CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION 

Indicators can provide crucial guidance for decision-making in a variety of ways.  They can translate physical and social science knowledge into manageable units of information that can facilitate the decision-making process.  They can help to measure and calibrate progress towards sustainable development goals.  They can provide an early warning, sounding the alarm in time to prevent economic, social and environmental damage. They are also important tools to communicate ideas, thoughts and values because as one authority said, “We measure what we value, and value what we measure.” 

The 1992 Earth Summit recognized the important role that indicators can play in helping countries to make informed decisions concerning sustainable development.  This recognition is articulated in Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 which calls on countries at the national level, as well as international, governmental and non-governmental organizations to develop and identify indicators of sustainable development that can provide a solid basis for decision-making at all levels. Moreover, Agenda 21 specifically calls for the harmonization of efforts to develop sustainable development indicators at the national, regional and global levels, including the incorporation of a suitable set of these indicators in common, regularly updated and widely accessible reports and databases. 

In response to this call, the Commission on Sustainable Development approved in 1995, the Programme of Work on Indicators of Sustainable Development and called upon the organizations of the UN system, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations with the coordination of its Secretariat to implement the key elements of the work programme. 

The main objective of the CSD Work Programme was to make indicators of sustainable development accessible to decision-makers at the national level, by defining them, elucidating their methodologies and providing training and other capacity building activities.  At the same time, it was foreseen that indicators as used in national policies could be used in the national reports to the Commission and other intergovernmental bodies. 

The Nineteenth Special Session of the General Assembly held in 1997 for the five year review of UNCED affirmed the importance of the work programme on indicators of sustainable development (as contained in para. 111 and 133.b of the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21) in coming up with a practical and agreed set of indicators that are suited to country-specific conditions and can be used in monitoring progress towards sustainable development at the national level.   

This report has been prepared as the culmination of the CSD Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development (1995-2000). It provides a detailed description of key sustainable development themes and sub-themes and the CSD approach to the development of indicators of sustainable development for use in decision-making processes at the national level.   This report also finalizes the presentation of the proposed framework and the core set of indicators that will be made available to member countries to assist them in their efforts to measure progress toward sustainable development.

CHAPTER 2:  ASSESSING PROGRESS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

A.    The CSD Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development

          The CSD work programme comprised the following key elements:

(a)  Enhancement of information exchange among all interested actors on research,  methodological and practical activities associated with indicators of sustainable development, including the establishment of a freely accessible database (1995-continuing);

(b)  Development of methodology sheets, which would describe for each of the indicators its policy relevance, underlying methodology, data availability assessment and sources, to be made available to Governments (1995-1996);

(c)  Training and capacity building at the regional and national levels in the use of the indicators for monitoring progress towards sustainable development (1995-1999);

(d)  Testing of an appropriate combination of indicators and monitoring of experiences in a few countries to gain experience, assess applicability and further develop the indicators for sustainable development (1996-1999);

(e)   Evaluation of the indicators and adjustment as necessary (2000); 

(f)  Identification and assessment of linkages among the economic, social, institutional and environmental elements of sustainable development to further facilitate decision-making at all levels (2000); 

(g)  Development of highly aggregated indicators, involving experts from the areas of  economics, the social sciences and the physical sciences and policy makers as well as incorporating non-governmental organization and indigenous views (2000).  

B.      Main Phases And Approaches To Implementation 

Phase 1 (May 1995-August 1996)

(a)      Development of the Indicator Methodology Sheets 

One of the significant tasks of the first phase was the preparation of the methodology sheets for each indicator. Building on existing work, a cooperative, consultative, and collaborative approach was used to produce the methodology sheets.  More than thirty organizations of the United Nations system, other intergovernmental, non-governmental and major group organizations supported this work, assuming lead roles in the drafting of methodology sheets appropriate to their mandate and experience.  

