, Target 9 under MDG7, ‘integrating the principles of sustainable
development into country policies and programmes and reversing the loss of
environmental resources’, is the only one of 18 MDG targets that is
qualitative rather than quantitative. The fact that Target 9 is the sole
qualitative MDG target, coupled with the holistic and complex nature of
environmental sustainability, makes it especially challenging to measure
progress toward this target at the global and country levels. There is no
blueprint for integrating the principles of sustainable development into
country policies and programmes. Analysis of country reports on progress
towards achieving the MDGs2 reveals that monitoring and reporting on
reaching MDG7 needs to be strengthened significantly.
2.2 Moving Beyond Global Targets and Indicators for MDG7: The
Picture So Far
The global targets and indicators under MDG7 are a starting point
for monitoring country-level progress towards ensuring
environmental sustainability. The global framework indicators, while
providing essential information on global responses, are often of limited
relevance for developing countries, as they do not always capture national
and local priority issues and usually need to be complemented with country-
specific targets and indicators. The national MDG process presents an
opportunity for countries to set country- and context-specific targets for
MDG7.
However, monitoring and reporting on country progress towards ensuring

environmental sustainability has proven to be a formidable task. UNDP’s
2003 Development Effectiveness Report makes reference to the ‘extremely
limited country capacity to address’ MDG7. 3
A review of more than 60 country MDG reports (MDGRs) 4 shows that

monitoring and reporting, for the most part, have not been undertaken
systematically and, in some instances, are not reflective of the
environmental capacities in countries. These MDGRs suggest that many
countries have not fully incorporated or integrated available sources of
global or in-country data, including data from ongoing sustainable
development planning and environmental monitoring processes (such as
National Strategies for Sustainable Development, thematically-oriented
National Human Development Reports, State of the Environment Reports,
etc.). Most country partners reported exclusively on the global targets and a
select number of global indicators contained in the global MDG framework;
only about a third of country partners reported on country-specific MDG7
targets they had tailored to reflect special environmental conditions and/or
development aspirations in their countries. While almost three-quarters of
the MDGRs reported on all three global MDG7 targets, only one country,
Thailand, reported on all eight global indicators.
6
In these MDGRs, and in e-discussions held on UNDP’s Energy and

Environment and MDG networks, countries detailed several challenges to
successful monitoring and reporting of progress towards environmental
sustainability.
• The principal challenges reported were lack of financial and technical
capacity, lack of targets and indicators relevant to specific country
conditions and goals, and data problems, including inaccessibility, lack of
affordability, lack of reliability, and quality assurance.
• Difficulties reported by country partners in establishing country-specific
targets and indicators included: multiplicity of scales (e.g., global,
regional, national, sub-national, and local) and weak understanding of
interrelationships between these governance levels; difficulties in
establishing benchmarks and baselines; and lack of sound methodological
and/or statistical frameworks for indicators.
• Other challenges reported by country partners were lack of visibility
and/or explicit integration of environmental sustainability issues in
national policy, planning, and budgetary frameworks; weak coordination
of relevant monitoring efforts across sectors and ministries; and the
tendency of development assistance to exacerbate fragmentation of
national policies and programmes.
3. Operational Implications: Key Principles, Approaches and

Techniques for Effective Country Monitoring and Reporting of
Progress towards MDG7
3.1 Principles for Operationalising MDG7 at the Country Level
The experience of country partners, combined with information and

knowledge presented in the environmental literature, suggest several key
principles that can guide efforts towards effective monitoring and reporting
of progress under MDG7.
• Use country-led mechanisms, tailored to local circumstances and

priorities, to drive progress. UNDP advocates country-led systems for
setting, monitoring, and achieving measurable targets for environmental
sustainability. Environmental resources are country-specific and
unequally distributed, requiring context-specific targets that address
different development paths according to a country’s unique resource
endowments and human and technical capacities.
• Draw on existing environmental targets and environmental
information and monitoring systems. Efforts to establish country-
specific targets for MDG7 should draw on, and harmonise, targets in
existing frameworks and strategies for sustainable development, such as
National Sustainable Development Strategies, Poverty Reduction
7
Strategies, and National Conservation Strategies. These indicators can be

refined or augmented with additional indicators to reflect current country
priorities.
• Link to a national system for sustainable development. Monitoring
is part of the fabric of sustainable development and has little or no
meaning unless it is interwoven with policies, strategies, and
programmes. Monitoring of progress towards environmental
sustainability is a part of a systematic, ongoing learning process featuring
continual assessment, feedback, and strategic action not only across the
environmental sector, but also in economic and policy sectors that
strongly influence the quantity and condition of environmental assets,
such as agriculture, energy, forestry, mining, transport, and trade.
• Link to specific outcomes. Environmental sustainability targets that
are specific, concrete, and measurable are essential to ensuring progress
at the country level. These targets might relate to pressures on the
environment, the state of the environment, or responses to environmental
pressures and conditions.
• Use the best available data. Ideally, monitoring of progress towards
environmental sustainability will be based on specific national or sub-
national data, and priority should be given to generating and using such
data and databases. In the absence of national-level data, countries can
make use of the best available high-quality data, including standardised
global databases (e.g., UN Statistics Millennium Indicators Database,
World Resources Institute’s (WRI) Earthtrends) or data from other
reporting avenues, such as State of the Environment Reports or
thematically-focused policy analysis in the National Human Development
Reports (NHDRs).
• Choose sets of indicators that capture key environmental
challenges. As a quantitative tool representing complex phenomena in
a simplified form, a single indicator cannot hope to depict the various
dimensions of environmental sustainability in all their complexity and
uncertainty. Environmental sustainability is likely to be best represented
by multiple sets of indicators, with the precise combination varying from
country to country. These indicator sets should capture the highest-
priority environmental issues and challenges in a country, drawing from
the global MDG7 indicators as appropriate.
• Align geographic scales and levels of response. Identifying the
most appropriate geographic scale for monitoring environmental
pressures, conditions, and responses is a challenging task and one of the
most critical decisions in analysing and reporting progress toward
environmental sustainability. National-level data can mask significant
sub-national differences, and systems of environmental information and
governance are rarely found in an optimally devolved pattern.
Disaggregating data to sub-national levels, taking into account the spatial
nature of environmental issues, can be an important component of best
practice.
8
• Use collaborative approaches. Efforts to monitor progress towards

MDG7 are most effective when integrated with established monitoring
programmes and linked to key actors inside and outside government.
First and foremost is the national statistics offices, which may lead the
collaborative effort. Existing country-level environmental monitoring
processes, such as national communications on multilateral conventions
and treaties, can serve as a basis for further development and
strengthening of programmes for monitoring environmental sustainability.
• Maintain a long-term perspective. Establishing and strengthening
environmental information systems and building related institutional
capacity are ongoing, long-term processes. In capturing data, producing
useful information, and managing knowledge on environmental
sustainability, the perfect can easily become the enemy of the good.
• Regular reporting is key. The results of monitoring progress towards
environmental sustainability are only of value when they are known and
used. Every monitoring function should have a corresponding regular
reporting mechanism that disseminates information on observed trends
and assessment of progress. Reporting on the results of environmental
sustainability monitoring should be sufficiently simple or complex to be
comprehensible and useful for the target audience, whether it be
scientists, policymakers, or the public. UNDP’s Blue Book: A Hands-On
Approach to Advocating for the Millennium Development Goals
emphasises the importance of disseminating up-to-date, relevant data as
part of ongoing outreach and advocacy efforts.
Another set of principles that is applicable to monitoring progress towards

MDG7 is the Bellagio Principles. The Bellagio Principles (Annex E) were
adopted in 1996 by leading environment and development experts as
guidance for assessment for progress towards sustainable development.
3.2 Suggested Approaches and Techniques for Operationalising

MDG7 at the Country Level
There are various options for monitoring and reporting on progress towards
MDG7. Based on the experiences of country partners as well as review of
pertinent literature, the following five-pronged approach is proposed:
 Set verifiable, time-bound, country- and context-specific environmental
sustainability targets;
 Use analytical frameworks, adapted to specific country contexts, to
determine what to monitor;
 Select indicators using the ‘SMART’ criteria (see definition below);
 Revisit analytical frameworks to analyse and interpret monitoring results;
 Communicate the results of monitoring through reporting to decision-
makers and the public.
9
• Set verifiable, time-bound, country- and context-specific

environmental sustainability targets.
Setting country-specific MDG targets for environmental sustainability

requires a clear idea of where a country aims to be with its environmental
assets by 2015. The three global MDG7 targets can be a starting point. The
existence of specific, measurable, and time-bound targets stating clearly
where the country wishes to focus environmental efforts provides the
essential means by which to measure progress and answer the question:
Are we doing better or worse in terms of ensuring environmental
sustainability in our country?
At the country level, targets will have already been articulated in a country’s
framework and strategies for sustainable development. The Second UNDG
Guidance Note for 2003 advocates that each developing country ‘set and
implement its own priorities within the MDG Framework’5 using the global
objectives.
Other priority areas with a potential to impede progress towards

environmental sustainability have been articulated in the Millennium
Declaration (Section IV), ‘Protecting our Common Environment’, including soil
erosion, desertification, and increases in natural disasters, as well as global
warming, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity. Additionally,
the Millennium Declaration Road Map contains a number of targets that may
have been adopted, modified, or mirrored at the country level.
Box 1: Environmental Sustainability-Related Goals and Targets

