INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
GUIDELINES
AND
METHODOLOGIES
PREFACE
The present publication represents the outcome of a work programme on
indicators of sustainable development approved by the Commission on
Sustainable Development at its Third Session in 1995.
The successful completion of the work programme is the result of an
intensive effort of collaboration between governments, international
organizations, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations and
individual experts aimed at developing a set of indicators for sustainable
development for use at the national level.
The thematic framework, guidelines, methodology sheets and indicators
set out in this publication have thus benefited from this extensive network of
cooperation and consensus building.
This has been an iterative process built on the work of many other
organizations and entities that have been concerned with developing a set of
indicators that could help us better understand the various dimensions of
sustainable development and the complex interactions that takes place between
these dimensions. This
publication should be a seen as a starting point and flexible tool to assist
those countries that may wish to develop their own national programmes for
using indicators to measure progress towards nationally defined goals and
objectives for sustainable development.
The purpose
of this publication is to stimulate and support further work, testing and
development of indicators, particularly by national governments.
No set of indicators can be final and definitive, but must be developed
and adjusted over time to fit country-specific conditions, priorities and
capabilities. It is our hope that
countries will take advantage of the useful information and practical
experience represented by this publication to further advance the work on
indicators of sustainable development by adding their own unique perspectives
to what already has been learned. We look forward to including your experience in our database
of information on the development and use of indicators of sustainable
development.
On behalf of
the United Nations, I would like to thank all of those organizations, agencies
and individuals who have contributed their time and effort to make this
publication possible.
JoAnne
DiSano
Director
Division for Sustainable Development
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1: Introduction
CHAPTER
2: Assessing Progress Towards
Sustainable Development
A.
The CSD Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development
B. Main Phases and Approaches to
Implementation
CHAPTER
3: Guidelines for Developing a
National Programme of Indicators of
Sustainable
Development
3.1
Organization
3.2
Implementation
3.3
Assessment and Evaluation
3.4
Reporting
CHAPTER
4: CSD Core Indicator Framework
4.1
Adoption of a Theme/Sub-theme Framework
4.2 Core
Indicators
4.3 Theme
Descriptions
4.3.1 Equity
4.3.2 Health
4.3.3 Education
4.3.4 Housing
4.3.5 Security
4.3.6 Population
4.3.7 Atmosphere
4.3.8 Land
4.3.9 Oceans,
Seas and Coasts
4.3.10 Freshwater
4.3.11 Biodiversity
4.3.12 Economic Structure
4.3.13 Consumption and
Production Patterns
4.3.14 Institutional
Framework
4.3.15 Institutional
Capacity
CHAPTER
5: Methodology Sheets
Social
Percent
of Population Living Below Poverty Line
Gini Index of Income Inequality
Unemployment Rate
Ratio of Average Female Wage to Male Wage
Nutritional Status of Children
Mortality Rate Under 5 Years Old
Life Expectancy at Birth
Percent of Population with Adequate Sewage Disposal Facilities
Population with Access to Safe Drinking Water
Percent of Population with Access to Primary Health Care Facilities
Immunization Against Infectious Childhood Diseases
Contraceptive Prevalence Rate
Children Reaching Grade 5 of Primary Education
Adult Secondary Education Achievement Level
Adult Literacy Rate
Floor Area Per Person
Number of Recorded Crimes per 100,000 Population
Population Growth Rate
Population of Urban Formal and Informal Settlements
Environmental
Emission
of Greenhouse Gases
Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances
Ambient Concentration of Air Pollutants in Urban Areas
Arable and Permanent Crop Land Areas
Use of Fertilizers
Use of Agricultural Pesticides
Forest Area as a Percent of Land Area
Wood Harvesting Intensity
Land Affected by Desertification
Area of Urban Formal and Informal Settlements
Algae Concentration in Coastal Waters
Percent of Total Population Living in Coastal Waters
Annual Catch by Major Species
Annual Withdrawals of Ground and Surface Water as a Percent of Total Renewable
Water
Biochemical Oxygen Demand in Water Bodies
Concentration of Faecal Coliform in Freshwater
Area of Selected Key Ecosystems
Protected Area as a Percent of Total Area
Abundance of Selected Key Species
Economic
Gross
Domestic Product Per Capita
Investment Share in Gross Domestic Product
Balance of Trade in Goods and Services
Debt to Gross National Product Ratio
Total Official Development Assistance Given or Received as a Percentage of
Gross National Product
Intensity of Material Use
Annual Energy Consumption Per Capita
Share of Consumption of Renewable Energy Resources
Energy Use Per Unit of GDP (Energy Intensity)
Intensity of Energy Use: Commercial/Service Sector
Intensity of Energy Use: Manufacturing
Intensity of Energy Use: Residential Sector
Intensity of Energy Use: Transportation
Generation of Industrial and Municipal Solid Waste
Generation of Hazardous Wastes
Generation of Radioactive Wastes
Waste Recycling and Reuse
Distance Travelled per Capita by Mode of Transport
Institutional
National
Sustainable Development Strategy
Implementation of Ratified Global Agreements
Number of Internet Subscribers per 1000 Inhabitants
Main Telephone Lines per 1000 Inhabitants
Expenditures on Research and Development as a Percent of Gross Domestic
Product
Human and Economic Loss due to Natural Disasters
REFERENCES
Annex
1:
International Goals, Targets, and Standards Related to Themes and
Sub-Themes
Of Indicators of Sustainable
Development
Annex 2: Core
Indicators and the Driving Force-State-Response Framework
Annex
3: National Testing Implementation Approaches
Table
2: DSR Framework for Sustainable Development Indicators Table
3: Key Themes Suggested by CSD Testing Countries Priorities
Table
4: CSD Theme Indicator Framework Table
5: Selection of CSD Indicators by Testing Countries |
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
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
Regions |
Countries |
Africa:
|
Ghana,
Kenya, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia |
Asia
and the Pacific: |
China,
Maldives, Pakistan, Philippines |
Europe: |
Austria,
Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, United Kingdom
|
Americas
and the Caribbean: |
Barbados,
Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, Venezuela |
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
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]
|
Chapter
of Agenda 21 |
Driving
Force Indicators |
State
Indicators |
Response
Indicators |
Social |
|
|
|
|
Economic
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental
|
|
|
|
|
Institutional
|
|
|
|
|
Using this framework, methodology sheets for
134 indicators were developed by UN lead agencies and others as a preliminary
working list for testing at the national level. Between 1996 and 1999, 22
countries from all regions of the world[5]
were engaged in the testing process on a voluntary basis to gain experience with
the selection and development of sustainable development indicators and to
assess their application and suitability to assist decision-making at the
national level. The testing enabled
countries to evaluate the appropriateness of the driving force-state-response
framework; use alternative and supplementary indicators appropriate for national
circumstances; and suggest additional indicators related to national priorities.