An Expert Group, consisting of forty-five (45) members from non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies, guided the overall process of developing the methodology sheets. In addition, approximately 100 individuals with indicator experience from international and national agencies, and non-governmental organizations participated in the process by providing advice and comments and contributing their ideas, information and expertise.   

In February 1996, an international Expert Workshop on Methodologies for Indicators of Sustainable Development was held in Glen Cove, New York to review the preliminary methodology sheets. Several workshops sponsored by national governments were also held to further discuss and refine the draft methodology sheets. 

The collection of methodology sheets was published by the United Nations in August 1996 under the title of “Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies”.  This document, commonly referred to as the ‘blue book’, was distributed to all governments with the invitation to use and test the indicators, and to provide feedback on the results. The goal was to have a more accepted and definitive set of sustainable development indicators by the year 2001. 

(b)      Content of the Methodology Sheets 

The methodology sheets contain, inter alia, the following information: 

·         Basic information on the indicator, including its definition and unit of measurement.   In addition, the relevant Agenda 21 chapter and the type of indicator are listed to locate the indicator in the DSR framework;  

·       Purpose and usefulness of the indicator for sustainable development decision-making (i.e., policy relevance); international targets where these are available; and the relevant international conventions, if the indicator is primarily of global significance; 

·        Conceptual underpinnings and methodologies associated with the indicator, including the underlying definitions, measurement methods, and a summary of its limitations and alternative definitions;  

·         Data availability to illustrate the importance of regular data collection and updating to support systematic reporting; 

·         Listing of the agency(ies) (lead and cooperating) involved in the preparation of the methodology sheets; and 

·        Other information (e.g., contact points, other references and readings). 

A conscious effort has been made to use a consistent format to frame the contents of the methodology sheets. The methodology sheets were designed to assist countries with the task of developing the priority indicators that are considered most relevant in the context of their sustainable development policies and programs. The methodology sheets were to form a base and starting point for the process of indicator development and were understood to be open for enhancement, refinement, amendment, and change.  

Phase 2 (May 1996-January 1998) 

(a)  Training and Capacity-Building 

To address the need for building the necessary capacity and knowledge on the use of indicators, a series of briefing and training workshops at the regional level was initiated from November 1996 through June 1997. These were organized by the CSD Secretariat with the support and cooperation of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and the Government of the Netherlands for Asia and the Pacific;  the Government of Costa Rica for Latin America and the Caribbean; and by the Government of Ghana for the Africa region. The Africa regional workshop was co-sponsored by UNDP’s Capacity 21 Programme.  

The main objective of all the workshops was to provide an introduction and training in the use of indicators as tools for national decision-making and to explore related methodologies for indicator development. Special attention was given to identifying national priorities and relating them to the process of indicator identification and selection. 

Several countries followed up on the regional workshops with national training workshops. In the Asian and Pacific region, ESCAP provided seed money for implementation of national training workshops, which were convened in China, the Maldives, Pakistan and the Philippines.  

(b)    National Testing 

At the Fourth Session of the CSD in 1996, the Commission encouraged Governments to pilot test, utilize and experiment with the proposed initial set of indicators and related methodologies over a 2-3 year period. The purpose of the national testing was to gain experience with the use of indicators, to assess their applicability according to national goals and priorities of sustainable development, and to propose changes to the set and its organizational framework.  

The national testing programme was launched in November 1996, on the occasion of the International Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development held in Ghent, Belgium and hosted by the Governments of Belgium and Costa Rica.  The countries attending the meeting reviewed and endorsed the guidelines for national testing.  The guidelines essentially provided suggested testing procedures, including modalities for its organization, implementation options, assessment and evaluation methods, institutional support and capacity building, and reporting requirements. 