Contained in the Millennium Declaration Road Map for
Implementation
1. To halve, by 2015, the proportion of people who are unable to reach or afford safe drinking
water (Para. 83, i.e. modified MDG7 Target 10);
2. By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million
slum dwellers, as proposed in the ‘Cities without slums’ initiative (Para. 117, i.e. MDG7 Target
11);
3. To make every effort to ensure entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, preferably by the
tenth anniversary of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 2002,
and to embark on the required reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Para. 164, i.e. related to
MDG7 Indicator 28);
4. To intensify our collective efforts for the management, conservation and sustainable
development of all types of woodlands (Para. 172, i.e. related to MDG7 Indicator 25);
5. To press for the full implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
Convention to Combat Desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or
desertification, particularly in Africa (Para. 177);
6. To stop the unsustainable exploitation of water resources by developing water management
strategies at the regional, national and local levels which promote both equitable access and
adequate supplies (Para. 183);
7. To intensify and reduce collective efforts to reduce the number and effects of natural and man-
made disasters (Para. 186);
8. To ensure free access to information on the human genome sequence (Paragraph 191).
10
The UNDG 2003 guidance on monitoring also suggests that countries make
use of the targets and goals set at UNCED. At the World Summit for
Sustainable Development (WSSD), these targets were reaffirmed through a
number of concrete, global, and time-bound targets agreed to in the
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI).
Table 2: WSSD Targets

Water -Develop integrated water resources management and water
efficiency plans by 2005, with support to developing countries (p. 15)
Biodiversi -Encourage by 2010 the application of the ecosystem approach
ty (p.16)
-Representative marine protected area networks by 2012 (p.
18)
-Achieve by 2010 a significant reduction in the current rate of
loss of biodiversity (p. 26)
Sanitatio -Halve the proportion of people who do not have access to basic
n sanitation by 2015 (p.4)
Chemical -Achieve by 2020 that chemicals are used and produced in
Pollution productive ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse
affects on human health and the environment (p.13)
Fisheries -Maintain or restore fish stocks to a level that can produce a
sustainable yield by 2015 (p. 17)
Do any of these JPOI global targets coincide with a country’s priorities, and
have they been translated into specific measurable targets and articulated in
policies and programmes? While the above can provide a starting point,
extracting key targets pertaining to environmental sustainability in country
policies and programmes entails reviewing, for example, National Strategies
for Sustainable Development, National Environmental Action Plans, and
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, and in a few cases, Poverty
Reduction Strategies (PRSs).6 Alignment at the country level between MDG7
targets and the targets found in PRS Papers (PRSPs) has been weak, with the
exception of targets for access to clean water and sanitation. 7 Development
plans and sector plans (e.g., agriculture, transport, forestry, etc.) may also
include targets that can serve as the yardstick against which to measure
country MDG7 progress.
As of mid-2004, two-thirds of countries submitting MDGRs had set one or

more MDG7 targets that attempted to modify the global targets in some way
to address country-specific conditions or objectives. Table 3 lists examples
of verifiable country/context-specific MDG7 targets.
Table 3: Some Examples of Country/Context-Specific MDG7 Targets

Modified or New Targets
Global Target 9
11

Forest -Maintain at least 60% of the country under forest cover in perpetuity (Bhutan)
cover -Maintain forest cover at 60% (2000 level) through 2015 (Cambodia)
-Increase forest cover from 8.2% in 2000 to 9.0% in 2015 (Mongolia)
-Increase afforestation rate from 27% to 35% by 2040 (Romania)
-Increase forest cover from 11.9 million ha in 2000 to 12.8 million ha in 2015 (Senegal)
-Increase forest cover by 115,000 ha between 2002 and 2006 (Tunisia)
-Extend forest cover to 43% by 2010 (Viet Nam)
Protect -Increase ratio of protected territories from 34.9% in 1990 to 35.9% in 2015 (Bulgaria)
ed -Maintain 23 protected areas (3.3m ha, 1993) and 6 forest-protected areas (1.35m ha)
areas through 2015 (Cambodia)
-Increase proportion of areas covered by natural protectorates to 25% by 2015 (Egypt)
-Protected areas and reserves to cover 10.8% of the national territory (Gabon)
-Increase area protected to maintain biological diversity from 0.2% in 1990 to 1.9% in
2015 (Kyrgyzstan)
-Increase land area protected to maintain biological diversity from 13.2% in 2000 to 30% in
2015 (Mongolia)
-Increase proportion of protected land area from 2.56% in 1990 to 19% by 2015
(Romania)
-Increase area protected for biological diversity from 8% in 1990 to 12% in 2015
(Senegal)
-Expand network of national and biosphere reserves and national parks to 10.4% of overall
territory (Ukraine)
Energy -Reduce CO2 emissions against 1988 baseline in fulfilment of Kyoto Protocol obligations
and (Bulgaria)
climate -Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8% of CO2 equivalent between 2008 and 2012
change (Romania)
-Increase use of renewable energy in electricity generation from 29% in 1999 to 33.6%
in 2015 (Slovenia)
-Increase share of renewable energy to 8% of commercial primary energy by 2011
(Thailand)
Pollutio -Decrease total discharge of major pollutants by 10% between 2000 and 2005 (China)
n -Stabilise ambient air pollution from stationary and mobile sources by 2015 (Ukraine)
-Attain national standards in air and water pollution by 2005 (Viet Nam)
Global Target 10
Drinkin -Reduce by two-thirds the proportion of the population without access to potable water
g water by 2015 (Argentina)
-Ensure that 78% of the population has access to safe drinking water by 2015 (Benin)
-By end of Ninth Five-Year Plan 2007, 100 percent of population will have access to safe
drinking water (Bhutan)
-Increase access of rural population to safe water source from 24% in 1998 to 50% in
2015 (Cambodia)
-Increase access to safe drinking water to 75% by 2015 (Cameroon)
-Supply water to 26m people in water-scarce areas and add 40b m3 water supply in the
Tenth Five-Year Plan (China)
-Increase the rate of access to potable water from 49% in 1999 to 90% by 2010 (Guinea)
-Provide quality water to 95% of the population by 2010 (Guyana)
-Reduce population without access to potable water from 15% to 6% (urban) and from
29% to 15% (rural) by 2015 (Kazakhstan)
-90% of dwellings to have sustainable access to water by 2015 (Lebanon)
-Increase proportion of population using improved water sources from 60% in 2000 to
80% by 2015 (Mongolia)
-Provide 100% of population with sustainable sources of fresh water by 2015 (Syrian
Arab Republic)
-Increase proportion of population with access to clean drinking water by 12% from 2001
to 2015 (Ukraine)
-Ensure 60% of rural population (80% of urban) has access to clean and safe water by
2005 (85% of rural population by 2010); Provide 93% of the population with access to
safe water by 2015 (Viet Nam)
Sanitati -Reduce by two-thirds the proportion of the population without access to basic sanitation by
on 2015 (Argentina)
-Increase proportion of population covered by organized waste collection and disposal
12

system from 80.2% in 2001 to 95% in 2015; Increase proportion of towns (population
greater than 2,000) served by wastewater treatment from 40% in 2001 to 100% in
2015 (Bulgaria)
-Increase proportion of rural population with access to improved sanitation from 8.6% in
1996 to 30% in 2015 and proportion of urban population with access to improved sanitation
from 49% in 1998 to 74% in 2015 (Cambodia)
-Provide three-quarters of the population with access to a better sanitation system by
2015 (Gabon)
-Increase proportion of population using adequate sanitation facilities from 25% in 2000
to 50% by 2015 (Mongolia)
-Increase population with access to improved sanitation from 55% in 1990 to 85% in
2015 (Syrian Arab Republic)
-Ensure by 2010 that all wastewater in towns and cities is treated; Ensure by 2010 that
all solid waste is collected and disposed of safely in all towns and cities (Viet Nam)
Recyclin -Full utilization of recycled wastewater at the expected level of 200,000 cubic m per day
g by 2010 (Bahrain)
-Increase the share of municipal waste recycled to 30% by 2006 (Thailand)
Water -Reduce by 30-35% the volume of irrigation water used per hectare of irrigated land by
use 2015; Water savings ensured by 2015 up to 15-20 percent cubic km; Ensure by 2010
water supply of 21–23 cubic km per year to the Aral Sea and nearby territories
(Uzbekistan)
Global Target 11
Housing -Reduce by half the proportion of population living in irregular settlements and towns with
extreme poverty (Argentina)
-Increase the percentage of land parcels with secure title from 15% in 2000 to 60% in
2015 (Cambodia)
-Reduce by half the number of under-developed areas by 2015; Ensure the
establishment of housing in cities of 5,000 or more inhabitants by 2015 (Gabon)
-Increase provision of housing from 22.6 sq m per capita in 2000 to 35 sq m in 2000;
Increase share of private housing to 97% by 2020; Increase investment in housing and
service sector by 430% from 2000 to 2020 (Turkmenistan)
-Ensure there are no slums and temporary houses in all towns and cities by 2010 (Viet
Nam)
What can be learned from the above practice to date? As development

