Outline of the Finnish system of certified carbon footprints of food products

The basic structure of a system called Certified Footprints of Products (CFP system) is outlined in this discussion paper. The CFP system could produce strict and reliable data needed for generating product-oriented carbon footprints in Finland. Central parts of the CFP system are a national CFP programme, product category rules (PCRs), a chain or actor-wise monitoring plan, validation of the monitoring plan, and reporting and verification of data, and an ICT-system to support data sharing. The system is designed around activity-based monitoring data, and every actor would be responsible for data on its own activities. Linkages to existing environmental management systems are taken into account. The CFP system is still just a theoretical structure. It needs further development prior to full-scale introduction. For the food sector, a new architecture for data acquisition and quality assurance, development of existing mechanisms and consolidation of them in the CFP system are needed. Additional research is needed regarding emissions from agricultural production

Design of the shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) and development of a web-based GIS interface

Chapter 5The Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) is a collaborative initiative of the European Commission (EC) and the European Environment Agency (EEA) aimed to establish an integrated and shared EU-wide environmental information system together with the Member States. SEIS presents the European vision on environmental information interoperability. It is a set of high-level principles & workflow-processes that organize the collection, exchange, and use of environmental data & information aimed to: • Modernise the way in which information required by environmental legislation is made available to member states or EC instruments; • Streamline reporting processes and repeal overlaps or obsolete reporting obligations; • Stimulate similar developments at international conventions; • Standardise according to INSPIRE when possible; and • Introduce the SDI (spatial database infrastructure) principle EU-wide. SEIS is a system and workflow of operations that offers technical capabilities geared to meet concept expectations. In that respect, SEIS shows the way and sets up the workflow effectively in a standardise way (e.g, INSPIRE) to: • Collect Data from Spatial Databases, in situ sensors, statistical databases, earth observation readings (e.g., EOS, GMES), marine observation using standard data transfer protocols (ODBC, SOS, ft p, etc). • Harmonise collected data (including data check/data integrity) according to best practices proven to perform well, according to the INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC (1) Annexes I: II: III: plus INSPIRE Implementation Rules for data not specified in above mentioned Annexes. • Harmonise collected data according to WISE (Water Information System from Europe) or Ozone-web. • Process, aggregate harmonise data so to extract information in a format understandable by wider audiences (e.g., Eurostat, enviro-indicators). • Document information to fulfi l national reporting obligations towards EU bodies (e.g., the JRC, EEA, DGENV, Eurostat) • Store and publish information for authorised end-users (e.g., citizens, institutions). This paper presents the development and integration of the SEIS-Malta Geoportal. The first section outlines EU Regulations on INSPIRE and Aarhus Directives. The second covers the architecture and the implementation of SEIS-Malta Geoportal. The third discusses the results and successful implementation of the Geoportal.peer-reviewe

The role of combining national official statistics with global monitoring to close the data gaps in the environmental SDGs

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have elevated the profile of the environmental dimension of development – and how we monitor this dimension. However, they have also challenged national statistical systems and the global statistical community to put in place both the methodologies and mechanisms for data collection and reporting on environmental indicators. According to a recent analysis, there is too little data to formally assess the status of 68% of the environment-related SDGs [1]. Many environment-related indicators were not part of the purview of national statistical systems and did not have a methodology or data collection system in place prior to the adoption of the SDG indicator framework [2]. Moderate improvements have been made, as evidenced by the reduced proportion of environment-related SDG indicators classified as Tier III between the original classification in 2016 and May 2019 – dropping from 50% to 28% [3]. As of March 2020, there are currently no Tier III indicators; however, as many of the SDG indicators have been recently reclassified the data availability and experience in compiling these indicators is severely limited. Socioeconomic indicators have far outpaced environmental indicators in this shift, with only 7% of non-environmental indicators classified as Tier III in May 2019 [1,4,5]. As the custodian agency for 26 of the environment-related SDG indicators, UN Environment is establishing methodologies and mechanisms to collect country-level data. However, many countries currently do not have national systems in place for monitoring these environmental indicators and thus there is a risk that much of the environmental dimension of development cannot be captured by using reporting mechanisms which only include traditionally collected national official statistics. For many of these indicators, UN Environment is exploring new data sources, such as data from citizen science. Citizen science has the potential to contribute to global and local level SDG monitoring. Realizing its full potential however, would require building key partnerships around citizen science data and creating an enabling environment. Global modelling is another approach to fill data gaps. These new types of data could not only improve global estimations but could be incorporated in national official statistics in order to improve nationally relevant data and analysis [6]. The Global Material Flow database, which estimates Domestic Material Consumption (covering SDG indicators 8.4.2 and 12.2.2), and the Global Surface Water Explorer application (covering SDG indicator 6.6.1) are a couple of examples of where UN Environment is complementing national data with global data products in the official SDG reporting process. In these cases the use of globally-derived data has been agreed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) [7]. Expanding globally-estimated or -modelled data to cover environment-related SDG indicators could build the foundation for a digital ecosystem for the planet, which would provide a basis for developing integrated analysis and insights. A Sustainability Gap Index could be one mechanism to bring together the environmental dimension of development into a single metric, which could inform the achievement of the SDGs, environmental assessments and national policy. This paper presents a summary of how the world is faring in terms of measuring the environmental dimension of the SDGs

