Links to UN bodies

Links to site map

Main Links

    [an error occurred while processing this directive]

Indicators:
Fifth Expert Group Meeting, United States, New York, 7-8 April 1999

United Nations Division for Sustainable Development

Report of the Meeting

I. OPENING OF THE MEETING

The Chair of the meeting, Ms. JoAnne DiSano, Director of the Division for Sustainable Development (DSD), welcomed participants of the Fifth Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Sustainable Development, and informed participants of its objectives which were: 1) to take stock of the implementation of the Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development, 2) to discuss the interim results of the national testing of the working set of indicators, 3) to provide recommendations for the revision of the current framework, indicator set and related methodologies, 4) to provide guidance and recommend actions on how to further the national implementation of the testing, 5) to discuss the outcome of the study on linkages and aggregation prepared by Ms. Isabelle Guinomet, and 6) to provide recommendations for follow-up to initiatives on aggregation and linkages of sustainable development indicators in the context of the CSD work programme.

The Proposed Agenda and Organization of Work were adopted by the Expert Group.

Annexes to this report include: Annex 1: Agenda and Annex 2: List of Participants.

II. STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CSD WORK PROGRAMME ON INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

DSD gave a brief overview of the activities undertaken since the Fourth Expert Group Meeting in October 1997. Activities included a global meeting of the testing countries hosted by the Czech Republic in January 1998 which, together with testing reports received from participating countries till the end of 1998, had served as inputs to the technical paper prepared by DSD and presented to the Expert Group. It was stressed that the testing results should be seen as indicative only, as the paper is based on results received from a limited number of countries which had all approached the testing process differently. It was highlighted that, though the testing had been successfully implemented in many countries, challenges are still great in others and include both political and technical issues such as lack of adequate mandate and focus on the use of the indicators work in the decision-making process; lack of human and technical resources; and, time constraints of the testing phase while requiring coordination among a large number of institutions and interest groups.

DSD informed the Expert Group that, in response to a recommendation of the last expert group meeting, a study had been commissioned on possible aggregation and linkages of sustainable development indicators, co-sponsored by Eurostat. A first version was completed in January 1999 in close cooperation with the Expert Group. Part of the expert group meeting would be dedicated to discussing the outcome and possible follow-up activities related hereto.

Additional work undertaken, include the DSD programme on indicators for changing production and consumption patterns, for which 3 draft methodology sheets were made available to the Expert Group for comments. Furthermore, UNSD has started the compilation of selected environmental indicators from the CSD set. Future activities include the upcoming revision of the indicator set and methodologies based on the recommendations developed at this meeting. It was stressed that a very strict time frame applied for the revision process and that recommendations therefore should be kept realistic in their scope and proposed resource requirements.

III. INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNICAL PAPER ON THE TESTING OF CSD INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Paul Rump introduced and commented on the technical paper prepared by the DSD which consolidated the interim testing results. It was emphasized, that all opportunities should be taken to reinforce, clarify and disseminate the purpose and goal of the testing programme and strengthen the testing implementation while making use of twinning arrangements, where feasible. He pointed out the requirement for technical and financial support to facilitate capacity-building with respect to information systems and proposed that a task force of interested organizations involved in these kinds of activities be requested to broker indicator development partnerships between suitable developing countries and supporting national and international institutions.

With respect to guiding criteria for national indicator selection, it was stressed that although availability of data is an important factor, this should not drive the process. It was also stressed, that while no framework will be a perfect tool, it is an important reference to guide an indicator programme and that the Driving Force - State - Response approach adopted by the CSD should be sharpened to focus on the goals and issues of sustainable development. It was proposed that redundant and yes/no type indicators be removed from the current list of indicators, and that the more detailed sectoral indicator sets with relevance to the CSD approach only be referenced in the documentation for further examination by interested countries.