In 1999, the testing results were reported to CSD at its Seventh Session
and assessed at an International Workshop held in Barbados.[6]
Overall,
testing countries reacted favourably to the testing experience especially from a
capacity building perspective. However, countries made various comments and
suggestions related to the framework, the selection of indicators, and the
indicator methodology sheets. Some countries concluded that the driving
force-state-response framework, although suitable in an environmental context,
was not as appropriate for the social, economic, and institutional dimensions of
sustainable development. Furthermore, gaps in the framework where appropriate
indicators were unavailable hindered the selection of national indicator sets.
This is particularly apparent with respect to response indicators. A further
general reaction was that the working list of indicators was too long, which
made it difficult to test and develop all indicators in a national context.
4.1.
Adoption of a Theme/Sub-theme Framework
With
the background of the national testing experience and the overall orientation to
decision-making needs, the Expert Group on Indicators of Sustainable Development
recommended that the indicator framework be re-focused to emphasize policy
issues or main themes related to sustainable development.[7]
To meet this recommendation, the framework has been revised and
re-structured in an iterative and inclusive way through a consultant’s study,[8] the Barbados Workshop[9],
and a consultative group of experts.[10]
In
essence, the rationale for the theme
framework is to better assist national policy decision-making and performance
measurement. More specifically, the following factors guided the development of
the revised framework:
·
country recommendations;
·
the inclusion of common priority issues relevant to
assessing sustainable development progress;
·
the desire for comprehensiveness and balance across the
sustainable development spectrum, as reflected in Agenda 21; and
·
limiting the number of indicators to achieve a core set.
The
theme framework has been developed
to address the following considerations: future risks; correlation between
themes; sustainability goals; and basic societal needs.[11]
In addressing future risks, the framework becomes a proactive tool to
assist decision-making especially where quantitative thresholds are known.
Such sustainable development challenges, are reflected in many global,
regional, and national assessments, such as UNEP’s GEO-2000 report.[12]
A successful framework should reflect the connections between dimensions,
themes, and sub-themes. It should
implicitly reflect the goals of sustainable development to advance social and
institutional development, to maintain ecological integrity, and to ensure
economic prosperity. Such goals
echo basic human needs related to food, water, shelter, security, health,
education, and good governance. The
international community has established more specific benchmarks or targets for
many of the themes and sub-themes. These
reference levels are summarized in Annex 1.
Each
stage in the evolution of the
theme framework carefully considered testing country priorities and experiences.
A summary of these priorities, grouped according to the primary
dimensions of sustainable development, is provided in Table 3. It should be
noted that not all of these priorities are clearly reflected in the chapter
structure of Agenda 21. Such priorities include, for example, significant
sustainability elements such as crime, transportation, and energy.
Furthermore, it is clear that the framework cannot totally capture all
the themes or complexities of sustainable development. Users should be aware
that elements such as mining, tourism, groundwater quality, and biotechnology,
for example, are not specifically represented in the framework.[13]
For some of these areas, the primary difficulty lies in the absence of
suitable and meaningful indicators, supported by well-tested and accepted
methodologies for application at the national level.
In other cases, there was a practical desire to limit the total number of
indicators in the core set in order to be able to provide a synoptic overview of
sustainable development progress at the national level.
Social |
Environmental |
Education |
Freshwater/groundwater |
Employment |
Agriculture/secure
food supply |
Health/water
supply/sanitation |
Urban |
Housing |
Coastal
Zone |
Welfare
and quality of life |
Marine
environment/coral reef protection |
Cultural
heritage |
Fisheries |
Poverty/Income
distribution |
Biodiversity/biotechnology |
Crime |
Sustainable
forest management |
Population
|
Air
pollution and ozone depletion |
Social
and ethical values |
Global
climate change/sea level rise |
Role
of women |
Sustainable
use of natural resources |
Access
to land and resources |
Sustainable
tourism |
Community
structure |
Restricted
carrying capacity |
Equity/social
exclusion |
Land
use change |
Economic |
Institutional |
Economic
dependency/Indebtedness/ODA |
Integrated
decision-making |
Energy |
Capacity
building |
Consumption
and production patterns |
Science
and technology |
Waste
management |
Public
awareness and information |
Transportation |
International
conventions and cooperation |
Mining |
Governance/role
of civic society |
Economic
structure and development |
Institutional
and legislative frameworks |
Trade |
Disaster
preparedness |
Productivity |
Public
participation |
As a result
of this iterative process,
a final framework of 15 themes and 38 sub-themes has been developed to guide
national indicator development beyond the year 2001. It covers issues generally common to all regions and countries
of the world. It should be noted
that the organization of themes and sub-themes within the four dimensions of
sustainable development represents a ‘best-fit’ to guide the selection of
indicators. This does not mean that
issues should be considered exclusively within only one dimension. The social sub-theme of poverty, for example, has obvious and
significant economic, environmental, and institutional linkages.
The framework, together with the core set of sustainable development
indicators, is summarized in Table 4 below.
It is used to structure the methodology sheets for the core set of
indicators contained in chapter 5.