paths differ from one country to the next, according to natural resource
endowments, assets, environmental conditions, capacities, and socio-
economic conditions, it is not surprising that patterns of monitoring and
reporting on achieving MDG7 likewise differ.
 In general, the number of targets set or used by countries is about four or

five.
 Not all of the targets set by countries have been quantifiable or time-
bound, and as such, are of less value and in many ways are not adequate
targets. At minimum, a target needs to be verifiable; quantifying the results
or desired outcomes facilitates assessment of progress and simplifies
reporting.
 Some countries have altered the time horizon, and a handful have set
intermediate targets. The Millennium Task Force on Access to Water notes
the value of setting intermediate milestones at the national (and sub-
national, where appropriate) level for 2005 and 2010. This can be deemed
good practice since ‘monitoring of annual and intermediate targets can also
serve as an early warning to identify the factors affecting the progress and
13
used to inform reorientation of actions based on interim successes or

failures’.8
 Some countries—including Cambodia, China, and Honduras—have
developed sub-national targets for achieving MDG7.
 The most frequently modified targets are those pertaining to water and
sanitation, sometimes bundled together or made more ambitious.
 Several countries modified the target of improving the lives of slum
dwellers. For example, Kazakhstan focused on rural areas, and Cambodia
measured progress in security of land tenure.
 Additional priority concerns, including addressing water and air pollution,
salinisation, waste, transport, and land degradation, emerged as key
ingredients for making progress on environmental sustainability.
• Use analytical frameworks, adapted to specific country contexts,

to determine what to monitor.
Frameworks are useful to help sort out what to measure and monitor in order
to assess progress towards environmental sustainability. Analytical
frameworks show the principal components and functions of environmental
sustainability and how they relate to one another.
An analytical framework is recommended to help elucidate priorities and

ensure coherence and soundness in structuring a programme of monitoring
progress towards MDG7. The MDGR itself is not meant to include in-depth
analysis and detailed recommendations; other instruments such as the CCA,
PRSP, and NHDR provide the policy analysis dimension.
One way to measure environmental sustainability is through use of a ‘capital

approach’ to track stocks and flows of different kinds of capital (financial,
physical, human, and natural) needed by future generations.9 Important
natural assets that can be tracked using this approach include natural
resources (such as timber and minerals) as well as critical ecosystem
services (such as the provision of clean water and soil fertility). However,
the process of assigning economic values to environmental assets has
proven to be complex and difficult, in part because changes in the provision
of key ecosystem services—for example, those provided by wetlands—do not
lend themselves to simple, straightforward measurements. The capital-
assets model has attempted to simplify the process of economic valuation of
environmental assets by identifying physical variables that can be measured
relatively easily to provide a more straightforward method for quantifying
changes in environmental assets and better integrating environmental
sustainability into systems of national accounts.
Another approach is through the use of indicator-based assessments, which

are guided by an overarching framework connecting the different aspects of
environmental sustainability. A commonly adopted framework for
determining what to measure and for interpreting the findings of
14
measurement is OECD’s Pressure-State-Response (PSR) Model, shown below.

In more recent applications, the model has been extended to include Driving
Forces as well as Impacts (DPSIR).
Figure 1: The Pressure – State – Response (PSR) Model10

PRESSURE
STATE RESPONSE
Indirect pressures Direct pressures
Information
ENVIRONMENT
HUMAN & NATURAL
ECONOMIC,
ACTIVITIES RESOURCES
Information ENVIRONMENTAL
& SOCIAL
Energy Pollutant & waste Conditions:
generation AGENTS
Transport
Industry Air/atmosphere
Agriculture Water
Administrative
Others Land
Households
Wild life,
Resource use Enterprises
[production, biodiversity
Sub-national
consumption, Natural Societal
National
trade] resources Responses
International
Others (e.g. (Intentions –
human health) Actions)
Societal Responses (Intentions – Actions)
Source: OECD 2001: 134
The above schematic illustrates how society, through development activities

and use of natural resources, exerts pressures on the environment. These
include indirect pressures, such as activities and trends of environmental
significance, which are considered driving forces in the DPSIR framework, as
well as proximate or direct pressures on the environment, such as resource
consumption and use and discharge of pollutants.11 Such pressures, in turn,
affect the condition or state of the environment. Information about changes
to the state of the environment as well as associated environmental
pressures may be conveyed to society, which may then respond individually
or collectively with policy, programme, stewardship, or behavioural
measures. Thus, the PSR model uses a holistic approach linking causes,
effects, and social responses.12
Using an analytical framework such as that provided by the PSR model, a

country can consider priority areas for monitoring progress towards
environmental sustainability. For example, Kazakhstan used the PSR model
in its reporting on reaching MDG7. Its MDGR looks at the state of water
resources, in terms of both quantity and quality. Pressures on these
resources, such as irrational irrigation practices and improper regulation of
river water flows, are identified. And responses are indicated in the National
15
Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) and other policies.
The PSR model has typically been used to assess negative environmental
externalities, such as natural resource degradation, rather than positive
environmental externalities related to vital functions and services provided
by healthy ecosystems, such as climate regulation. These pressure, state,
and response indicators have been used interchangeably in MDG country
reporting, and the increasing use of the PSR model is helping countries to
assess national and sub-national priorities, targets, and indicators as well as
to refine understanding of cause-and-effect links needed for interpretation of
modelling results.
• Select indicators using the ‘SMART’ criteria.

Once priority areas for environmental monitoring have been established,
sufficient information needs to be harnessed through indicators in order to
assess progress towards MDG7 targets.
Indicators are quantitative tools that simplify phenomena, enabling
policymakers and analysts to assess and communicate change. Indicators
differ from data in that they are operational representations of the attributes
of a system, while data are actual measures of system characteristics. As a
basis for assessment, indicators serve to highlight both progress and
challenges. An indicator and its target can be stated in the same terms (for
example, proportion of the population with access to safe drinking water), or
indicators can be stated in terms that suggest progress towards broader
targets.
In general, embedding environmental monitoring efforts within a country’s
existing systems for producing and managing information and statistics will
produce the greatest benefits. This might entail integrating MDG monitoring
with existing systems for monitoring poverty reduction.
Using the PSR model makes it possible to see how different types of
indicators of environmental sustainability are connected and to select
appropriate sets of indicators to assess country progress. Table 4 provides
examples of indicators of environmental pressures and driving forces
that have been used for country reporting on MDG7.
Table 4: Indicators of Drivers and Pressures on the State of the

Environment: Examples from National MDGRs
Driver or Pressure: Associated Indicators (Countries)
Population: population growth rate (Bhutan, Rwanda, Viet Nam); urban population growth rate
(Afghanistan, Cameroon, Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Viet Nam); doubling time (Cameroon, Rwanda, Viet
Nam); population density (Rwanda, Viet Nam); percentage of population living in coastal areas
(Bahrain)
Agricultural Production: average farm size (Lithuania); agricultural land area per person (Algeria);
percentage of population dependent on agriculture for income (Afghanistan, Viet Nam); percentage
of agricultural land (Rwanda, Lithuania)
16
Air: CO2 emissions as a share of world’s total (Bahrain, Bhutan), SO2 emissions, particulate matter
emissions (Bahrain, Bhutan, Poland)
Industry and Transport: total CO2 emissions (Bahrain, Bhutan, Egypt, Gambia, Poland); energy
production in million KW hours (Tajikistan); fishing as a percentage of exports (Mauritania)
Pollution and Waste: urban waste discharge (Algeria); municipal waste generation per day
(Bahrain); percentage of annual increase in municipal, solid, oily, health care wastes; Industrial
wastes (1000 tons)/dumping (Bahrain, Poland, Tajikistan); hospital waste generation per day (Bosnia
and Herzegovina); industrial and municipal seawater discharged into surface waters in cubic
hectometres and as a percentage disaggregated by industrial or municipal and treated or untreated;
sewage discharge (Poland); solid waste accumulation in metric tons (Kazakhstan); low-level and
medium level radio active waste accumulation in metric tons (Kazakhstan); wastewater discharge
into surface waters in m3/year (Kazakhstan, Lithuania); percentage of domestic solid waste dumped
in landfill (Lebanon)
Water Consumption: rural water consumption per day (Kazakhstan); water wastage (Bhutan);
household water use per day (Tajikistan); percentage of drinking water provided from underground
sources (Tajikistan)
Energy Consumption: percentage of population dependent on fuel wood as a primary energy
source (Cambodia); energy consumption in KJ and by use (Cambodia, Occupied Palestinian
Territories); percentage of imported electricity consumed and petroleum products (Occupied
Palestinian Territories)
Conflict and Crises: percentage of overall surface area made up of mine-fields (Bosnia and
Herzegovina); number and type of natural disasters registered per year (earthquake, mudflow)
(Tajikistan)
Another area for indicator selection is the state of the environment.