IV. WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS ON THE FRAMEWORK, INDICATORS AND NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION

After a morning of introductions and updates regarding the programme, the participants broke into two parallel working groups for further discussions. The two groups were facilitated by Ms. Anne Kerr, Environment Canada and Mr. Jeff Tschirley, FAO. Participants were asked to focus on a number of questions, such as: inclusion of new areas identified as priorities by the testing countries; deletion of issues less reported on by countries; how the set could allow for regional differences while maintaining the concept of a core set of indicators; possible revision of the Driving Force - State - Response approach and the indicator selection criteria; consistency with other international approaches to SD indicator development, and; furthering of the testing implementation in selected countries. The results of the group and subsequent plenary discussions are highlighted in section VIII of the report containing conclusions and recommendations.

V. TECHNICAL COOPERATION WITH TESTING COUNTRIES

DSD informed the Expert Group of its current activities in the area. DSD is working with the Governments of Barbados, Maldives and Costa Rica to develop a technical cooperation programme based on "twinning" between Barbados and Maldives with institutional support from Costa Rica. Under the proposed format, a preliminary mission would be sent to the Maldives in order to assess the country's understanding of, and approach to, sustainable development, and to identify key individuals to participate in subsequent training. The mission team would include at least one person, possibly from Costa Rica, with experience in implementing a coordinated, approach to SDI. In parallel with the mission, a Barbados counterpart will canvass all organizations (including national and local government, NGO and private sector) to identify some 50 - 80 individuals to participate in a domestic training programme.

In order to provide the basis for specific elements of the training programme, it is proposed that an expert from Eurostat would be sent on mission to Barbados for two to three months in order to acquire a detailed understanding of the country's capacity related to information collection, flow and access at the national level. It is possible that one or two information counterparts from Maldives would assist in this activity, in order to receive the skills and understanding required to conduct future in-country training in the Maldives.It is expected that the workshop in Barbados would focus on evaluating the implications of specific sustainable development indicators (chosen as national priorities) in relation to information requirements and institutional capacity-building. In this context, the institutional expert(s) from Costa Rica, in conjunction with the Eurostat expert, would provide both a framework for implementing a successful SDI programme as well as the information system necessary to accompany such a programme. The participants from the Maldives, augmented by other key stakeholders from the Maldives, would thus receive sufficient training to implement that country's own sustainable development programme.

The Expert Group expressed willingness to cooperate where possible and in particular WHO offered that the national WHO offices might assist with data collection for indicators for which they assume the Lead Agency role.

VI. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ON LINKAGES AND AGGREGATION

The study was introduced by its author, Ms. Isabelle Guinomet, who thanked the Expert Group for its cooperation in reviewing the first round of abstracts and providing elaborate comments on the typology and content of the report. It was stressed that this first version was finalized within a limited time frame and did not attempt to be comprehensive in coverage and analysis but rather a first look at available initiatives for which information was readily available. It was noted that recommendations from the Expert Group would be essential in deciding next steps and future work priorities.

VII. GROUP DISCUSSIONS ON ON LINKAGES AND AGGREGATION

Participants broke into two parallel working groups to discuss the following two main issues: First, whether the DSD in cooperation with the Expert Group at this time should devote efforts to work towards linked or aggregated measures into the revised set of indicators, and second, whether the study by Ms. Guinomet should be further developed to supplement the CSD indicator approach. The results of the group and subsequent plenary discussions are highlighted in the following section (VIII) of the report.

VIII. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations are organized under two main headings (Results of National Testing, and Study on Linkages and Aggregation) with the main conclusions and recommendations set out for each of the key issues discussed by the Expert Group.

Results of the National Testing

A. INDICATORS FRAMEWORK

Conclusions:

Although there is no ideal framework for organizing indicators to assess progress towards sustainable development, the Driving Force - State - Response approach (DSR) is a useful organizational tool and can be supplemented with other tools. The use of the DSR is compatible with the use of organizing principles that focus on policy and/or thematic issues.

While the main purpose of the CSD programme on indicators of sustainable development is to help countries assess progress at the national level, countries at the same time face the need to report internationally on a wide variety of sustainable development issues.

Recommendations:

The Expert Group felt there is a need to re-focus the indicator framework to emphasize policy issues or main themes while incorporating the DSR approach and ensuring flexibility in the adaptation of the framework at the national level. It should be emphasized to countries that the framework is a guide for action and can be changed and adapted to meet national requirements.

