Experts we interviewed noted the federal government lacks an organizational framework or institutional arrangements to provide a consistent basis for working with international, state, or nongovernmental indicator initiatives. Currently these efforts are not coordinated, resulting in significant differences and incompatibilities between sets that inhibit integration and synthesis. For example, federal environmental indicator sets cannot always be integrated with each other, or with regional- or state-level indicator initiatives on similar topics, largely because the sets are based on different frameworks and include indicators relevant at different geographic scales. As a result, congressional, federal agency, and other users must reconcile information that seems to deliver inconsistent or conflicting messages. For example, both the Forest Service’s National Report on Sustainable Forests—2003 and the Heinz Center’s State of the Nation’s Ecosystems include an indicator related to species rarity: the status (threatened, rare, vulnerable, endangered, or extinct) of forest-dependent species at risk of not maintaining viable breeding populations, as determined by legislation or scientific assessment and at-risk native forest species, respectively. However, though the datasets appear to be similar, the data in each set are presented in different ways and could appear confusing—even contradictory—to a reader unfamiliar with the different risk classification schemes used.
Moreover, even as federal activity developing indicator sets is increasing, developers at the various agencies may be missing opportunities to share knowledge and transfer experience. Federal developers have little to no access to best practices and lessons learned through others’ experience with indicator sets needed to optimize the federal investment in this activity. Despite the extensive federal involvement in developing
environmental indicators over the past decade, no clearinghouse has been established for collecting, classifying, and distributing information on best practices and lessons learned, either within or outside of the federal government. Experts involved in our meeting on environmental indicator sets said that such a clearinghouse could help developers avoid the
sometimes duplicative time and resources currently devoted to identifying the elements of effective indicator sets. Several federal agencies have acknowledged the need for such and have begun taking initial actions to address this need. For example, the Forest Service’s Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry unit recently developed a sourcebook and an Internet-based clearinghouse to disseminate information for states and other organizations to use when attempting to use indicators for assessing forest sustainability.
Recognizing the need for improved coordination at the highest federal levels, the Interagency Working Group on Indicator Coordination was created at the request of the Chairman of CEQ in a December 31, 2002, memo. One purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to enrich the understanding of ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation.19 The act requires that CEQ review and appraise federal programs and activities to determine the extent to which these activities are achieving the purposes of NEPA and to make appropriate recommendations to the President. In addition, NEPA requires CEQ to document and define changes and trends in the natural environment, and accumulate the necessary data and other information for a continuing analysis of such changes and trends and an interpretation of their underlying causes.
The Interagency Working Group on Indicator Coordination is composed of representatives from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, the Interior, and Transportation, as well as EPA and the White House Offices of the Federal Environmental Executive, Management and Budget, and Science and Technology Policy. The Working Group first met in March 2003 to consider ways to enhance the nation’s capacity to regularly report on natural and environmental resources, as well as related health, social, and economic factors, using a comprehensive set of indicators. It is currently considering a National System of Indicators on Natural and Environmental Resources, and is studying ways to improve institutional arrangements among the federal agencies for statistical reporting of such indicators.
The Working Group has developed an approach and policy framework for developing a national indicator system by building on existing federal and nonfederal efforts and has agreed that the system is a long-term goal.
Furthermore, the Integration and Synthesis Group, an effort to coordinate several key federal “building block” indicator sets20 under the leadership of the Working Group, has begun to develop a systems-based framework to organize environmental and natural resource indicators and provide a strong theoretical foundation for future integration work. The Working
1942 U.S.C. 4321.
20These indictor sets include those developed by the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests, Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable, Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable, Sustainable Minerals Roundtable, EPA’s Environmental Indicators Initiative, and the Heinz Center’s State of the Nation’s Ecosystems project.
Group has also agreed on a general conceptual framework to guide the selection and use of indicators and is working to reach agreement on a detailed architecture to guide the management and use of data and information technology resources, and institutional arrangements to develop and operate a national system of indicators.
Officials of agencies participating in the Working Group acknowledge the need for a more stable structure with the authority and resources
necessary to achieve the Working Group’s goals. In this regard, as an ad hoc organization within the Executive Office of the President, the CEQ Working Group lacks a stable institutional arrangement with explicit responsibility and authority to ensure the continued and full involvement, cooperation, and resources from other federal agencies.
Experts participating in our two-day meeting on environmental indicator sets hosted by the National Academy of Sciences—including officials from CEQ, EPA, NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Forest Service (within the Department of Agriculture)—discussed a number of different structures that could be employed to create a lead organization responsible for coordinating and integrating environmental indicator sets. Specifically, they discussed models ranging from using an executive order to build upon existing activity to creating a new quasi-governmental organization with the authority to oversee the development of a national environmental indicator system. In particular, the experts emphasized the importance of credibility and transparency as keys to the success of such an endeavor, in addition to authorities for addressing the widespread challenges of
developing coordinated federal environmental indicator sets and ensuring the continued and full involvement, cooperation, and resources of the federal agencies. The experts did not settle on any particular approach, but instead noted that all of the options available should be studied to
determine which option or combination of options is most appropriate.
Furthermore, they generally agreed that whatever institutional
arrangements are developed should be capable of performing the following functions:
• designing an information architecture using the best available information technology;
• providing leadership, vision, and overall scope;
• providing guidance and coordination with regard to environmental indicator development and use;
• assisting in environmental indicator selection, development, improvements, and evaluation;
• designing and managing data collection and monitoring, including consolidation and prioritization (identifying potential data sources, identifying areas where no data exist, and establishing ways to fill data gaps to support environmental indicators);
• organizing statistical compilation and reporting (connecting data to environmental indicator sets);
• identifying environmental research and development focus areas—
including environmental indicator methods—and developing and investigating conceptual frameworks, statistical methods,
interpretation, assessment, diagnosis, and basis for interpretation;
• interpreting environmental indicators for planning, policy, management, and communication purposes; and
• conducting audience analysis and public engagement to understand what information is needed to support outside entities.