Indicators of the state of the environment address environmental quality as
well as the quantity and condition of a country’s natural resource assets.
Such indicators help to show emerging trends and can be linked to national
income accounts, poverty monitoring, natural resource inventories, remote
sensing, and sector information systems. Table 5 provides examples of
indicators of the state of the environment from national MDG7 reporting.
Table 5: Indicators of the State of the Environment: Examples from

National MDGRs
State: Associated Indicator (Countries)
Water: internal renewable water resources / capita (Armenia, Guinea); exploitable
groundwater in million m3 (Lebanon); water intake (Poland); percentage of water available
for irrigation (Guinea, Palestine)
Land and Soil: percentage of arable land (ha) per capita (Afghanistan, Armenia, Guinea,
Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Viet Nam); percentage of arable land affected by erosion
(Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uruguay); percentage of territory exposed to desertification
(Cameroon, Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Kyrgyzstan); percentage of soils subject to secondary
salinisation as percentage of total arable land (Kyrgyzstan); coastal area (ha) lost per
annum (Lithuania); percentage of land classified as dryland (Tanzania)
Biodiversity: percentage of species of African, birds, reptiles and mammals in protected
areas (Cameroon); extent of marine resources or mangroves (ha) (Kenya, Philippines);
indigenous forests as a proportion of forest reserves (Kenya)
Forests: % of the country under forest cover in its perpetuity (Bhutan); deforestation rate
(Guinea, Mauritania); total forest area lost per person (Viet Nam); Value of exports of saw
timber in percentage of state budget (Cameroon)
Response indicators show how different actors, including government and

non-government, respond to issues and conditions affecting environmental
17
sustainability. Some of the above examples of indicators of the state of the

environment, such as the percentage of species in protected areas, could
also be considered responses. Such potential ambiguities illustrate the need
for further refinement of indicator systems. Table 6 provides examples of
response indicators in MDG7 country reports.
Table 6: Response Indicators: Examples from National MDGRs

Response: Associated Indicator (Countries)
Forests: percentage of forests privately-owned (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Protected Areas: extent of sanctuary (Kenya); surface of fish sanctuary in thousands of hectares
(Cambodia); surface of forest protected areas (Cambodia); number of rangers in protected areas
(Cambodia); number of rangers in forest protected areas (Cambodia); percentage of total land area
designated as biological corridors that connect protected areas; protected coastal areas (Lebanon);
proportion of land protected through soil moisture, water and forest conservation to protect
biodiversity (Bhutan)
CO2 and CFCs: atmospheric pollution from stationary sources neutralised after treatment
(Lithuania)
Solid Fuels: use of solid fuels for improvements in the city (Benin)
Water: % of water supply systems meeting sanitary requirements (Kazakhstan); percentage of
urban and rural population with access to piped water (Egypt, Kazakhstan).
Sanitation and Waste: percentage of population with access to flush toilets (Bahrain); percentage
of (urban) population provided with central sewage facilities or connected to sewage system
(Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina); percentage of sewerage effluent with tertiary treatment
(Bahrain); towns with populations more than 2000 served by wastewater treatment plants
(Bulgaria); proportion of the population covered by an organised waste collection and disposal
system (Bulgaria); percentage of population with access to waste water networks (Lebanon);
number of urban sewage treatment plants (Poland)
Tenure: percentage of land parcels having titles in both rural and urban areas (Cambodia); number
of households owning their own lodging; Percentage distribution of housing units by tenure (owner,
tenant, sub-tenant, free, other) (Mauritania); Percentage of households built with permanent
materials and those with covered floors (tiles, cement) (Cameroon, Honduras); percentage of land in
private hands (Uruguay)
Infrastructure: proportion of population with access to basic infrastructural services (of water,
sanitation and electricity, heating, sewerage, shower) (Honduras, Kazakhstan); basic household
amenities as a proportion of all inhabited housing units (water mains, lavatory, bath, grid gas,
central heating) disaggregated by rural and urban (Honduras, Kazakhstan, Poland)
Number of community-based fisheries (Cambodia)
Number of organic producers (Uruguay)
Public investment directed towards environmental management (Bolivia)
In addition to the above indicators used in country reporting to date, a

further selection can be drawn from other sources of environmental
indicators and indicator sets. Examples include the UN CSD Theme Indicator
Framework, the OECD Core Set of Environmental Indicators, the United
Kingdom’s Headline Indicators Series, and Canada Environmental Indicators
Series. The number of indicators in these sets ranges from 10 to 50, some of
which are derived from sectoral information (e.g., transport, agriculture,
household consumption, and tourism) as well as the natural resource
accounting systems that have been established in a few countries. Table 7
provides examples of indicators found in each of these sets, according to
various indicator themes, including forests, biodiversity, energy, atmosphere
and climate change, water, sanitation and waste, agriculture and land use,
and transport.
18
Many of the indicators in these sets are indicators of environmental

pressures. Pressure indicators, often measured and compiled by official
social and economic statistics departments, are usually the most widely
available type of environmental indicator. However, it is equally important
to have measures of environmental state and response in order to track
MDG7 progress at the country level. OECD notes the need to select
indicators representative of the environment’s ‘sink capacity’, i.e., quality of
the environment’s ‘source capacity’ and the quantity of natural resources.13
19
Table 7: Examples of Core Set of Indicators
OECD Key UK Headline Canada
Indicator MDG7 Global
UN CSD Indicators Set Environmental Indicators Environmental EEA14 Proposed Core Indicators
Theme framework
Indicators Series Indicator Series
Percentage of ecozone
25. Proportion of land Forest areas as a percent of
Intensity of use of with strictly protected
Forest area covered by land area;
forest resources
None listed
forest area in a selected
None listed
forests Wood harvesting intensity
forest ecozone
Abundance of selected key
species;
26. Ratio of area Protected area as a Fishing fleet capacity; aquaculture production;
Threatened species;
Biodiversi protected to maintain percentage of total area; Populations of wild Percentage of strictly Status of marine fish stocks;
Intensity and use of
ty biological diversity to Area of selected key
fish resources
birds protected areas Species diversity; designated areas;
surface area ecosystems; Threatened and protected species
Annual (fish) catch by major
species
27. Energy use per Use of cleaner and alternative fuels;
unit of GDP; Renewable electricity;
Intensity of energy Energy consumption
Energy 29. Proportion of None listed
use
None listed
(exajoules)
Renewable energy consumption;
population using solid Total energy consumption;
fuels Total energy intensity; final energy consumption
Atmospheric GHG concentrations;
Change in emissions of Global and European temperature;
SOX and NOX
toxic substances; Projections of green-house gas emissions and
emission intensities;
S02 emissions; removals and policies and measures;
Atmosphe 28. Carbon dioxide GHG emissions; Indices of apparent
Days when air GHG emissions; GHG emissions and removals' consumption of ozone
emissions (per capita) Consumption of ozone consumption of ozone
re/ pollution was Average peak depleting substances;
and consumption of depleting substances; depleting substances;
Climate ozone-depleting Ambient concentration of air C02 emission
moderate or higher; concentrations of Exceedance of air quality limit values in rural areas;
Change chlorofluorocarbons pollutants in urban areas GHG emissions ground-level ozone Exceedance of air quality limit values in urban areas;
intensities;
(ppb); Emissions of primary particulates and secondary
Index of greenhouse
Average annual ozone particulate precursors;
gas emissions
levels Emissions of ozone precursors;
Emissions of acidifying substances
Algae concentration in coastal
waters;
Percentage of total population
30. Proportion of
living in coastal areas;
population with Nutrients in transitional coastal and marine waters;
Concentration of faecal Intensity of use of Rivers of fair or Daily per capita
sustainable access to Nutrients in freshwater;
Water an improved water
coliform in freshwater: BOD in (fresh) water good chemical municipal water use
Oxygen consuming substances in rivers;
water bodies; resources quality (litres per person)
source, urban and Use of freshwater resources
Annual withdrawal of ground
rural
and surface water as a
percentage of total available
water
Urban waste water treatment;
Municipal waste
Sanitation 31. Proportion of generation intensities;
Household waste Percentage of municipal Chlorophyll in transitional, coastal and marine
population with and recycling, population on sewers waters;
and access to improved
None listed Waste water
waste arisings and with secondary or Bathing water quality;
Waste sanitation treatment connection
management tertiary treatment Generation of recycling and packing waste;
rates
Municipal waste generation;
20
Area of urban formal and
informal settlements;
Land/ 32. Proportion of Land affected by
Percentage of new Number of bare-soil Gross nutrient balance;
households with dwellings build on days on agricultural Area under organic farming;
Agricultur access to secure desertification; None listed
previously land between 1981 and Progress in management of contaminated sites;
e Use of fertilisers;
tenure developed land 1996 Land take
Arable and permanent crop
land area
Transport Passenger travel by
Total road traffic Freight transport demand;
and None listed None listed None listed
volume
mode (billions of
Passenger transport demand
Traffic passenger kilometres)
21
In selecting indicators for monitoring progress towards MDG7, each indicator