For
the full implementation of the
CSD Indicator Programme and to assist countries to adopt and use the revised
framework based on themes, it is important to note similarities and differences
with respect to the driving force-state-response framework used during the
testing phase. In the theme
approach:
Table
4: CSD Theme Indicator Framework
SOCIAL
|
||||
Theme
|
Sub-theme
|
Indicator
|
||
Equity
|
Poverty
(3) |
Percent
of Population Living below Poverty Line |
||
Gini
Index of Income Inequality |
||||
Unemployment
Rate |
||||
Gender
Equality (24) |
Ratio
of Average Female Wage to Male Wage |
|||
Health
(6) |
Nutritional
Status |
Nutritional
Status of Children |
||
Mortality |
Mortality
Rate Under 5 Years Old |
|||
Life
Expectancy at Birth |
||||
Sanitation |
Percent of Population with Adequate Sewage
Disposal Facilities |
|||
Drinking
Water |
Population
with Access to Safe Drinking Water |
|||
Healthcare
Delivery |
Percent of Population with Access to Primary
Health Care Facilities |
|||
Immunization
Against Infectious Childhood Diseases |
||||
Contraceptive
Prevalence Rate |
||||
Education (36) |
Education
Level |
Children
Reaching Grade 5 of Primary Education |
||
Adult
Secondary Education Achievement Level |
||||
Literacy |
Adult
Literacy Rate |
|||
Housing
(7) |
Living
Conditions |
Floor
Area per Person |
||
Security |
Crime
(36, 24) |
Number
of Recorded Crimes per 100,000 Population |
||
Population
(5) |
Population
Change |
Population
Growth Rate |
||
Population
of Urban Formal and Informal Settlements |
||||
ENVIRONMENTAL
|
||||
Theme
|
Sub-theme
|
Indicator
|
||
Atmosphere
(9) |
Climate
Change |
Emissions
of Greenhouse Gases |
||
Ozone Layer Depletion |
Consumption
of Ozone Depleting Substances |
|||
Air
Quality |
Ambient
Concentration of Air Pollutants in Urban Areas |
|||
Land
(10) |
Agriculture
(14) |
Arable
and Permanent Crop Land Area |
||
Use
of Fertilizers |
||||
Use
of Agricultural Pesticides |
||||
Forests
(11) |
Forest
Area as a Percent of Land Area |
|||
Wood
Harvesting Intensity |
||||
Desertification
(12) |
Land
Affected by Desertification |
|||
Urbanization
(7) |
Area
of Urban Formal and Informal Settlements |
|||
Coastal
Zone |
Algae
Concentration in Coastal Waters |
|||
Percent
of Total Population Living in Coastal Areas |
||||
Fisheries |
Annual
Catch by Major Species |
|||
Fresh Water (18) |
Water
Quantity |
Annual Withdrawal of Ground and Surface Water
as a Percent of Total Available Water |
||
Water
Quality |
BOD
in Water Bodies |
|||
Concentration
of Faecal Coliform in Freshwater |
||||
Biodiversity
(15) |
Ecosystem |
Area
of Selected Key Ecosystems |
||
Protected
Area as a % of Total Area |
||||
Species |
Abundance
of Selected Key Species |
|||
ECONOMIC |
||
Theme
|
Sub-theme
|
Indicator
|
Economic
Structure (2) |
Economic
Performance |
GDP
per Capita |
Investment
Share in GDP |
||
Trade |
Balance
of Trade in Goods and Services |
|
Financial
Status (33) |
Debt
to GNP Ratio |
|
Total
ODA Given or Received as a Percent of GNP |
||
Consumption and Production Patterns (4) |
Material
Consumption |
Intensity
of Material Use |
Energy
Use |
Annual
Energy Consumption per Capita |
|
Share
of Consumption of Renewable Energy Resources |
||
Intensity
of Energy Use |
||
Waste Generation and Management (19-22) |
Generation
of Industrial and Municipal Solid Waste |
|
Generation
of Hazardous Waste |
||
Generation
of Radioactive Waste |
||
Waste
Recycling and Reuse |
||
Transportation |
Distance
Traveled per Capita by Mode of Transport |
|
INSTITUTIONAL |
||
Theme
|
Sub-theme
|
Indicator
|
Institutional
Framework (38, 39) |
Strategic Implementation of SD (8) |
National
Sustainable Development Strategy |
International
Cooperation |
Implementation
of Ratified Global Agreements |
|
Institutional
Capacity (37) |
Information Access (40) |
Number
of Internet Subscribers per 1000 Inhabitants |
Communication
Infrastructure (40) |
Main
Telephone Lines per 1000 Inhabitants |
|
Science and Technology (35) |
Expenditure
on Research and Development as a Percent of GDP |
|
Disaster Preparedness and Response |
Economic
and Human Loss Due to Natural Disasters |
Numbers
in brackets indicate relevant Agenda 21 chapters.
4.2.
Core Indicators
Within
the context of the theme framework, the objective of selecting a minimum number
of indicators as a core set could be realized. Countries are encouraged to adopt
and use this set as a starting point for their national indicator programmes.
The core set is based on consultation with countries, particularly those
represented in the testing programme, lead agencies within and beyond the UN
system who have responsibilities for sustainable development including Agenda 21
implementation, and indicator experts. In addition, valuable guidance is provided by the results of
the indicator testing experience itself. Table
5 provides a summary of the selection of indicators used by countries during the
testing programme.
Indicators
Frequently Used |
Indicators
Used by Only One Country |
New
Indicators Suggested by Countries |
Population
growth rate |
Population
growth in coastal areas |
%
Population with access to health services |
Decentralized
natural resource management |
Crime
rate |
|
Domestic
per capita consumption of water |
Oil
discharges into coastal waters |
Incidence
of street children |
Land
use change |
Satellite
derived vegetation index |
Urban
green space |
Use
of fertilizers |
Welfare
of mountain populations |
Ground
water pollution |
Ratio
of threatened species to total native species |
Population
living below the poverty line in dryland areas |
Ratio
of mining area rehabilitated to total mining area |
Ambient
concentration of urban air pollutants |
Human
and economic loss due to natural disasters |
Area
of specific ecosystems |
Emissions
of greenhouse gases |
|
Ownership
of agricultural land |
Emissions
of sulphur dioxides |
Genuine
savings ratio |
|
Emissions
of nitrogen dioxides |
Traffic
density |
|
Annual
energy consumption |
Release
of GMOs |
With this background, the Consultative Group
conducted an in-depth analysis of potential indicators appropriate for the core
set.[17]
The Group vetted each indicator against selection criteria established
under the CSD Indicator Work Programme.[18]
These criteria are that the indicators should be:
In
applying the criteria, the Group relied particularly on the following factors
during the selection process: feasibility to measure; relevance to national
sustainable development priorities; and sub-theme representation.