A principal criterion for the inclusion of new issues and themes should be the political priorities identified by the CSD, particularly those related to the new programme of work adopted at the Earth Summit+5 in 1997. Energy, tourism, transport and vulnerability are examples. The Expert Group agreed to provide inputs to the draft issues/themes list when circulated electronically by DSD.

A "Why, what and possible how handbook" to supplement the methodology sheets would be helpful to countries to explain the purposes of the framework and related indicators and methodologies, to provide guidance and to suggest useful experience from other countries in the national use of indicators. Examples from the testing countries could be particularly relevant. The UNEP Sourcebook on State of the Environment Reporting is an example of a handbook.

B. CORE INDICATORS:

Recommendations:

As envisaged in the original work plan, the current list of 134 indicators should be used to develop a core set of indicators, after the indicators and methodology sheets have been reviewed at the end of the national testing phase. The entire set of indicators should consist of a recommended core set plus a larger (or nested) group of indicators that would be available to countries to select from in designing their own national indicator programmes, and, as appropriate, in monitoring progress related to international agreements and objectives. The core set would be a minimum number of indicators which all countries will be encouraged to use as the baseline for their national indicator programmes for monitoring sustainable development.

Criteria would need to be developed for selection of the indicators to be included in the core set. These might include such elements as (1) the existing criteria used for selecting the original 134 indicators (2) their coverage of common priority issues, (3) their compatibility with other international indicator sets, (4) indicators which testing countries have found particularly useful and (5) creating a balance of sustainable development issues within the set.

Additional issues were identified for further work and consideration, including risk management, eco-efficiency, total materials requirement (TMR) and scale aggregation. Further work, examination and discussion amongst the Expert group is required on these issues.

C. INCLUSION OF OTHER ISSUES:

Conclusion:

New areas have been identified that may need to be included in the revised set of indicators. For example, the IAEA is currently finishing the revised set of indicators for Chapter 22: Safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes. On-going work within the DESA on consumption and production patterns as well as work on environmental indicators may need to be included in the revised list of indicators. Other interesting initiatives to be explored include the work of the ADB and EBRD on sustainability indicators, the work of major NGOs and the initiative of the Consultative Group coordinated by IISD.

Recommendation:

The institutional indicators included in the current list need to be revised and expanded to better reflect the role of institutional mechanisms in sustainable development. Members of the Expert Group from the World Bank, Wuppertal Institute, IISD, RIVM and ESCAP agreed to convene an electronic-mail working group to discuss how to improve the institutional indicators in the CSD set.

D. REVISION OF THE METHODOLOTY SHEETS

Recommendation:

The methodology sheets will need to be revised based on comments received from the testing countries and be oriented to the framework that is ultimately adopted, for example the thematic or policy approach or in combination with the DSR approach. Technical elements may need to be updated to include new definitions, new or changed targets and other relevant information to ensure continued applicability. This may include comparison with other existing methodology sheets for the same or comparable indicator in other programmes. Where major substantive revisions are required, the methodology sheets should be forwarded to the Lead Agency for their review and comments as appropriate.

E. HARMONIZATION

Conclusions:

There are a considerable number of international indicator initiatives within and outside the UN which has lead to an increased reporting burden on countries. The Expert Group regard it as important to harmonize and rationalize these efforts.

Gaps in key data sets continue to constrain efforts to develop appropriate indicators of sustainable development.

The Global Observing System offers a unique opportunity for countries to use their existing data and information more effectively at national, regional and global levels

Recommendations:

The CSD core set should be consistent, to the extent possible, with other international indicator initiatives, bearing in mind the need to cover the four main dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, environmental and institutional.

International organizations should cooperate to streamline and harmonize reporting requirements in order to limit duplication and overlap.

F. NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TESTING

Conclusions:

The value added of the CSD process is the development of a sound indicator framework and methodologies to support national monitoring of progress towards sustainable development.

In many countries the testing of indicators has been a useful mechanism to stimulate discussion on national sustainable development priorities.