can be systematically assessed against so-called SMART criteria. These
criteria apply to both targets and indicators and imply that the indicators (or
targets) are SMART—that is, Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and
Trackable.
 The Specific criterion ensures that the indicator or target states clearly
what is being measured and is sufficiently detailed to measure progress
towards the desired result. This criterion also ensures an appropriate
level of disaggregation in the relationship between the indicator and the
aspect of environmental sustainability to be measured, such as
disaggregation by geographic criteria (e.g., ecosystem type) or by other
key variables (e.g., income status or gender).
 The Measurable criterion verifies that the indicator or target is
quantitative in nature and consistent with sound, standardised methods of
sampling. At least two data points are needed for quantitative changes to
be detectable and verifiable.
 The Attainable criterion applies more to targets than to indicators, and
helps assess the extent to which targets are realistic and feasible. This
involves thinking through the desired outcomes and societal responses,
including expected changes from policy or programmatic responses.
 The Relevance criterion involves reviewing the indicators to ensure that
they capture the established targets and overarching goal, and are of
national significance.
 The Trackable criterion involves ensuring that indicators can be
constructed and monitored over time at reasonable cost and effort.
Maximizing this criterion involves using existing sources of data as well as
drawing on country capacities (financial and technical) for additional data
collection in the medium to long term.
Indicators that fulfil these SMART criteria allow for results-oriented

monitoring by providing a baseline for benchmarking performance and
identifying progress. A simplified version of the SMART criteria is the OECD’s
criteria of policy relevance, analytical soundness, and measurability (OECD
2001:133).15
• Revisit analytical frameworks to analyse and interpret monitoring

results.
In addition to helping sort out what to measure, analytical frameworks, such
as the PSR model, are also useful for interpreting the results of
measurements (i.e., trends, areas of progress, and challenges) in a systems
perspective, assessing the effectiveness of responses in reversing the loss of
a particular resource. Selection of indicators is not an end itself; the selected
indicators must be monitored over time and the results interpreted.
Benchmarks are useful to compare the value of an indicator at a given point
in time to a reference value (1990 is used as the benchmark for the MDG
22
targets).
Indicators also require context-specific interpretation to capture their full
meaning. The OECD notes that indicators are ‘not a mechanical measure of
environmental performance…[T]hey need to be complemented with
background information, analysis and interpretation’.16 Peter Bosch of the
European Environment Agency identifies four key questions to ask when
interpreting indicator results:17
 What is happening (i.e., state)?
 Why is it happening (i.e., pressures)?
 Are we seeing changes (i.e., pressures)?
 How effective are the responses (i.e., response)?
When interpreting results, it is also helpful to view progress towards MDG7 in

the context of the other seven MDGs. Ensuring environmental sustainability
can be seen as helping to maintain and enhance the natural capital on which
many of the other goals rely.
• Communicate the results of monitoring through reporting to

decision-makers and the public.
How does one communicate the results of monitoring progress towards
environmental sustainability? The MDGR is primarily a public affairs
document, aimed at creating an environment favourable to action by policy-
makers and others towards achieving the MDGs. In many ways, the MDGR
presents a more simplified and synthetic view of environmental sustainability
than the CCA, PRSP, or the NHDR, as it does not focus on an analysis of ways
and means to achieve the MDGs.
In keeping with the relative simplicity of the MDG7 reporting format,
transparency and inclusiveness are important factors to consider. The work
of the Global Reporting Initiative identifies transparency and inclusiveness as
central elements in communicating results.18 Particularly in reporting on
environmental sustainability, transparency with respect to the
methodologies used to measure and analyse specific components of
environmental sustainability is often essential to the reader’s ability to
interpret the reported results.
Use of graphs, tables, and figures can be helpful in communicating the
message of progress. For example, China’s MDGR uses graphs to show how
progress is being made across the country in terms of meeting specific
targets, such as the proportion of rural people by province and region with
sustainable access to safe drinking water and proper sanitation.
Environmental indicators are also useful to communicate results and
progress in an easily digestible format. Indicators can help focus the
reader’s attention on the specific conditions and trends that are most critical
for propelling policy debates towards action on environmental sustainability.
For conveying messages to a broader audience, indicators that are quite
general in nature, often called headline indicators, are often used and
23
usually limited to fewer than a dozen.

Frequency of reporting is another important element in any strategy or plan
for communicating on progress towards MDG7. Regular reporting facilitates
continuous learning. Since many aspects of environmental sustainability are
only evident over longer time horizons, plans for issuing reports should
extend well beyond a year or two.
Figure 2: Level of Detail in Reporting and Decision-Making

Indicator
Sets/Indexes
Public
and MDGR
decision
Simplificat maker
ion of NHDR
decision
and Indicators
reporting policy-makers
needs PSR
R
scientists
Data
24
4. UNDP’s Niche and Possible Entry Points
UNDP is well-positioned to support countries in monitoring and reporting on

progress towards achieving environmental sustainability. UNDP’s ability to
provide support in this area derives from several key factors, including its
strong field presence, integrated approach to development, and designated
role as scorekeeper in the UN’s Strategy for MDG implementation, supporting
and overseeing country-level monitoring of progress.
As one of the three implementing agencies of the Global Environment Facility

(GEF), UNDP supports the generation of knowledge on how to monitor
progress towards environmental sustainability and has contributed to the
development of methodologies for examining the impact of GEF projects.
Specific guidance is available in the focal areas of biodiversity, international
waters, and climate change.19
In addition to its work with country partners on environmental and

sustainability indicators and in the CCA and NHDR analytical processes,
UNDP supports monitoring of progress towards environmental sustainability
through two main services lines: 1) support to country MDGRs and poverty
monitoring and analysis (in the Poverty practice), and 2) support to
frameworks and strategies for sustainable development (in the Energy and
Environment practice).20
Building enhanced country capacity on environmental statistics and

indicators has been identified as a priority area for additional technical
support. To this end, the Poverty Group is currently leading a global
statistical literacy project to help link data generating functions to policy-
making and national development plans. The project’s first phase entails
training in pilot countries of all regions across a range of sectors, including
environment, leading to efforts to mainstream environmental monitoring into
national poverty monitoring systems and reinforcing linkages to policy
development.
Another entry point is through UNDP’s Poverty-Environment Initiative, which

is conducting pilot studies in several countries on poverty-environment
indicators and poverty mapping. For example, in Tanzania, UNDP is assisting
the Office of the Vice President in the development of indicators that will be
used to better understand poverty-environment interactions and to monitor
poverty reduction that results from environmental improvements.
UNDP can also help create the space for political consultations on national
priorities for environmental sustainability and how these priorities might be
expressed in the context of quantitative, country-specific MDG targets. In
Latin America and the Caribbean, for instance, UNDP has partnered with the
UN Economic and Social Commission for Latin America (ECLAC), and is
currently undertaking a pilot study on monitoring MDG7 in Peru.
25
Overall, UNDP has demonstrated success in its support to country offices

aimed at making MDG7 attainable. In Albania, UNDP has supported capacity
development for environmental statistics as well as integration of the MDGs
into the country’s PRSP. This and other examples of UNDP support for good
country practices (see Annex B), along with the principles and approaches
outlined in this practice note, provide useful guideposts for the next
generation of MDGRs.
Additional country examples are welcome and encouraged. Please contact

Linda Ghanime (Linda.ghanime@undp.org).
26
ANNEXES
Annex A: Checklist of Questions to Aid in Operationalising

Monitoring and Reporting on Progress towards
Environmental Sustainability, MDG7
 1. How has the concept of environmental sustainability been embraced in
your country?
 2. What is your country’s vision for environmental sustainability?
 3. Do you have a national environmental action plan?
 4. What targets are specified in your national development plans,
including the PRS or sector plans?
 5. Have you tapped into Multilateral Environmental Agreements such as in
national communications on climate change?
 6. What environmental phenomena are already being measured on a
regular basis?
 7. What data is available in country and where?
 8. What data is available from global data sources?
 9. Are data being collected systematically through a national system of
statistics?
 10. Do the national statistics adequately portray environmental
conditions?
 11. Where are the data gaps?
 12. What happens if data is not available?
 13. What mechanisms are in place for exchange and consolidation of
data?
 14. Is an analytical framework used to aid in determining what to
measure?
 15. How are people benefiting from environmental assets?
 16. How is development affecting the ecosystem? (i.e. their activities as
drivers or pressures)
 17. How vulnerable are people and the social systems to environmental
disturbances, such as pollution and climate change?
 18. How well are the people, including current and future generations (i.e.
the impact of the environment on people)
 19. How effective have responses been to reverse the loss of a particular
environmental resource?
 20. To what extent does the country cooperate with other countries to
manage common environmental resources, such as waterbodies?
 21. To what extent do institutions foster effective responses to
environmental challenges?
 22. How have governments implemented and integrated the principles of
sustainable development in development policies?
 23. Are we on track towards ensuring environmental sustainability by
2015 in the country?
 24. How can the results of monitoring progress towards ensuring
27
environmental sustainability be communicated effectively?