Twenty-two (22) countries covering all regions of the world participated, on a voluntary basis, in the testing process.  By regions, the testing countries were:

 Table 1: Testing Countries 

In addition to the official testing countries, a number of countries (Canada, Nigeria, Switzerland, and the United States, among others) were affiliated with the process through voluntary sharing of information, participation in meetings and other forms of exchange of expertise.  The Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) prepared a test compilation of 54 CSD indicators drawing on statistical data existing within the European Community. This pilot study was produced as an official publication of the European Communities in 1997.  Eurostat provided invaluable technical and substantive support throughout the CSD Work Programme and latest produced a publication containing the CSD indicators for the European level[1]. 

Countries were requested to provide periodic reports on the testing phase to the DSD for analysis and for circulation to members of the Expert Group and testing countries.  A format for reporting on the progress of national testing was issued in 1997 to facilitate the submission of consistent and detailed information that would allow for a final revision of the indicators and related methodologies.  The reports of all the testing countries can be found on the Secretariat web site at: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/isd.htm. 

Most of the testing countries adopted different approaches to the testing exercise, ranging from plain evaluation of data availability for all or a few selected indicators to embarking  on the whole process of developing their own independent set of national indicators while using the CSD indicators as a point of reference.  Nevertheless, the majority of the countries aligned their processes with the CSD Testing Guidelines while others integrated the guidelines into their own unique design.   

All the testing countries employed participatory implementation strategies.  This is evident in the respective institutional arrangements chosen by countries as the coordinating mechanism for the testing process. The majority of the countries adopted highly integrated multi-stakeholder strategies involving government ministries, NGOs, academia and relevant business organizations (as in the case of the Philippines, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Maldives, United Kingdom) while others confined the process within government ministries (as in the case of China, Austria, Belgium, Brazil).    

Within these national coordinating bodies, most of the countries also created working groups, expert teams and committees that focused on the indicator work.  The formation of an Indicator network (for instance, in South Africa and Finland) was also found useful in fostering the integration of ministries and research institutions.    

Several countries also experimented with “twinning” where two or more countries agreed to either engage in mutual exchange of information and experience in indicator development (e.g., South Africa and Finland) or where one country provided significant technical and financial support to another participating country (France and Tunisia).  These arrangements provided an excellent platform for information exchange and sharing of expertise creating win-win situations with the involved countries achieving a wider knowledge base.  

Midway through the implementation of the testing programme, a global meeting of testing countries was hosted by the government of the Czech Republic in Prague in January 1998.  The meeting took stock of the progress of implementation and discussed ways to improve the process and ultimately the results of the programme. 

Phase 3 (January 1999 - December 2000) – Lessons Learned 

(a)      Evaluation of the Testing Results and Indicator Set

The testing phase was officially concluded in December 1999 with the International Workshop on CSD Indicators of Sustainable Development, hosted by the Government of Barbados, and supported by the Government of Germany and DSD.  This meeting provided the forum for the assessment of the CSD indicators of sustainable development, their applicability and usefulness in supporting national decision-making; and served as a venue for exchange of information at the national, regional and global level on sustainability indicators and their practical use. 

All relevant information on the testing programme including country reports was compiled and organized into a database (CSD ISD Database).  This database served as an analytical tool for reviewing testing results, the indicator framework and the working list of indicators. 

Many countries pointed out that the testing process was, in general, a successful exercise.  The highly participatory approach adopted by countries in the testing exercise not only heightened awareness of the value and importance of indicators but also increased levels of understanding on sustainable development issues.  Moreover, the testing has reportedly inspired the launching of other indicator initiatives and has tied many players together. 

In many cases, making use of existing structures, such as national committees or councils for sustainable development was seen as useful in organizing the national coordinating mechanism.  On the other hand, in some countries, the testing of indicators acted as a positive catalyst in the establishment of new mechanisms for coordinating both the indicators programmes and the formulation of sustainable development strategies and has demonstrated the potential of collaboration and cooperation in advancing the goals of sustainable development. 