Countries face human and/or capital resource constraints in advancing the national testing of indicators. There is an urgent need to further the testing process in those countries where the testing has lagged behind because of such constraints.

Twinning arrangements such as between France and Tunisia have proven to be effective in advancing the national implementation of the testing and should be further developed.

Re-designing the indicators framework to focus on themes or issues can help to stimulate Government and civil society involvement in the use and testing of indicators of sustainable development and make the added value of indicator use more obvious.

Recommendation:

Assisting in the national implementation of the testing could include: (1) Providing a handbook that will further explain the different elements of indicators selection and possible uses illustrating the flexibility and adaptability to national concerns, (2) Exploring funding possibilities through bilateral arrangements such as twinning or funding by international agencies and foundations that support this type of work, (3) Exploring ways to draw upon the UN agencies and the Expert Group to promote implementation, (4) Fostering discussion of the programme at a high political level, by encouraging countries to use the CSD indicators in their national presentations and reports to the CSD and other international fora.

G. STUDY ON LINKAGES AND AGGREGATIONS

Conclusions:

The Expert Group felt that the study provided a very useful starting point, although it recognized several limitations that should be addressed in any further development of the report, such as the need to clarify certain underlying concepts, the need to identify the criteria used for inclusion of studies and the scope of the universe from which studies are selected. While there was some view that the study should be made available on the Internet where it could be updated in a dynamic way, there was agreement that no posting should take place until further revision is made in the explanatory section of the study and in the individual project profiles. In this regard, members of the Expert Group agreed to provide the CSD Secretariat with additional information on the various initiatives reflected in the study.

Many participants felt that the terminology "Linkages and Aggregations" is not entirely clear or sufficiently encompassing. These specific issues fall within a broader framework or set of issues (e.g., scaling, spatial representation, tools for assessing risk, common measurement units and use of weighting) related to the use of indicators to support decision-makers at the national level and how these utilize the information generated by indicator sets. This is related to integrating a mix of methods and the development of synoptic indicators in ways that are meaningful to decision-makers.

Recommendations:

Further work on linkages and aggregation should be connected to the development of the indicator framework and the identification of themes and core indicators. The identification of themes and core indicators may help guide how indicators are linked and how they can be aggregated based on the themes to which they pertain. Testing the link/aggregation structure against a few themes should be undertaken and would have the benefit of identifying gaps and commonalities in the core set of indicators.

The study on linkages and aggregation should be updated and separated in two volumes. The first volume should contain the introductory section addressing why and what issues including an explanatory section which clarifies concepts and terminology, explains why CSD is dealing with the issue, sets out the criteria for the selection of methods and rationalizes the balance of initiatives to reflect sustainability issues. The second volume for development at a later stage could contain the different initiatives as examples of some relevant methodologies on how to aggregate, and could be made accessible on the Internet.

H. FUTURE WORK

Conclusions:

Based on the experience of several countries, it is clear that they are interested in having a core set of indicators as well as working toward the development of linkages and aggregation in key areas. Broad based voluntary national implementation and testing of indicators should continue.

Key areas of future work should continue to include (1) updating of policy issue and themes for revision of the indicators, (2) refinement of the core set of indicators, (3) harmonize and standardize methodologies and their capture in written form, and (4) strengthening data collection to support indicators, including assessing national capacities.

IX. OTHER BUSINESS (FUTURE MEETINGS)

DSD announced the preliminary plans to convene a meeting of the testing countries before the end of this year to discuss and evaluate the national testing phase. It is furthermore anticipated that a final meeting of the Expert Group will be convened in early 2000 to finalize the revised framework, indicator set and any changes to the related methodology sheets.

DSD reminded participants of the CSD session in 2001 focusing on Chapter 40 of Agenda 21: Information for Decision-Making, and encouraged the Expert Group to provide any inputs or suggestions to its preparation and content of discussion, as they arise.

It was proposed that countries be encouraged to use CSD indicators and relevant information systems in their reporting to the Ninth Session of the CSD as well as in the 10 year review of Agenda 21 to take place in 2002.

Meeting Details