One basic question needs to be asked: how can we assess and monitor programs so that we can better target EIS investments?

A review of EIS development across sub-Saharan Africa rapidly reveals large differences in the paths followed by different countries. For example, investments in Madagascar focused on base mapping with comparatively little attention devoted to the harmonization of thematic data or institutional networking. In contrast, EIS development in Senegal emphasized the production of thematic data with, alas, almost no effort given to base mapping. Other countries have prioritized the establishment of a network while minimizing database development. Finally, certain countries relied extensively on technical assistance, while others stressed capacity building. Thus, EIS development is highly heterogeneous, with some shared features, but also with features which are widely divergent.

EIS Heterogeneity
EIS heterogeneity is largely a product of hazard rather than of design. Since few EIS activities follow explicit design rules, EIS features often reflect short-term concerns and biases, rather than a choice from all available options. This suggests that EIS design would benefit from a structured approach, that explicitly balances a range of objectives, such as supporting decision-making, developing data sets, making existing data easier to use, sharing data, and building capacity. Elements of such an approach are suggested in, EIS in sub-Saharan Africa, from Innovation to Management, (Prevost and Gilruth, 1997a) and are not developed further here. The basic message is that sufficient attention must be given to EIS design.

EIS heterogeneity also underlines the need for tools to objectively describe, measure and assess EIS development. Using such tools, or EIS development indicators, one would be able to compare EIS programs, monitor progress, quality and coherence against benchmarks, and to identify trends.

This paper proposes guidelines for the development of EIS indicators, after taking stock of recent advances in the development of Indicators of Sustainable Development (ISD). The guidelines include the major categories of issues that EIS indicators should address. Examples of indicators are provided. As an illustration, the guidelines are applied to the EIS components in World Bank Environmental Support Programs (ESP).

The paper's target audience is the community of experts involved in EIS development, to help them better formulate, implement and monitor EIS development. Hopefully, the use of indicators will improve the design of EIS programs, with greater balance among components, increase the transfer of expertise and knowledge between programs, and facilitate an objective evaluation of achievements.

Lessons Learned
There has been considerable effort to develop indicators of sustainable development (ISD), of which EIS indicators are a subset, since UNCED. We look at one well-known example to better understand the issues surrounding indicator development.

One of the more prominent inter-governmental efforts to develop ISD was initiated at the request of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), which has the role of promoting the implementation of Agenda 21. To assist countries, the CSD, through the UN Division for Economic and Social Affairs, facilitated a process to develop and test ISDs. Approximately 130 ISDs were identified that relate to the 40 Chapters of Agenda 21. A publication, "Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies" (UN, 1996), known as the "blue book" provides a detailed description of each of the indicators and their requirements. The CSD is now testing and reporting the application of these indicators in selected countries.

The CSD initiative has sharpened our understanding of the indicator development process. We know that the relationship between a list of indicators and sustainable development is not clearly understood. What does it mean, for example, that Country X has a low GDP but substantial natural resource holdings, whereas Country Y has a higher GDP but limited natural resource stocks? These questions abound and point to the need for a deeper understanding of the concept of sustainable development itself.

Part of the problem is that the selection and development of indicators has been led by groups of well-informed experts, but who may not necessarily be the ultimate users. This is particularly evident when indicators are conceived at the global level and the user is at the national level. At the global level, the international community is often interested in comparability. At the national level, on the other hand, specific needs may dictate a different set of indicators for monitoring sustainable development. The difficulty is compounded when data availability differs widely in developing and developed countries, which is most often the case.

One of the key lessons derived from these efforts is that the process of developing indicators, at any level, improves management capacity within the group of users. For example, bringing together actors from several sectors at the national level to discuss the relative importance of indicators helps crystallize a national vision of sustainable development. It requires the users to focus on key issues relevant within each country and to determine how to measure progress toward these specific goals.

The issues surrounding EIS indicators are similar, although attempts to define and use indicators of EIS development have been far fewer than the ISD initiatives. EIS indicators proposed to date have not progressed much beyond the research stage. A brief analysis of a few of these initiatives illustrates this point.

The first effort to monitor EIS development in the context of the EIS Program, was the compilation by UNSO in 1992 of a matrix of EIS activities for each SSA country that described the nature and status of ongoing activities. Although it provided useful information, the matrix could not serve to compare EIS progress across countries. First, it only covered the activities supported by the main donors. Second, it was never clear what actually constitutes an EIS activity.

OSS/UNITAR performed a more extensive survey that they presented at the AfricaGIS symposium in 1995. Their inventory enumerated about 100 EIS/GIS related activities in Africa. Similar inventories were recently undertaken by UNEP for the SADC countries and by the European Union for the CILSS countries. These surveys help gauge the overall level of activity in Africa, but they do not indicate the stage of development or the overall impact of EIS on management and planning needs in a given country.

On a more technical vein, Brandenberger (ex-genera 1994) used cartographic indicators that compare the level of topographic mapping, geodetic control, and digital elevation model (DEM) coverage between Africa and the rest of the world. These indicators showed that Africa's cartographic development lags behind other regions of the world. More recently, Baudouin et al (1997) defined a Cartographic Development Index (CDI) that combines map extent, scale, thematic diversity, age, and availability. His results mark an important step forward in EIS indicator development in that the synthetic nature of the CDI captures for the first time the multiple dimensions of mapping. When applied to Africa, the CDI brings out regional differences that may be due in part to historical influences.

As part of the preparation of Environmental Information Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (EIS in SSA), the authors of this paper compiled a table on the status of EIS in SSA (Annex 1). The table includes one institutional indicator (presence or absence of an EIS Committee) and another on the use of standards.

In summary, indicators that currently exist do not adequately monitor the complexity of the EIS issues, particularly in regard to the institutional processes, the ease of data integration, or the existence of relevant policy. It is this need for a more comprehensive approach to EIS monitoring than is offered in EIS in SSA or in previous efforts that has led us to write this paper.

Next page