 The involvement of major groups and stakeholders had been found effective in achieving the full integration of user perspectives in the identification of national sustainable development priorities and corresponding indicators.  Many developing countries, NGOs, the private sector and other major groups have already been involved in the national coordinating committees for environment and sustainable development, and their participation gave impetus to the national testing process.   

It was also noted that when high-level policymakers have been involved and are genuinely committed to sustainable development, the work on indicators progressed more rapidly. 

Notwithstanding the aforementioned successes, several institutional constraints affected the implementation of the testing, such as, limitations on the availability of financial and human resources; difficulty in mobilizing the relevant experts and stakeholders, lack of coordination between statistical agencies and the indicator focal point, low level of awareness among stakeholders, low level of commitment on the part of participating institutions, competing work demands and government leadership transitions that resulted in discontinuities in the implementation of the indicator process.   This called for beefing up capacity-building programs in the form of human resource and organizational development.  A strong human resource base is central to the multi-stakeholder process as are properly coordinated and highly committed institutional mechanisms.  

Time as well as financial constraints also affected the testing undertaken in some countries.  In view of the need to go by the rather strict timetables of the testing process, adjustments had to be made on the degree and level of consultations.    

To be more successful, it was also felt that the indicator programme should be viewed and treated as a more permanent programme that is closely linked with national reporting to the CSD and integrated with the development of national policy. 

(b)      The Working List of Indicators 

Testing results showed that sustainable development indicators clearly have potential for assisting in national decision-making.  Countries reported to have used or planned to use the indicators to: 

      ·     bring important issues to the political agenda;
·     help to identify main trends in priority sectors;
·     facilitate reporting on the state of sustainable development to decision-makers and the general public, both domestic and international;
·    promote national dialogue on sustainable development;
·     help to assess the fulfillment of governmental goals and targets, and in the revision of these goals and targets;
·     facilitate the preparation and monitoring of plans;
·    help to assess the performance of both policies and actions when implementing the plans;
·    state the concept of sustainable development in practical terms; and
·     focus the national and sectoral programmes and state budgets towards sustainability.

             As can be expected, not all of the indicators in the working list were found relevant in the context of a testing country.  In selecting the applicable indicators, most countries, engaged in a process of prioritising the indicators in relation to national goals using relevant criteria such as:  availability and accessibility of data, usefulness and policy relevance.  In general, however, the testing countries found the working list to be a good starting point for identifying options from which they could choose national indicators. 

While testing had been carried out at the national level, it was nonetheless perceived to have an international context taking into account the mandate of CSD and the structure and content of the methodology sheets which describe commonly accepted methodologies, internationally harmonized terminology and internationally compatible classification systems. The primary goal of the indicator programme, however, is to develop a means to assist national decision-making.  On the other hand, it is considered that a good indicator system should be able to reflect the specific issues and conditions of a country or a region but should nevertheless be harmonized internationally to the extent possible. 

Some countries reflected in their reports the problem of establishing the link between national strategies and the indicators.  This was particularly true for countries that had commenced their indicator programmes in the absence of an integrated sustainable development strategy.  It is hoped that this will change as more countries develop national sustainability plans and the use of indicators of sustainable development gains momentum as a national planning tool.   

Testing countries, however, also felt that improvements could be made both regarding the indicators and the methodology sheets.  While the methodology sheets for the indicators were found particularly useful in drawing attention to improving the availability of data for monitoring the implementation of Agenda 21, a call was made for establishing more concrete and clearly defined concepts for the indicators. 

Testing countries proposed to develop indicators to cover areas that had not been addressed in the testing such as: reef conservation and the health of reef ecosystems and specific coastal issues; energy; biotechnology; trade and environment; safeguarding of cultural heritage; social and ethical values; human resource development; under-employment; expatriate labour force; natural resource accounting; and capacity-building.   

Most countries, nonetheless, shared the view that the final list of indicators should be short, focused, pragmatic and flexible so that it could be adapted to country-specific conditions. 