Subsequently, the Group examined the number of indicators in each
sustainable development dimension, theme, and sub-theme to improve the balance
of the core set. Throughout this
analysis, emphasis was given to the use of absolute units for indicators
wherever possible. Absolute values
give a clear sense of what is being measured, and facilitate further analysis
including the development of time series.
In
summary, the theme framework and the core set have overcome many of the
difficulties experienced with the 1996 Indicators of Sustainable Development
Framework and Methodologies resource document used in the testing phase.
The indicators clearly reflect common priorities among national and
international issues. The number of
indicators in the core set has been considerably reduced from the suggested
preliminary list of indicators used in the testing phase.
In total, 58 indicators are included in the core set compared to the
original 134 presented by the 1996 publication. Problems associated with
duplication, lack of relevance and meaningfulness, and absence of tested and
widely accepted methodologies have largely been eliminated.
Those indicators retained in the core set represent a better balance of
the sustainable development themes common to national policy development,
implementation, and assessment needs. Nevertheless,
any suggested set of indicators must be adapted to country-specific conditions
and needs and be subject to revision and updating over time as new experience is
gained and new approaches and methodologies become available.
The
theme framework and its set of sustainable development indicators meets the CSD
indicator programme objective of having an agreed core set available for all
countries to use by the year 2001. Wherever
possible, the core indicators are common to other international initiatives. In
this way, the core set represents a sound launching pad for national governments
to develop their own indicator programmes and to monitor their own progress;
especially against the goals and objectives of national sustainable development
strategies and plans. It also
represents a common tool to assist governments in meeting international
requirements for reporting, including national reporting to CSD.
Wide adoption and use of the core set would help improve information
consistency at the international level.
As
noted, countries will need to exercise flexibility and judgment in their efforts
to develop national indicator sets for sustainable development.
In this context, it is important to emphasize that the core set is
considered sound and appropriate at this point in time.
As the testing process clearly demonstrated, the institutional area needs
further development and refinement in comparison to the other three dimensions.[19]
In addition, considerable care will need to be taken in the
interpretation of certain indicator trends in the context of sustainability
and linkages among themes. For
example, the use of agricultural pesticides as an indicator recognizes
the potential for enhanced productivity. Increased pesticide use, however, also
has implications for water quality. With
the indicator floor area per person, a decrease may imply overcrowding
and deteriorating living conditions, while an increase suggests a higher level
of material and energy consumption and land use.
In other cases, methodological deficiencies or data access may make it
difficult to develop a few of the indicators within certain countries, for
example mortality rate under five years old or intensity of material
use. In recognition of these difficulties, improvements will need to be
defined and tested, and the framework and indicators should be periodically
revisited and updated to reflect these advances.
Countries
are encouraged to use the framework and core indicators in the way that best
meets their specific needs related to sustainable development priority setting,
policy making, monitoring, and evaluation.
The framework and core set will play different roles depending on the
state of indicator development in a specific country. Countries may wish to use the core set as a starting point to
develop national sets, others may take the opportunity of using the core set to
broaden the focus for specific dimensions to achieve a more comprehensive
perspective on sustainable development. It
may be appropriate for others to use the core set as a benchmark to verify or
consolidate existing indicator programmes. It is unrealistic to expect that all the indicators of the
core set will be of equal relevance to all countries, recognizing their
diversity.
In
using the CSD framework, countries may wish to focus on the specific themes of
particular relevance to their needs, or expand the set of indicators to better
satisfy their requirements and circumstances.
Wherever possible, gender disaggregated data is recommended for the
compilation of core indicators, for example, percent of the population living
below the poverty line, Gini index of income inequality, unemployment rate, life
expectancy, school completion ratio, adult literacy and nutritional status of
children, among others. Countries
may also wish to disaggregate some of the indicators to better cover such
factors as age group or sub-national areas.
Small Island States, for example, will obviously want to focus on the
ocean-land interface, for example the issues of sea level rise, a limited
economic sphere, and fragile ecosystems; while mountainous countries would most
likely have different needs, requiring a somewhat modified set of indicators.
Many
countries have experience in using indicators relevant to sustainable
development. The use of these familiar measures should be encouraged to
supplement and expand the core set for priority national issues.
In other cases, countries may wish to supplement the core set with
specific indicators from other international initiatives or to include more
detailed sectoral indicators in some cases. Examples of pertinent Internet Web
sites that focus on indicator development include: Compendium of Sustainable
Development Indicator Initiatives and Publications
(http://iisd1.iisd.ca/measure/compendium.htm); Development Indicators (http://www.oecd.org/dac/Indicators/index.htm);
Environmental Economics and Indicators (http://www-esd.worldbank.org/eei); and
Recommendations for a Core Set of Indicators of Biological Diversity (hhtp://www.biodiv.org/doc/sbstta-5.html).
4.3. Theme Descriptions
4.3.1. Equity
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
|
Percent of
Population Living Below the Poverty Line |
Gini Index of
Income Inequality |
|
Unemployment Rate |
|
Ratio of Average
Female Wage to Male Wage |
Agenda
21 addresses equity in chapters on poverty, changing consumption patterns,
women, children and youth, and indigenous people.[20]
It is also a significant cross-cutting consideration in many of the
resource chapters including land, deforestation, desertification, sustainable
agriculture, and biological diversity. International
cooperation, fiscal mechanisms, education, capacity-building, access to
information, and technology transfer are approaches aimed at achieving greater
equity.
Many
international conventions and summits, in addition to the Earth Summit, have
addressed the importance of equitable treatment for individuals or groups.