 25. What entry points for improving performance can be identified in
reporting?
Annex B: Examples of Country Practices

The Millennium Development Goal Country Reports are available on the
UNDG website. Additional examples of reporting stem from thematically
focused NHDRs available on the HDRO site, as well as country state of the
environment reports.
Albania’s good practice centres on its efforts at building national ownership

of MDG monitoring by ensuring a consultative and participatory process. A
national cross-sectoral team was convened, composed of representatives
from local NGOs and including members with environmental capacities. This
‘national facilitation team’ looked at all areas covered by the MDGs,
including environmental sustainability targets and indicators. The process
culminated in the team’s facilitating participatory dialogues to look at
monitoring across the MDGs. Noted in Albania’s MDGR, released in May
2002, is the integration of the MDGs into other development strategies,
including the National Strategy for Socio-Economic Development (i.e.,
Albania’s PRSP) and the medium-term budget program—efforts supported by
UNDP Albania. Also mentioned in the MDGR is the importance of enhanced
monitoring capacity, through such projects as the UNDP/National Statistics
Office project on statistical capacity building.
Egypt reports on almost all global indicators under MDG7 and also contains
information on carbon dioxide emissions by source. In its first MDGR, issued
in 2002, Egypt signalled the intention to combine global MDG targets and
indicators with country-specific ones. Its second MDGR, prepared in 2004,
aims to facilitate debate on how to localize MDG country reporting and
serves as a model in this regard. To date, Egypt has set one country-specific
target, that is, increasing the proportion of areas covered by national
protectorates to 25% (from the current 9%) by 2015. Specific challenges
flagged in Egypt’s MDGR include rapid population growth and limited
resources, climate change impacts, and data deficiencies.
Lesotho’s efforts to implement MDG7 are on course, with the most

substantial progress in the areas of policy and institutional strengthening.
With UNDP support, an environmental coordination institution was
established, environmental policy approved, and environmental law enacted.
One of the country’s most pressing environmental challenges is soil
degradation and loss, resulting not only from physical features of the
landscape (such as a rugged and mountainous terrain, erodible soils, and
28
erratic rainfall with frequent droughts) but also from policy failures (including
inefficient land tenure, gender inequities, and lack of integration of
environmental concerns at all levels of planning). Thus, Lesotho has adopted
relevant, country-specific targets under MDG7, including reducing the
proportion of households without access to land from 33% in 2000 to 17% by
2015, and reversing annual losses of topsoil from 40 tonnes in 2000 to 20
tonnes. As part of PRSP implementation and MDG reporting, the national
statistical agency’s capacity to collect, analyse, and disseminate data is
being strengthened.
Mongolia’s MDG process has been consultative and has tailored the MDG7
indicators to its specific situation. The National Task Force used a
participatory process to prepare the MDGR, working closely with the UN
Theme Group on Statistics and the MDGs and the Task Force on the PRSP.
Line ministries, specialist government organisations, and donors were
involved in various stages of discussions on the report and commented on
draft versions. Mongolia has set country-specific, time-bound targets, such
as increasing land area protected to maintain biodiversity from 13.3% in
2000 to 30% by 2015. One of the country’s most pressing environmental
problems, land degradation, is not captured by current global MDG7
indicators. Mongolia hopes to address these issues in its next MDGR; the
current report mentions community-based pasture management as a priority
for development assistance to improve land conditions locally. The MDGR
process also revealed challenges with data collection and gaps, and as a
result, the National Statistics Office is undertaking additional surveys and
field studies to address these gaps.
Nepal has been exploring ways to track MDG7 more systematically. One
important aspect of this effort is an attempt to link MDG indicators with the
PRSP. Nepal is institutionalising and operationalising a poverty monitoring
and assessment system, with the National Planning Commission taking the
lead in identifying a clear, comprehensive set of poverty indicators. To
assist this process, UNDP Nepal has suggested some indicators that would
mainstream energy and environmental sustainability aspects in the poverty
monitoring system and help elucidate the poverty-environment nexus.
Syria was one of the first countries to produce a progress report on

implementation of the MDGs. An important recommendation put forward in
Syria’s MDGR was to strengthen national statistical capacity for monitoring
progress towards achieving the MDGs, particularly targets concerning
poverty and the environment. Syria aims to strengthen its capacity for
environmental monitoring in part through the establishment of an
Environmental Information Management System (EIMS) at the Ministry of
Local Administration and Environment and its subsidiary directorates. With
support from UNDP Syria, national authorities plan to designate
environmental and sustainable development indicators and to establish a
29
systematic way of monitoring progress towards them.

Viet Nam has succeeded in an approach that aligns the MDGs with the
objectives of existing national development strategies and also establishes
country-specific targets under the MDGs. The MDGR contains six
quantitative, time-bound, verifiable environmental targets that parallel the
global targets of MDG7. The environmental targets in Viet Nam’s PRSP
directly match those listed under MDG7 in the country’s MDGR. The targets
presented in Viet Nam’s National Strategy for Environmental Protection
(NSEP) are also aligned with, and often amplify, the targets contained in the
MDGR. For instance, one of Viet Nam’s country-specific MDG7 targets is to
extend forest cover to 43% by 2010. This target is expanded upon in the
NSEP via three additional targets, including quantitative targets for reducing
areas at risk of desertification, restoration of upstream forests, and
rehabilitation of mangrove forests.
Annex C: References and Web Resources
MDG Resources
Internal MDG websites and resources:

• UNDP’s MDG Intranet Site
• UNDG site
• UNDP’s The Blue Book: A Hands On Approach to Advocating for the MDGs
MDG Resources:
• 2003 Human Development Report on ‘Millennium Development Goals: A
Compact Among Nations to End Human Poverty’
• Road Map Towards Implementation of the United Nations Millennium
Declaration
MDG Indicator and Statistics Documents:

• UNDG’s Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals:
Definitions, Rationale, Concepts and Sources
• Report of the Inter-agency and Expert Meeting on Millennium
Development Goals Indicators
• UNDP and UNDG, Improving Statistical Capacity and MDG Literacy at the
Country Level
MDG7 Resources
Millennium Project Task Force Reports

• Interim Report of Task Force 6 on Ensuring Environmental
Sustainability
• Interim Report of Task Force 7 on Water and Sanitation
• Interim Report of Task Force 8 on Improving the Lives of Slum Dwellers
30
MDGs and the Environment

• World Bank, The Environment and the Millennium Development Goals
MDGs and PRSPs

• World Bank’s Poverty Reduction Strategies and the Millennium
Development Goal on Environmental Sustainability: Opportunities for
Alignment
MDGs and Energy

• DFID, Energy for the Poor: Underpinning the Millennium Development
Goals
MDGs and Biodiversity

• IISD May 2003, Summary Report from the ‘2010 – The Global Biodiversity
Challenge‘
• UNEP, Implementation of the Strategic Plan: Evaluation of Progress
towards the 2010 Biodiversity Target: Development of Specific Targets,
Indicators and a Reporting Framework.
MDGs and Water

• UNDP, Water Governance for Poverty Reduction: Key Issues and the UNDP
Response to the Millennium Development Goals.
Analytical frameworks for Monitoring and Reporting
• OECD, Environmental Indicators: Towards Sustainable Development, 2001

• European Environmental Agency, Environmental Indicators: Typology and
Overview and Environmental Indicators by Driving Forces, Pressure, State,
Impact and Resources (DPSIR)
• IISD, Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory Methods and
Applications
• NRTEE, Review Paper on Selected Capital-Based Sustainable Development
Indicator Frameworks
• NRTEE, A proposed approach to environment and sustainable development
indicators based on capital
• WWF’s The Living Planet Report
• Global Footprint Network
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, Indicator Sets and Indices
Indicators
• World Bank’s Little Green Data Book
• DFID’s Poverty and the Environment: Measuring the Links A Study of
Poverty-Environment Indicators with Case Studies from Nepal, Nicaragua
and Uganda
• World Bank, Poverty-Environment Indicators
• IISD, global directory of indicator initiatives, dashboard of sustainability,
and Consultative Group on Sustainable Development Indicators
• Dashboard of Sustainability
31
• Environmental Sustainability Index
Databases and Data Sources
• UN Statistics’ Millennium Indicator Database, with links to global

framework indicators:
o FAO, indicator 25 ‘proportion of land area covered by forests’
o UNEP’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), indicator 26
‘ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity’.
o World Bank, indicator 27 ‘ratio of area protected to maintain
biological diversity’
o UNFCCC, indicator 28 ‘energy use’
o WHO, indicator 29 ‘carbon dioxide emissions and consumption of
ozone-depleting CFCs’
o UNICEF-WHO, indicators 30 ‘proportion of population with
sustainable access to improved water source’ and 31 ‘proportion of
population with access to improved sanitation’
o UN Habitat, indicator 32 ‘proportion of households with access to
secure tenure’
• The World Resources Institute (WRI)’s Earthtrends
• The World Bank’s 2004 World Development Indicators
• OECD’s Key Environmental Indicators 2004 and OECD Environmental Data
Compendium 2002
• FAO Fishstat Plus, FAOSTAT, Global Forest Resources Assessment, State of
the World’s Forests 2003, and Global Terrestrial Observing System
• International Energy Agency’s statistical database and World Energy
Outlook
• The Development Gateway has links to data and statistic information
available from UN and non-UN agencies on its website
• UNDESA’s UN Common Database
Reporting: Guidance notes and materials to aid in reporting

• UNDG, Reporting on the Millennium Development Goals at the Country
Level: Guidance Note, 2003
• UNDESA, Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and
Methodologies, 2001
• Globalis
Additional resources and references21

Bell, S. and S. Morse. 2003. Measuring Sustainability: Learning by Doing. London
Earthscan.
Berger, A. and W. Iams. 1996. GEOINDICATORS: Assessing Rapid Environmental

Changes in Earth Systems. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield. *
Bojo, J and R. C. Reddy. 2003. Poverty Reduction Strategies and the Millennium
Development Goal on Environmental Sustainability: Opportunities for Alignment.
Environment Department. The World Bank.
32
Booth, D. and Lucas, H. 2002. Good Practice in the Development of PRSP Indicators
and Monitoring Systems. Overseas Development Institute.
Bosch, P. 2000. Questions to be answered by a state-of-the-environment report.