(c)      Revising the Framework and Indicator List 

Guided by the reports from the testing countries and continuing expert discussions on the indicators and the framework, the DSD began, in early 1999, the process of defining the appropriate measures to take in the light of the various concerns raised during the implementation of the work programme.   

At its fifth meeting in April 1999, the Expert Group on Indicators of Sustainable Development discussed midstream actions to prepare for the conclusion of the work programme.  The Group addressed the following issues:  inclusion of new areas identified as priorities by the testing countries; deletion of issues less reported on by countries; possible revision of the DSR framework; selection of criteria for the core set of indicators and furthering the testing in selected countries.   

While the DSR approach proved useful in organizing the indicators and the testing process as well, the Expert group felt that there was need to refocus the indicator framework to emphasize policy issues or main themes as recommended by a number of countries.  It was felt that re-designing the indicator framework in this manner would make the value of indicator use more obvious and thereby help stimulate increased Government and civil society involvement in the use and testing of indicators.  Following this resolution, a study was undertaken to design a theme-based indicator approach.  

The resulting organization presents the indicators under four major dimensions, further broken down into themes and sub-themes.  The determination of the major areas, themes and sub-themes was based on a broad range of information, the major ones of which were the reports of the testing countries and international initiatives that have measured or conceptualised sustainability.  The testing reports were analysed to generate the following information:  priorities that each country stated in order to achieve sustainable development, CSD indicators tested, considering why they tested them and what problems they had in the process, new indicators proposed and the criteria used by each country in the indicator selection. This is described in greater detail in Section III below.  

Regarding other major international initiatives on indicator development, every effort was made to work towards convergence between the CSD effort and those of other organizations and agencies. Information was therefore analysed taking into account the goals identified by each international initiative and the indicators selected to measure progress towards those goals.  

(d)           Linkages and Aggregation  

The Secretariat has initiated work on the linkages and aggregation of sustainable development indicators. An overview of the major initiatives in this area was produced as a Background Paper for the Ninth Session of the CSD in April 2001[2]. 

CHAPTER 3:  GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING A NATIONAL PROGRAMME OF INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 

         The following guidance is intended to help countries in setting up their own national indicator programmes as a basis for monitoring the achievement of key national goals and objectives for sustainable development, using the framework and methodologies provided herein. These guidelines were used and enhanced by the 22 countries that volunteered to participate in the indicator pilot testing phase over a three-year period. To learn more of how countries have interpreted the guidelines as a starting point for national programmes please refer to Annex 3. 

         Procedures for the Development, Testing and Use of Indicators 

         The procedures and processes to be followed in developing, testing and using indicators of sustainable development will vary from country to country, depending on country specific conditions, national priorities and objectives, available infrastructure, expertise and the availability of data and other information for decision-making.  Because the process requires the allocation of human and financial resources, a pragmatic, cost-effective approach is essential.   

         The following procedural issues are addressed: Organization; Implementation; Assessment and Evaluation;  Institutional Support and Capacity Building; and Reporting. 

         3.1     Organization 

         The underlying theme of sustainable development is the integration of economic, social environmental issues in decision and policy making at all levels.  This integration implies the involvement of virtually all traditional sectors of economic and government activity, such as economic planning, agriculture, health, energy, water, natural resources, industry, education and the environment, and so forth, according to the principal ministries of government.  The assumption of integration is reflected in the indicators of sustainable development, which contain social, economic, environmental and institutional indicators, and should be taken up in mechanisms for institutional integration, such as national sustainable development councils, committees, and task forces as well as national strategies for sustainable development.  This fundamental approach to sustainable development should be kept in mind in developing, testing and using indicators. 

         In many countries, responsibility for monitoring the achievement of national goals and objectives, including data collection, compilation and analysis of information resides in a number of institutions, including national statistical offices, sectoral ministries and national commissions for sustainable development.  Responsibility may also be shared by governmental and non-governmental actors, and it may be supported by national, bilateral and international programmes and activities. 