These include the Vienna Declaration of Human Rights, the World Summit
for Children, the International Conference on Population and Development, the
Fourth World Conference on Women, and
the World Summit for Social Development, the Second Conference on Human
Settlements, and the International Convention to Combat Desertification.[21]
The following commitments, for example, are derived from the World Summit
for Social Development:
·
poverty eradication in the world;
·
full employment;
·
social integration including
equality of opportunity;
·
equality between women and men;
·
universal and equitable access to
quality education and primary health care; and
·
accelerated development in the
least developed countries.[22]
Despite
these commitments, it appears that the world community and the majority of its
member states are in many respects failing to achieve equitable societies, with
the gap between the well-off and the poor widening substantially even in some of
the more advanced countries. The spread of democracy and the development of
trade, technology, and communication represent potentially positive forces to
foster greater equity. Nevertheless,
according to the 1999 Human Development Report, increasing concentrations of
income, resources and wealth among people, corporations, and nations have
occurred over the past decade.[23]
Moreover, the income gap between the wealthiest 20% of the world’s
population and the poorest 20% has more than doubled over the last three
decades. Currently, more than 1
billion people in the world live in abject poverty.
According to the World Bank, the number of people living on less than $2
a day in developing and transitional economies increased about 10% between 1987
and 1998.[24]
Global capital flows are not helping to effectively address equity
disparities. Foreign direct
investments, for example, are highly concentrated, favouring selected countries
and regions.[25]
Indeed, if these trends persist, it is highly unlikely that international
targets with respect to poverty will be met.[26]
The
indicators in the core set cover the issues of poverty, income inequality,
unemployment, and gender equality. They
represent priority issues for countries and the international community.
The indicators are widely used, well-tested measures, associated with
established goals and targets. The
target of reducing the proportion of the population living in extreme poverty in
developing countries by half by 2015 was accepted at the World Summit for Social
Development. The Fourth World
Conference on Women called for the elimination of discriminatory practices in
employment. The general goal of
full employment to enable men and women to attain secure and sustainable
livelihoods was upheld at the World
Summit for Social Development, while many countries have more specific national
targets for unemployment.
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
Nutritional Status
of Children |
|
Mortality Rate
Under 5 Years Old |
|
Life Expectancy at
Birth |
|
Percent
of the Population with Adequate Sewage Disposal Facilities |
|
Population with
Access to Safe Drinking Water |
|
|
Percent
of the Population with Access to Primary Health Care Facilities |
Immunization
Against Infectious Childhood Diseases |
|
Contraceptive
Prevalence Rate |
Development
cannot be achieved or sustained when a high proportion of the population is
affected by poor health and inadequate access to health care facilities.
While economic growth and development can contribute to improved health
and better health care facilities in the poorest countries, there are also high
and middle-income countries where further improvements are warranted.
A clean environment is important to citizens’ health and well-being.
Unsustainable economic growth can also cause environmental degradation
which, together with inappropriate consumption, can adversely influence human
health.
Protecting
and promoting human health in Agenda 21 focuses on the following interrelated
issue areas:
·
meeting primary health care
needs, especially in rural areas;
·
controlling communicable
diseases;
·
protecting vulnerable groups;
·
meeting urban health needs; and
·
reducing health risks from
environmental pollution and hazards.[27]
Within
this context, the Commission on Sustainable Development has also identified
priority areas for consideration including: the cumulative health effects of
chemicals in consumer products, plant and animal-based food, water, soil and
air; the identification and control of newly emerging infectious diseases and
their possible environmental linkages; and the health implications of ozone
layer depletion.[28]
Societal
interventions are aimed at strengthening primary health care systems related to
the provision of clean water, adequate sanitation, and safe food through
community-based, scientifically sound, and socially acceptable approaches.
Safe water and sanitation, vaccine use, and education are recognized as
the principal tools to tackle communicable diseases such as malaria, cholera,
and HIV/AIDS. In meeting basic
health care needs, particular attention must be given to vulnerable groups,
including children, women, indigenous people, the poor, and the elderly and
disabled.
Rapid
urban growth can outstrip society’s capacity to protect the environment and
provide health care services. Air
and water pollution in urban areas are associated with excess morbidity and
mortality, while overcrowding and inadequate housing contribute to respiratory
and other diseases. Environmental
pollution as a result of energy production, transportation, industry, or
lifestyle choices adversely affects health.
This would include such factors as ambient and indoor air pollution,
water pollution, inadequate waste management, noise, pesticides, and radiation.
In addition, displaced persons due to civil strife or natural disasters
usually face a degraded environment including severely limited potable water and
food supplies, and inadequate sanitation.
Since
the Earth Summit, some progress has been made in improving human health.
Most countries have experienced declining infant mortality rates and an
increase in life expectancy.[29]
Nevertheless, progress has been slow and inadequate to meet many of the goals
established by the international community.
Currently, for example, at least 1.1 billion people still do not have
access to clean water, while about 2.5 billion are without adequate sanitation.[30]
In Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, the water supply
and sanitation coverage in proportional terms increased between 1990 and 2000.
However, due to population growth, the
absolute number of people in Africa without suitable water access and sanitation
has increased. This is also the case in Latin America and the Caribbean with
respect to water supply. With this
slow pace of progress, it is not reasonable to anticipate universal access to
drinking water before 2025 in Asia, 2040 in Latin America and the Caribbean, and
2050 in Africa.[31]
In
terms of communicable diseases, malaria is endemic in 101 countries, affecting
some 2.4 million people worldwide. Mortality due to malaria is estimated to be
over 1 million deaths per year, mostly young children in Africa.
Dengue fever has spread rapidly in recent years, now being endemic in
over 100 countries in Africa, the Americas, the Eastern Mediterranean,
South-East Asia, and the Western Pacific. It
is estimated that some 2.5 billion people are currently at risk of infection.[32]
HIV infection levels reached 34.3 million people in 1999, including 1.3
million children under the age of 15.[33]
The
core indicators for health cover the key issues with measures that are widely
accepted and have been available and in use for some time.