European Environmental Agency.
DFID. 2002. Energy for the Poor: Underpinning the Millennium Development Goals.
DFID, EU, UNDP, World Bank. July 2002. Linking Poverty Reduction and
Environmental Management. Policy Challenges and Opportunities. A Contribution to
the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Esty, D. and P. Cornelius (Eds.). 2002. Environmental Performance. The Global

Report 2001-2002. The World Economic Forum and Yale University. Oxford
University Press.
Found, W., Bell, D., Khalikane, M., Schlichter, T., Schwass, R., Sohani, G., and Victor,
P. 1997. A Review of Monitoring and Assessing Progress Toward Sustainability, A
Project Undertaken by IUCN, Supported by IDRC. Report to the International
Development Research Centre (Ottawa). Toronto. York Centre for Applied
Sustainability.
Global Reporting Initiative. 2002. Sustainability. Reporting Guidelines. Boston. USA.
Government of Canada. Environment Canada. 2003. Environmental Signals.

Canada’s National Environmental Indicator Series 2003. Rotterdam: Netherlands.
Hammond, A., A. Adriaanse, E. Rodenburg, D. Bryant & R. Woodward 1995.

Environmental indicators: a systematic approach to measuring and reporting on
environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development.
Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
Hardi, P. and T. Zdan (Eds.) 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in

Practice. IISD.
Hyvarinen, J. and C. McNeill. 2003. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and the UN

Millennium Declaration. RSPB and UNDP.
IISD. 2003. Biodiversity After Johannesburg: The Critical Role of Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services in Achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals. A Report of
the March 2-4, 2003 Meeting. In: Sustainable Developments. Vol. 81. No. 1
published by IISD. Equator Initiative, RSPB, UNDP, UNEP-WCMC, TNC, and DFID.
IMF, OECD, UN, World Bank Group. 2000. A Better World for All.
Koziell, I. and C. McNeill. 2002. Building on Hidden Opportunities to Achieve the

Millennium Development Goals: Poverty Reduction through Conservation and
Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. UNDP and IIED.
33
Lee, L. and L. Ghanime. 2003. Millennium Development Goals: Country Reporting

on MDG7 Ensuring Environmental Sustainability. UNDP.
Lenton, R. April 2003. Background Paper of the Task Force on Water and Sanitation
(Task Force 7). Columbia University.
Martin-Hurtado, R., Bolt, K. and K. Hamilton. 2002. The Environment and the
Millennium Development Goals. The World Bank.
The Millennium Project. Monitoring Target 10 and Beyond: Keeping Track of Water
Resources for the Millennium Development Goals. An Issues Paper for CSD 12.
March 2004.
Moldan, B. and S. Billharz. 1997. Sustainability Indicators. Report of the project on

Indicators of Sustainable Development. Scientific Committee on Problems of the
Environment.
NRTEE. 2003. Environment and Sustainable Development Indicator for Canada.

State of the Debate on the Environment and the Economy.
Nunan, F., Grant, U., Bahiigwa, T., Muramira, P., Bajacharya, D., Pritchard, M. and J.
Vargas. Poverty and the Environment: Measuring the Links. A Study of Poverty-
Environment Indicators with Case Studies from Nepal, Nicaragua and Uganda.
Environment Policy Department. Issue Paper No. 2. February 2002.
OECD. 2004. OECD Key Environmental Indicators. OECD Environment Directorate.

Paris, France.
OECD and UNDP. 2002. Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations
Development Programme in association with Earthscan Publications, London,
England.
OECD DAC. 1996. Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development
Cooperation‘.
Satterthwaite, D. (Ed.) 2003. The Millennium Development Goals and Local

Processes: Hitting the Target or Missing the Point?. IIED.
Segnestam, L. 1999. Environmental Performance Indicators. A Second Edition

Note. Environmental Economics Series. Paper No. 71.
Segnestam, L. 2003. Indicators of Environment and Sustainable Development:

Theories and Practical Experience. Environmental Economics Series. Paper No. 89.
The World Bank.
Segnestam, L., Persson, A., Nilsson, M., Arvidsson, A., and Ijjasz, E. 2003. Country-
Level Environmental Analysis. A Review of International Experience. Strategy Series
Number 8. The World Bank. Environment Department.
34
Shyamsundar, P. 2002. Poverty-Environment Indicators. Environment Department

Papers. Towards Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development. Paper No.
84. Environmental Economics Series. The World Bank.
Smeets. E. and R. Weterings. 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and

Overview. European Environmental Agency.
Smith, S. 2003. Environment and Sustainable Development Indicators.
United Nations CDB. 2003. Implementation of the Strategic Plan: Evaluation of

Progress towards the 2010 Biodiversity Target: Development of Specific Targets,
Indicators and a Reporting Framework. Seventh meeting. Kuala Lumpur, 9-20 and
27 February 2004. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/20/Add.3.
United Nations CBD. 2003. Follow up to the World Summit on Sustainable

Development, Multi-year Programme of Work of the Conference of Parties up to
2010, Strategic Plan and Operations of the Convention: The Programme of Work of
the Convention and the Millennium Development Goals. Seventh meeting. Kuala
Lumpur, 9-20 and 27 February 2004. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/20/Add.1.
United Nations Economic and Social Council. 9 February 2004. Progress in

implementing the decisions of the Commission on Sustainable Development related
to improvements in national reporting and further work on indicators of sustainable
development. Report to the Secretary General. Commission on Sustainable
Development Twelfth Session, 14 April – 30 April 2004. E/CN.17/2004/17.
United Nations. General Assembly. 8 September 2000. The Millennium Declaration.

Eight Plenary Meeting (A/55/L.2).
United Nations. General Assembly. 6 September 2001. Road Map Towards

Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration. Report of the
Secretary General (A1/56/326). September 2001. Indicators of Sustainable
Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. 2nd Edition.
United Nations. 2002. Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable

Development.
UNDG. October 2001. Reporting on the Millennium Development Goals at the

Country Level. Guidance Note.
UNDG. October 2003. Guidance for UNDP Country Teams Preparing a CCA and
UNDAF for 2004.
UNDP. 2003. Human Development Report. Millennium Development Goals: A

Compact Among Nations to End Human Poverty.
UNDP. 2003. Development Effectiveness Report 2003: Partnership for Results.
UNEP Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2001. Global

Biodiversity Outlook.
35
United Nations Statistics Division. 2003. Report of the Inter-agency and Expert
Meeting on Millennium Development Goals Indicators (held in Geneva, 10-13
November 2003).
Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint. Reducing Human

Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers. Gabriola Island. BC.
The World Bank. 2002. Targets and Indicators for MDGs and PRSPs: What Countries
Have Chosen to Monitor.
The World Bank. 2003. Meeting the Environment Millennium Development Goal in
Europe and Central Asia.
The World Bank. 2003. The Little Green Data Book.
Useful websites
United Nations Millennium Indicators Database 2003.
United Nations Statistics Division.
United Nations System-wide Earthwatch (or www.unep.ch/earthw.html).
UNDP’s Frameworks and Strategies for Sustainable Development (includes a

collection of resources)
UNDP’s MDG Intranet Site.
UNDP Energy and Environment Practice Workspace.
UNEP –WCMC World Database on Protected Areas.
CSD National Reports.
European Environment Agency’s work on Indicators.
FAO FISHSTAT PLUS.
FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessment 2002.
FAO’s State of the World’s Forests.
International Energy Agency.
IISD Measurement and Assessment Site.
OECD Environmental Data Compendium 2002.
The World Bank’s World Development Indicators.
36
World Bank Environmental Economics and Indicators Unit.
WRI’s Earthtrends.
Annex D: Acronyms and Abbreviations
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

COP Conference of Parties
CSD UN Commission on Sustainable Development
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DfID Department for International Development
DPSIR Driving Force – Pressure – State – Impact – Response
EEA European Environmental Agency
ECLAC Economic and Social Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
EU European Union
FSSD Frameworks and Strategies for Sustainable Development
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
IDG International Development Goals
IDRC International Development Research Centre
IEA International Energy Agency
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development
IMF International Monetary Fund
IUCN World Conservation Union
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MDG7 Millennium Development Goal Seven of `Ensuring Environmental Sustainability
MDGR Millennium Development Goal Reports
MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreements
NEAP National Environmental Action Plan
NHDR National Human Development Report
NRTEE National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
NSSD National Strategies for Sustainable Development
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PRS(P) Poverty Reduction Strategy (Paper)
PSR Pressure-State-Response (Model)
RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SOE State of the Environment Reports
SoER State of Environment Reporting
SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UNCED UN Conference on Environment and Development
UNDG United Nations Development Group
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNEP-WCMC UNEP – World Conservation Monitoring Centre
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
UNICEF United Nation’s Fund for Children
37
WRI World Resources Institute