         A coordination mechanism for the development of a national programme on indicators may be needed to facilitate networking amongst interested partners.  The national coordinating mechanism could take a variety of forms depending on each countries’ needs and requirements. It could be set up as a Task Force, Working Group or a Committee, among other possibilities.  It should, however, build upon and utilize already existing institutional arrangements and experience and should be flexible and transparent making use of the widest possible consultation and participation among all stakeholders involved.  It should therefore involve among others, those ministries with programmes relevant to Agenda 21 (for example, Ministries of Planning, Health, Agriculture, Industry, Social Development and the Environment, among others) as well as those agencies charged with data collection, compilation and analysis in the country.  

         The national coordinating mechanism might usefully include officials from the national delegation to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, when possible, or representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  Members of the scientific community could be included to provide technical support and expertise and linkage with other international or national programmes related to indicators of sustainable development.   

         Representation from national-level information activities sponsored by UN system organizations, such as the United Nations Development Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the UN Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT), could also be included. 

         For countries that cooperate or “twin” with another country in developing indicators, it might also be useful to establish a bilateral committee, either as a subsidiary of the national coordinating mechanism or as a related entity.  Twinning arrangements could include a broad exchange of views, learning from each other and supporting each other in setting up, starting and implementing the monitoring process. 

         Each national coordinating mechanism may wish to appoint a National Focal Point who would serve as the point of contact and liaison between members of the national coordinating mechanism. The Focal Point will be part of the national coordinating mechanism and serve to facilitate cooperation and communication among all participants.  The focal point should be someone who can marshall the respect and commitment of the various cooperating ministries. 

         UN System organizations with indicator-related expertise at the country level could also be enlisted to assist the work of the national coordinating body. 

         3.2.     Implementation 

         Before beginning implementation of the development phase, the national coordinating mechanism may, as a first step, wish to determine the current status of indicator use in the country.  This includes, for example: 

§       determining which indicators are already being used within the country, by whom they are used, for what purposes and the degree of parallels with the CSD approach;  and

§       reviewing data already being collected for indicators or other uses, by whom, where and its availability. 

         An important step in the development process is to make clear the relationship between national priorities and strategies and the indicators to be selected for testing.  The initial stages of implementation might then include the following: 

§       specifying a number of selected priority issues identified in the national strategy and selecting indicators from the CSD list that correspond to those priorities, and selecting country-specific indicators not identified in the CSD list, as needed; 

§       matching the Apriority@ indicators selected with the list of indicators already in use in the country;  

§       assessing data availability for those Apriority@ indicators for which data are not already being collected; 

§       establishing necessary arrangements to collect the missing data, where possible, which may include modifying current data compilation arrangements where necessary;  

§       making an initial evaluation of any training and other capacity-building that may be needed to collect that data and to perform other functions required by the testing process;  

§       collecting and/or compiling data needed for the indicators selected; and 

§       developing a strategy for dissemination of indicator information to stakeholders (e.g., via annual reporting, headline indicators, news letters or bulletins). 

         3.3.     Assessment and Evaluation  

         Assessment is a continuous process and should take place throughout the development phase and include members from ministries, experts, the scientific community and other sectors of civil society, as appropriate.  It should focus, inter alia, on the technical, decision-making and institutional/capacity building issues outlined below: 

Technical Issues:        -  the usefulness of the methodology sheets for developing the indicators;

-  the availability of data for the indicators and the source, continuity, delivery and  reliability of that data;

                                   -   the data product; that is, the medium (e.g., print or electronic; short summaries,        reports, or comprehensive publications) through which  the analytical information is conveyed to the decision-makers; and

                                   -   planning for the short, medium – and long term data development.  

Decision-Making Issues:         -  the usefulness of the indicators for national decision-makers;

-  the analysis of the data into concise, policy-relevant information; and

                                                -  the use to which the decision-maker puts the information.  