In addition, goals established by the international community are
available for the majority of these indicators.[34]
With respect to nutrition, countries are encouraged to reduce severe and
moderate malnutrition among under five year old children by 50% from 1990 to
2000. Again for under five
year-olds, the goal is to reduce the 1990 mortality rate by two-thirds by 2015.
The goals for drinking water, sanitation, and primary health care are to
provide universal access. Several
specific goals related to communicable childhood diseases were included in
Agenda 21 including: the eradication of polio by 2000; universal immunization
against measles, reduction of deaths due to diarrhoea by 50% by 2000, and a
one-third reduction of deaths due to acute respiratory infections by 2000.
In term of family planning, the international goal is to provide access
to reproductive health services for all individuals of appropriate ages by 2015.
The
core indicators can be used to measure national progress towards these health
goals. It should also be noted that
indicators under other themes of the framework cover issues that are closely
related to human health. These
would include, for example, ambient concentration of air pollutants in urban
areas, floor area per person, and use of agricultural pesticides.
Nevertheless, countries may wish to supplement this nucleus of indicators
with others to give a broader and more detailed national health picture. For
this, the health sector indicators developed by the World Health Organization
are recommended.
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
Children Reaching
Grade 5 of Primary Education |
|
Adult Secondary
Education Achievement Level |
|
Adult Literacy
Rate |
Education,
both formal and informal, is regarded as a process by which human beings and
societies can reach their full potential. There
is a close association between the general level of education attained and the
persistence of poverty irrespective of the level of a country’s development.
It is vital to changing people’s attitudes to achieve ethical
awareness, values, attitudes, skills, and behaviour consistent with the goal of
building a more sustainable society. In this way, people are better equipped to
participate in decision-making that adequately and successfully addresses
environment and development issues.
Education
in Agenda 21 is organized around the three issues of:
·
reorienting education towards
sustainable development;
·
increasing public awareness; and
·
promoting training.
The
primary objectives in addressing these issues include: striving for universal
access to basic education, reducing adult illiteracy, integrating sustainable
development concepts in all education programmes to achieve interdisciplinary
learning, promoting broad public awareness, and strengthening vocational and
scientific training. In this context, the CSD, through its UNESCO partner, has
established an educational work programme to re-orient education towards
sustainable development.[36]
Progress
has been made in most countries in improving access to education and in reducing
illiteracy. However, adequate levels have yet to be attained in many countries.
In 1998, for example, the adult literacy rates for the world and the least
developed countries for those over 15 were 78.8% and 50.7% respectively.[37]
Over 100 million children between the ages of 6 and 11 never attend
school; while many more drop out within a few months or years of starting
school.[38]
As a result, approximately a billion people remain illiterate.[39]
Within
the CSD framework, the education theme provides core indicators that measure
education level achieved and adult literacy.
These are two of the key policy-relevant issues for countries related to
basic education. The global
community has established goals relevant to these indicators through the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, the World Summit for Children, the World
Conference on Education for All, the World Summit on Social Development, and the
Fourth World Conference on Women.[40]
These goals are to provide universal access to basic education with the
completion of primary education by at least 80% of primary school-age children;
and to reduce the adult illiteracy rate to at least half of its 1990 level.[41]
The core indicators, which are generally consistent with the educational
indicators of other international initiatives, can be used to measure national
progress towards these goals.[42]
Countries may wish to supplement the core indicators with national measures to
also address the topics of awareness raising and training.
In addition, it would be appropriate for countries to disaggregate the
core education indicators by gender to capture an important aspect of gender
equality.
Sub-theme |
Indicator |
Floor Area per
Person |
Adequate
shelter is one of the essential components of sustainable development. The
availability of adequate shelter substantially contributes to safer, more
equitable, productive, and healthier settlements. Living conditions, especially in urban areas, are influenced
by excessive population concentration, inadequate planning and financial
resources, and unemployment. Rural-urban migration exacerbates this situation
contributing to the development of slums and informal settlements. Poor living
conditions are associated with poverty, homelessness, poor health, social
exclusion, family instability and insecurity, violence, environmental
degradation, and increased vulnerability to disasters.
The
right to adequate housing is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a major
focus of the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000, the human settlements
chapter of Agenda 21, and the Habitat II commitments.[43]
Nevertheless,
it appears that the gap between progress, and current and future needs continues
to widen. By the year 2005, the majority of the world's population will live in
urban areas. It has been estimated
that up to a third of urban people live in sub-standard housing.[44]
Many countries have made improvements in the formulation of housing policies and
strategies aimed at accelerating construction, providing housing for low income
groups, improving land and market conditions, and facilitating access to credit.[45]
Yet, the conditions of shelter and human settlements have continued to
deteriorate in most developing countries during the 1990s reflecting the need
for additional financing; improved partnerships between the private sector,
governments, and communities; technology transfer, and increased capacity
building.[46]
To
assess housing and living conditions, the CSD core set of indicators uses floor
area per person--a key measure for the assessment of progress with respect
to housing quality. Data to support the indicator are generally available at the
country level, at least for specific urban areas. This indicator is part of the
Housing Indicators Programme of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements
and the Common Country Assessment Framework.[47]
No specific targets or thresholds have been established for this measure,
although it does reflect the goal established at Habitat II of providing
sufficient living space while avoiding overcrowding.
While
the indicator provides a measure of overcrowding, it does not take into account
cultural differences. In addition,
high values for the indicator may suggest undue use of material, energy, and
land detrimental to sustainable development.
The interpretation of the indicator, therefore, requires care and
judgement. Consideration of other core indicators such as area and population
of urban formal and informal settlements, and population growth rate
would support the commentary on this living condition measure.
Sub-theme |
Indicator |
Number of Recorded
Crimes per 100,000 Population |
Crime
prevention and criminal justice are an integral part of the development process.
Civil society, good governance, and democracy rest on the promotion of justice
as an essential condition for social stability, security, peace, human rights,
and long-term
sustainable development.[48]
Such a stable and secure climate is necessary to support the goals of
poverty eradication, economic investment, environmental stewardship, gender
equality, participation, and sustainable livelihoods.