Living Earth:Implementing national standardised land cover classification systems for Earth Observation in support of sustainable development

Earth Observation (EO) has been recognised as a key data source for supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Advances in data availability and analytical capabilities have provided a wide range of users access to global coverage analysis-ready data (ARD). However, ARD does not provide the information required by national agencies tasked with coordinating the implementation of SDGs. Reliable, standardised, scalable mapping of land cover and its change over time and space facilitates informed decision making, providing cohesive methods for target setting and reporting of SDGs. The aim of this study was to implement a global framework for classifying land cover. The Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Land Cover Classification System (FAO LCCS) provides a global land cover taxonomy suitable to comprehensively support SDG target setting and reporting. We present a fully implemented FAO LCCS optimised for EO data; Living Earth, an open-source software package that can be readily applied using existing national EO infrastructure and satellite data. We resolve several semantic challenges of LCCS for consistent EO implementation, including modifications to environmental descriptors, inter-dependency within the modular-hierarchical framework, and increased flexibility associated with limited data availability. To ensure easy adoption of Living Earth for SDG reporting, we identified key environmental descriptors to provide resource allocation recommendations for generating routinely retrieved input parameters. Living Earth provides an optimal platform for global adoption of EO4SDGs ensuring a transparent methodology that allows monitoring to be standardised for all countrie

Extending The Finnish Flood Information System To Include Flood Risk Mapping

The sound flood risk management needs more and more effective information systems. In addition to flood risk management planning, the past floods in Finland have proved that up-to-date risk information is essential in emergencies. Therefore in addition to the water system forecasts and flood warnings, the information on potential exposed elements and flood damages are playing a significant role in maintaining an overview of the national flood situation. The national flood information system of Finland, established in 2006 and extended since 2010, brings together the essential information on floods under a single user interface. At the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE, environmental information systems are developed according to a common internal framework HERTTA. The framework is web based and relies on the Microsoft .NET framework, the C# programming language and SQL Server databases. The map service is based on ESRI’s ArcGIS Server technology. The extensions include flood information that serves the EU Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), as well as, national requirements. It includes three steps: preliminary flood risk assessment, flood mapping and flood risk management planning. The EU reporting should be made after each step every six years. The new flood information types of the system are also used for reporting flood damage information about the past floods, potential future floods and areas of potential significant flood risk. In this paper we introduce the new parts and information types of the Finnish flood information system. It is written both from a substance and a technical point of view. The main focus is on flood risk mapping: how to manage different kinds of risk information in the system taking into account the INSPIRE directive (2007/2/EC) and how the information can be used in different kinds of applications. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has funded the development of the flood information system

Development and piloting of an exposure database and surveillance system for DOE cleanup operations