Institutional Support and
Capacity-Building Issues:       -  the need for training;

                                                -  the need for institutional support for data collection and analysis;

                                                -  other capacity-building needs for the development of a national indicator programme; and

                                   -   an evaluation of the twinning process, where relevant, and of other international and bilateral cooperation of relevance to indicators of sustainable development.  

         3.4.     Reporting 

         The national coordinating mechanism and the Focal Point may wish to establish a government web site or mechanism for regular reporting on progress during various phases of the indicator development work. This would provide a ready means of communicating results and obtaining feedback from the various participants. Regular meetings should also be held by the coordinating body during the course of its work.  Results, difficulties and problems may also be reported to the CSD Secretariat in terms of any advice or support that the Secretariat may be able to provide.  

         At the end of the development phase, a final, comprehensive evaluation of the process may be needed in order to make further adjustments to the national indicators and methodology sheets. The CSD Secretariat would welcome such reports as a means of further assessing changes and modifications that may be required in the programme.  The evaluation report could contain such items as:  

         A.      Introduction

                  1.       Background and objectives

                  2.       Identification of the users and relevance to national decision-making

                  3.       Institutional, organizational and resource arrangements for indicator development

                  4.       Experience with twinning, as applicable 

         B.      Identification and selection of the indicators

                  Description of the process through which the indicators were chosen, and the criteria for selection, including reference to:

                  1.       National strategies, targets and priorities

                  2.       Existing indicators and indicator programmes

                  3.       Data availability               

                  4.       Other parameters 

C.             Usefulness of the indicators

                  1.       Usefulness of the methodology sheets

                  2.       Relevance of the data product

                  3.       Development of linkages among the indicators, of national indicator frameworks and of aggregated indicators

                  4.       Comments and suggestions on changes and improvements                                   

         D.      Challenges

                  1.       Problems encountered in data availability, reliability and delivery

                  2.       Strengthening and training of human resources

                  3.       Other capacity-building needs

                  4.       Other 

         E.       Recommendation

CHAPTER 4: CSD CORE INDICATOR FRAMEWORK

A framework for organizing the selection and development of indicators is essential. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that any framework, by itself, is an imperfect tool for organizing and expressing the complexities and interrelationships encompassed by sustainable development.  Ultimately, the choice of a framework and a core set of indicators must meet the needs and priorities of users, in this case national experts, civil society groups and decision-makers responsible for the development and use of indicators to monitor progress towards sustainable development. It should be stressed that any country wishing to use indicators, in any systematic way, must develop its own programme drawing on the resources currently available. The CSD framework and core set of indicators outlined in this report provide a good starting point for such a national programme. 

The framework employed in the CSD work programme to guide the selection of sustainable development indicators has evolved from a driving force-state-response approach to one focusing on themes and sub-themes of sustainable development. This change in organizational framework has been prompted by the experience of countries that assisted CSD in testing and developing indicators of sustainable development. An expert group advising CSD, as well as the testing countries themselves, recommended the adoption of a theme approach. What follows is a brief history of this evolution and the rationale for the change to achieve a small core set of sustainable development indicators useful for decision-makers. 

The early indicator work under CSD organized the chapters of Agenda 21 under the four primary dimensions of sustainable development—social, economic, environmental, and institutional.[3] Within these categories, indicators were classified according to their driving force, state, and response characteristics; adopting a conceptual approach widely used for environmental indicator development. Table 2 illustrates the essence of this framework. The term driving force represents human activities, processes, and patterns that impact on sustainable development either positively or negatively. State indicators provide a reading on the condition of sustainable development, while response indicators represent societal actions aimed at moving towards sustainable development. This organizational framework was an important starting point for the identification and selection of indicators, and was used to present a preliminary list of sustainable development indicators in the United Nations publication Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies.[4] 

Table 2:  DSR Framework for Sustainable Development Indicators