Security
represents a new dimension in the revised framework for CSD indicators.
This recognition reflects the growing priority given to security,
including crime prevention, within the context of sustainable development in
recent years. In Agenda 21, for
example, while social security is a persistent theme, the aspect of crime is
only briefly mentioned with respect to urban disorder and related health issues,
violence against women, and the need for public awareness. Subsequently, the
World Summit for Social Development and Habitat II advocated stable, safe, and
just societies for promoting social integration and development. Member states
were encouraged to address the problems of crime, violence and illicit drugs as
factors of social disintegration.[49]
As a follow-up to the Summit, the UN Economic and Social Council made
violence, crime, and illicit drugs and substance abuse, all factors of social
disintegration, a priority theme in 1998.[50]
This momentum will culminate in 2000 with the expected completion and
signing of the UN Convention against Transnational Crime.
Overall,
crime appears to be on the increase and represents a challenge for sustainable
development. Globalization is creating an environment conducive to new and
expanded forms of criminality including the smuggling of migrants, drug
trafficking, corruption, computer crime, and the illegal firearms trade.[51]
On a global scale, an increase in total recorded crime of about 13% has
been estimated for the time period 1990-1997.[52]
While the number of reported crimes dropped or stayed the same for member
states of the European Union, increases were experienced in countries of Eastern
Europe, members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, and countries of Asia
and the Pacific.
The
core set of indicators recognizes crime as a significant sub-theme of security.
From the experience of testing countries, the sub-theme reflects an important
priority for policy decision makers at the national level. The general goal to
significantly reduce violence and crime was accepted at the Ninth Congress on
the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders.[53]
The number of recorded crimes per 100,000 population represents the most
commonly used indicator and is included as a measure in the Common Country
Assessment Guidelines. Countries may wish to disaggregate the indicator by type
of crime, for example, violent versus non-violent crime or violence against
women.
4.3.6.
Population
Sub-theme |
Indicators |
Population Growth
Rate |
|
Population of
Urban Formal and Informal Settlements |
Population
provides an important contextual reference on sustainable development for
decision makers looking at the interrelationships between people, resources, the
environment and development. Population
change is a significant signal as countries try to reduce poverty, achieve
economic progress, improve environmental protection, and move to more
sustainable consumption and production. More
stable levels of fertility can have a considerable positive impact on quality of
life. In many countries, slower
population growth has bought more time to adjust to future population increases.
Urbanization
has become a dominant trend in the growth and distribution of the population.
Rapid population growth and migration can lead to unsustainable living
conditions and increased pressure on the environment, especially in
ecologically-sensitive areas. The
search for better living conditions in urban areas reflects rural unemployment
and underemployment; poor rural social services; unavailability of arable land;
natural disasters, particularly drought; and civil unrest.
It implies the need for more effective programmes to support rural
development. The informal urban
settlements that often develop are precarious and marginal. They tend to lack
basic services and tenure security; are located in areas predisposed to natural
disasters; and are characterized by poverty, inadequate health and education
facilities, and high crime rates.
Agenda
21 provided a framework for the emerging
consensus on the need for increased international cooperation on population
issues. The global programme
stressed the importance of taking population trends and factors into account
when building national policies and programmes integrating environment and
development.[54]
The 1994 Conference on Population and Development, in contrast to
previous international population fora, continued this integrative perspective
focusing on the relationships between population, poverty, gender equity,
production and consumption, and the environment.[55]
Fertility
rates and population growth rates are declining
in most countries. Nevertheless, absolute population numbers are still
increasing in all regions. The
world fertility rate has dropped from 4.5 to 2.7 births per woman from 1970-1975
to 1995-2000.[56]
Furthermore, the global population growth rate has declined from 1.7% per
annum during the 1985 to 1990 period to its current level of 1.3% per annum.
In 1998, this rate added 78 million people to give a world population of
5.9 billion.[57]
By
2030, the world population is expected to be
8.1 billion, with virtually all the growth concentrated in urban areas,
particularly the cities of developing countries.[58]
The proportion of people living in urban areas is expected to increase
from 46.6% in 1998, to 54.5% in 2015, and to 60.5% in 2030.
Such trends will continue the rural to urban migration patterns and rapid
transformation of rural settlements into cities.
This will place enormous strain on existing social services and
infrastructure in cities, much of which will not be able to expand at the same
rate as the population increases.
Both
predominant factors of population change, total
population growth and urban growth, are reflected in the core set of indicators.
The population growth rate is a standard indicator supported by
data for all countries. The population
of formal and informal settlements is likely to be more infrequently
available for specific urban areas, but is a significant measure from a policy
perspective. While the Cairo
Conference implicitly recognized the stability of the global population as an
ultimate objective, no specific international goals have been established for
these indicators. Nevertheless,
several countries have adopted targets for population growth in the context of
national planning and development.
Countries
may wish to augment reporting on population
change with information on fertility rate, migration, age structure, and rate of
growth of urban areas. In addition,
it may be appropriate to ascertain sub-national population trends for national
planning purposes.
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
Emissions of
Greenhouse Gases |
|
Consumption of
Ozone Depleting Substances |
|
Ambient
Concentration of Air Pollutants in Urban Areas |
Priority
atmospheric issues include climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion,
acidification, eutrophication, urban air quality, and tropospheric ozone levels.
The impacts of these issues relate to human health, biodiversity and the
health of ecosystems, and economic damage.
Many of the effects are long-term, global in nature, and irreversible
with consequences for future generations.
Agenda
21 suggests an integrated approach to protection of the atmosphere,[59]
coordinated with social and economic development, which focuses on:
The
principal human activities contributing to atmospheric change relate to fossil
fuel consumption for energy production and transportation.
In addition, land use change, including deforestation, industrial
processes, intensive agriculture, and waste disposal contribute to atmospheric
pollution. Conversely, forest ecosystems are also significant carbon sinks for
greenhouse gases. While some gains
have been achieved through greater efficiency, fuel substitution, and the use of
renewable energy, emission levels have continued to climb due to overall
increases in energy use and transportation.