An industrial hygiene exposure database and surveillance system was developed in partnership between National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-funded independent investigators and practicing industrial hygienists at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) in Golden, Colo. RFETS is a former U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons plant that is now in cleanup phase. This project is presented as a case study in the development of an exposure database and surveillance system in terms that are generalizable to most other industries and work contexts. Steps include gaining organizational support; defining system purpose and scope; defining database elements and coding; planning practical and efficient analysis strategies; incorporating reporting capabilities; and anticipating communication strategies that maximize the probability that surveillance findings will feed back to preventive applications. For each of these topics, the authors describe both general considerations as well as the specific choices made for this system. An important feature of the system is a two-tier task-coding scheme comprising 33 categories of task groups. Examples of grouped analyses of exposure data captured during the system pilot period demonstrate applications to exposure control, medical surveillance, and other preventive measures. Reprinted by permission of the publisher

Non-financial reporting challenges in monitoring SDG`s achievement : investment aspects for transition economy

This research were developed by author during participation at post doctoral training programme at Academy of financial management, Kyiv, Ukraine (2017-2019).Purpose: The purpose of the article is to reveal and deepen the investment aspects of the methodology for monitoring the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG`s) in transition countries. Design/Methodology/Approach: The methodological approach of the paper is based on comparative analysis of core investment indicators proposed by main sustainable reporting initiatives. Conducted analysis helped to identify significant differences in methodological recommendations complicating the process of data comparability for VNR`s compiling purposes. Findings: As a part of SDG`s monitoring process reporting challenges include: the use of so-called “SDG-washing” practices in non-financial reporting; selective presentation of facts through the use of “Cherry-picking” practice in non-financial reporting; the difficulty in measuring progress of the entity's contribution to the achievement of the SDGs on the basis of available indicators in the non-financial reporting; a weak corporate governance culture for reporting as in transition economies; the necessity to develop approaches to assess the materiality of information received for investment purposes. Practical Implications: Sustainability investment indicators in non-financial reporting requirements today do not reflect investing in cost-effectiveness in the context of evaluating the progress of the SDG`s implementation. In order to reveal the entity's attempts to use “SDG-washing” and “Cherry-picking” practices is proposed to include an investment priority ratio to the list of economic indicators. Originality/Value: The paper contains a methodology for a new non-financial reporting indicator allowing to evaluate the purpose of enterpeise`s capital investments policy.peer-reviewe

Rio+20: accountability and implementation as key goals

This repository item contains a single issue of Sustainable Development Insights, a series of short policy essays that began publishing in 2008 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. The series seeks to promote a broad interdisciplinary dialogue on how to accelerate sustainable development at all levels.Over the past two decades, the Global Environmental Governance (GEG) system has grown and evolved, making much progress in incorporating sustainable development as the central goal of environmental governance, and delivering scores of new international institutions, legal instruments, declarations and financial mechanisms. However, the GEG system lacks the crucial components of accountability and implementation as part of its core operating system. The authors argue that the upcoming Rio + 20 meeting provides the perfect opportunity to help bring about these much needed changes to strengthen the GEG and help achieve its ultimate goals. The authors propose a set of four accountability-enabling mechanisms: 1. Improved metrics and reporting mechanisms. 2. Transparency mechanisms. 3. Compliance mechanisms. 4. Capacity building. The authors also propose a set of four enabling institutional arrangements: 1. Compendium of best (and worst) practices. 2. Registry of commitments. 3. Renewed focus for CSD. 4. A global “Aarhus” instrument

One way forward: non-traditional accounting disclosures in the 21st century

Recent empirical studies (Deegan and Rankin, 1999; Deegan et al., 2000) have indicated that although many corporations have begun to respond to perceived demand for environmental disclosures in published accounts, their perspective of organisational legitimacy is a narrow view, in which information is targeted towards specific stakeholders and not to the general public. This paper considers a range of models (variously called guidelines, standards and charters) which have been put forward by different organisations to aid the development of social and environmental disclosures. In all cases verification and attestation are part of the proposed regimen. The question which the papers attempts to answer is whether any one of the models would be capable of rapid adoption as part of an expanded GAAP, should the professional accounting bodies think that this is desirable. The outcome of our deliberations is cautious support for the use of EMAS and ISO 14000 as the basis for a modified GAAP plus the further development of the GRI 2000 guidelines into a set of standards covering both social and environmental reporting