WSSD World Summit for Sustainable Development
WWF World Wildlife Fund
Annex E: The Bellagio Principles for Assessing Progress towards

Sustainable Development
1. Clear vision of sustainable development and goals that define

that vision
2. Holistic perspective
 review the whole system and its parts
 consider the well-being of social, ecological, and economic sub-systems, their
state as well the direction and rate of change of that state, of their component
parts, and the interaction between parts
 consider both the positive and negative consequences of human activity, in a
way that reflects the costs and benefits for human and ecological systems, in
monetary and non-monetary terms
3. Essential elements
 equity and disparity within the current population and between present and
future generations, dealing with such concerns as resource use, over-
consumption and poverty, human rights, and access to services, as appropriate
 the ecological conditions on which life depends
 economic development and other, non-market activities that contribute to
human/social well-being
4. Adequacy in scope
 adopt a time-horizon long enough to capture both human and ecosystem time
scales, responding to the needs of future generations as well as those current to
short-term decision making
 define the space of study large enough to include both local and long distance
impacts on people and ecosystems
 build on historic and current conditions to anticipate future conditions – i.e.
where we want to go, where we could go
5. Practical in focus
 an explicit set of categories or an organizing framework that links vision and
goals to indicators and assessment criteria
 a limited number of key issues for analysis
 a limited number of indicators or indicator combinations to provide a clearer
signal of progress
 compare indicator values to targets, reference values, ranges, thresholds, or
direction of trends, as appropriate
6. Openness
 make the methods and data that are used accessible to all
 make explicit all judgments, assumptions, and uncertainties in data and
interpretation
7. Effective communication
 designed to address the needs of the audience and set of users
 draw from indicators and other tools that are stimulating and serve to engage
decision-makers
38
 aim, from the outset, for simplicity in structure and use of clear and plain
language
8. Broad participation
 obtain broad representation of key grass-roots, professional, technical and social
groups, including youth, women, and indigenous people – to ensure recognition
of diverse and changing values
 ensure the participation of decision-makers to secure a firm link to adopted
policies and resulting action
9. Ongoing assessment
 Develop a capacity for repeated measurement to determine trends
 Be iterative, adaptive, and responsive to change and uncertainty because
systems are complex and changing frequently
 Adjust goals, frameworks, and indicators as new insights are gained
 Promote development of collective learning and feedback to decision-making
10. Institutional capacity
 Clearly assign responsibility and provide ongoing support in the decision-
making progress
 Provide institutional capacity for data collection, maintenance and
documentation
 Support development of local assessment capacity
Notes
39
1
United Nations. General Assembly. 8 September 2000. The Millennium Declaration. Eight Plenary
Meeting (A/55/L.2).
2
See Lee, L. and L. Ghanime. 2003. Millennium Development Goals: Country Reporting on MDG7
Ensuring Environmental Sustainability. UNDP, which contains an analysis o 32 national MDG Reports.
3
See UNDP. 2003. Development Effectiveness Report 2003: Partnership for Results. Page 43.
4
For more details on challenges to country level reporting on MDG7, see Millennium Development
Goals: Country Reporting on MDG7 Ensuring Environmental Sustainability. Further details are
provided in the section of this practice note on the Issue and Its Key Dimensions.
5
See UNDG. October 2003. Country Reporting on the Millennium Development Goals. Second
Guidance Note.
6
See the World Bank’s Publication ‘Poverty Reduction Strategies and the Millennium Development
Goals on Environmental Sustainability: Opportunities for Alignment’.
7
Bojo, J and R. C. Reddy. 2003. Poverty Reduction Strategies and the Millennium Development
Goal on Environmental Sustainability: Opportunities for Alignment. Environment Department. The
World Bank. Page 1.
8
See Bojo,J and R.C. Reddy. 2003. Poverty Reduction Strategies and the Millennium Development
Goal on Environmental Sustainability: Opportunities for Alignment. Environment Department. The
World Bank. Page 31.
9
Bell, S. and S. Morse. 2003. Measuring Sustainability: Learning by Doing. London Earthscan. Page
36. Also for further details on this approach, see Canada’s National Roundtable on the
Environment and Economy’s December 2000 paper which reviews five such approaches.
10
The UN CSD has attempted to refine this model, replacing pressures with driving forces in order
to reflect both positive and negative influences on the state. The European Environmental Agency
(EEA) also makes use of a modified version of Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact Response. EEA’s
model includes an additional element of the perceived impacts of a change in state on human
health, ecosystems and materials as influencing how stakeholders respond to this change (Smeets
1999:6). They also make a distinction between driving forces and pressures. In either variation,
the basic idea of linking the quantity and quality of natural resources and the environment to the
factors affecting it and the responses to ensure environmental sustainability is applicable.
11
www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope58/box3a.htm
12
See OECD and UNDP. 2002. Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book. Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations Development Programme in
association with Earthscan Publications, London, England. Page 318.
13
See OECD. 2001. Environmental Indicators: Towards Sustainable Development. Page 135.
14
EEA. EEA Core Set of Indicators. Item 06. 8th Management Board. Doc. EEE/MB/38/06. 19
February 2004. Source: Jack Martin.
15
16
17
See Bosch, P. 2000. Questions to be answered by a state-of-the-environment report. European
Environmental Agency. Page 9.
18
See Global Reporting Initiative. 2002. Sustainability. Reporting Guidelines. Boston. USA. Page 23.
19
For more information, see http://www.gefweb.org under the sections of the web page on
results/impacts/procedures.
20
See the 2004-2007 Second Multi-year Funding Framework for details of UNDP’s service lines.
21
Wherever possible hyperlinks to full electronic versions of the documents are made.

MDG7 Pnmarch 05

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MDG7 Pnmarch 05

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNDP Practice Note: Monitoring Country Progress Towards MDG7

B Examples of Country Practices

Measuring progress towards environmental sustainability has proven to be a

targets under MDG7.

Monitoring country progress towards MDG7 is further complicated by the

The note also outlines a suggested five-pronged operational approach to

 drawing on existing national frameworks and strategies for sustainable

The Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

environmental sustainability, a task that has proven to be challenging for

Achieving progress towards MDG7 (‘Ensure environmental sustainability’)

2. The Issue and its Dimensions: Monitoring and Reporting on

2.1 Environmental Sustainability in the Global MDG Framework

Environmental sustainability is integral to and a key pillar of sustainable

irredeemably spoilt by human activities, and whose resources would no

Table 1: MDG7 Global Targets and Indicators

quantitative targets set for MDG7, nor a universal understanding.

However, monitoring and reporting on country progress towards ensuring

A review of more than 60 country MDG reports (MDGRs) 4 shows that

In these MDGRs, and in e-discussions held on UNDP’s Energy and

3. Operational Implications: Key Principles, Approaches and

3.1 Principles for Operationalising MDG7 at the Country Level

The experience of country partners, combined with information and

• Use country-led mechanisms, tailored to local circumstances and

Strategies, and National Conservation Strategies. These indicators can be

• Use collaborative approaches. Efforts to monitor progress towards

Another set of principles that is applicable to monitoring progress towards

3.2 Suggested Approaches and Techniques for Operationalising

• Set verifiable, time-bound, country- and context-specific

Setting country-specific MDG targets for environmental sustainability

Other priority areas with a potential to impede progress towards

Box 1: Environmental Sustainability-Related Goals and Targets

Table 2: WSSD Targets

As of mid-2004, two-thirds of countries submitting MDGRs had set one or

Table 3: Some Examples of Country/Context-Specific MDG7 Targets

Modified or New Targets

Modified or New Targets

What can be learned from the above practice to date? As development

 In general, the number of targets set or used by countries is about four or

used to inform reorientation of actions based on interim successes or

• Use analytical frameworks, adapted to specific country contexts,

An analytical framework is recommended to help elucidate priorities and

One way to measure environmental sustainability is through use of a ‘capital

Another approach is through the use of indicator-based assessments, which

measurement is OECD’s Pressure-State-Response (PSR) Model, shown below.

Figure 1: The Pressure – State – Response (PSR) Model10

Societal Responses (Intentions – Actions)

Source: OECD 2001: 134

The above schematic illustrates how society, through development activities

Using an analytical framework such as that provided by the PSR model, a

Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) and other policies.

• Select indicators using the ‘SMART’ criteria.

Table 4: Indicators of Drivers and Pressures on the State of the

Another area for indicator selection is the state of the environment.

Table 5: Indicators of the State of the Environment: Examples from

Response indicators show how different actors, including government and

sustainability. Some of the above examples of indicators of the state of the

Table 6: Response Indicators: Examples from National MDGRs

In addition to the above indicators used in country reporting to date, a

Many of the indicators in these sets are indicators of environmental

In selecting indicators for monitoring progress towards MDG7, each indicator

Indicators that fulfil these SMART criteria allow for results-oriented

• Revisit analytical frameworks to analyse and interpret monitoring

When interpreting results, it is also helpful to view progress towards MDG7 in