Climate
change is widely recognized as a serious threat to the world’s environment and
is largely a consequence of unsustainable consumption and production patterns.
Expected impacts include sea level rise with the possible flooding of low
lying areas, higher temperatures, melting of glaciers and ice caps, and more
extreme weather patterns with implications for floods and droughts.
The socio-economic effects are expected to be widespread, but have
particular significance to agriculture, forests, marine ecosystems, and small
island states.
The
problems associated with climate change are being addressed under the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
So far insufficient progress has been made to stabilize greenhouse gas
emission levels.[60]
However, under its Kyoto Protocol, developed countries have agreed to
reduce their collective emissions of six greenhouse gases by 5% of 1990 levels
by 2008-2012.[61]
In addition, the Protocol encourages joint implementation and emissions
trading among developed countries; and cooperation between developed and
developing countries under a Clean Development Mechanism.
The
thickness of the ozone layer, which protects the earth from damaging ultraviolet
radiation, has decreased significantly over the last 20 years.
The anthropogenic emissions of ozone-depleting substances are derived
from their use as solvents, refrigerants, foam-blowing agents, spray
propellants, fire extinguishers, and agricultural pesticides.
Increases in ultraviolet radiation at the earth’s surface can damage
human health resulting in skin cancer, eye cataracts, and suppression of the
immune system. In addition, marine and terrestrial ecosystems can be affected
through reduced photosynthesis and production of phytoplankton.
International
cooperation under the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and subsequent
amendments has resulted in a significant decrease in global production and
consumption of the major ozone-depleting substances.[62]
Nevertheless, due to the long life times
of these substances in the atmosphere, complete recovery of the ozone layer is
not expected until 2050.[63]
Human health and environmental impacts are projected to continue even
longer.
The
rapid increase in urbanization and the transportation sector have resulted in
many environmental impacts. High
mobility levels and congestion have led to substantial increases in emission
levels of air pollutants such as suspended particulate matter, sulphur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ozone, in both developed and
developing countries. These substances magnify human health risks, adversely
affect flora and fauna, and damage buildings in both urban and rural areas.
Three
indicators related to the atmosphere are included in the CSD core set: emissions
of greenhouse gases; consumption of ozone depleting substances; and ambient
concentration of air pollutants in urban areas.
These indicators were selected as either relevant or measurable by a
majority of the testing countries.[64]
They represent driving force measures; the point of entry for sustainable
development policy interventions. The
first indicator measures the net emissions of the six greenhouse gases which are
driving climate change and which are subject to the Kyoto Protocol.
The second indicator assesses the phase-out of ozone depleting substances
subject to the Montreal Protocol and its subsequent amendments.
The third indicator measures the exposure of people to various air
pollutants. In this last case, it
is important to consider the indicator against national air quality standards.
These
three indicators are closely associated with other themes of the indicator
framework; for example land (forests and urbanization) and consumption and
production patterns (energy use and transportation).
Countries may wish to supplement these three core measures with impact
and response indicators for the atmosphere theme.
Consideration of sea level rise, for example, would be particularly
important to small island and coastal states.
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
|
Arable and
Permanent Crop Land Area |
Use of Fertilizers |
|
Use of
Agricultural Pesticides |
|
Forest Area as a
Percent of Land Area |
|
Wood Harvesting
Intensity |
|
Land Affected by
Desertification |
|
Area of Urban
Formal and Informal Settlements |
Land
consists not only of the physical space and the surface topography, but includes
the associated natural resources of soil, mineral deposits, water, and plant and
animal communities. Use of the land in an
unsustainable way affects these resources, as well as the atmosphere and marine
ecosystems. Land is becoming an increasingly scarce resource,
particularly quality land for primary production of biomass and for
conservation, due to expanding human requirements. The magnitude of land use and
land cover changes threatens the stability and resilience of ecosystems through,
for example, global warming and disruption of the global nitrogen cycle.[65]
Agenda
21 advocates a holistic approach using an integrated, ecosystem-based management
to achieve sustainable development of the land resource.[66]
The implementation of such an approach is intended to resolve conflicts between
competing land uses, while addressing access and rights to land; and to increase
productivity, while protecting the environment and natural resources.
This approach is supported by the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification, the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, the Habitat
Agenda of the Second International Conference on Human Settlements, and the Plan
of Action of the World Food Summit.
The
priority land-based issues faced by many countries include land degradation,
desertification, deforestation, urban growth, and agricultural and rural
development. Other significant challenges associated with land use, such as the
maintenance of particularly valued ecosystems are covered by other themes of the
CSD indicator framework, for example coastal zone and biodiversity.
At
its Eighth Session, the Commission on Sustainable Development suggested the
following areas for future work related to integrated land management:[67]
Many
of these priorities were supported by the decisions related to agriculture and
rural development. In addition, the
Commission emphasized the need to focus on poverty eradication, appropriate use
of biotechnology, conservation and protection of genetic resources, integrated
pest management, integrated plant nutrition, emergency preparedness, and
protection of water resources. Governments
were encouraged to integrate agricultural production, food security and food
safety, environmental protection, and rural development into national
sustainable development strategies.
Agriculture
plays a pivotal role in the context of sustainable land use.
The sector is being called on to both increase production to achieve food
security and improve its stewardship of the land resource.
In addition, agriculture supports social and economic development, and
the maintenance of rural lifestyles. If practiced in a sustainable manner, it
contributes to the conservation of the countryside and related natural
resources.
Global
food production has increased in the 1990s, particularly in the developing
countries. The average annual growth in agricultural production was 2.2% between
1994 and 1998: 0.4% in developed countries and 3.4% in developing countries.[68]
Despite the overall production increases, 64 countries faced serious food
shortages in 1998 and 1999. Nevertheless,
the number of undernourished people in the world has decreased from 860 million
in 1990-92 to 825 million in 1995-97, although increases have been experienced
in some regions including sub-Saharan Africa and countries with economies in
transition. However, this
improvement will have to be magnified two and a half times to meet the World
Food Summit target of reducing the number of undernourished people by half by
2015.[69]
This has significant implications for the land resource.
Agriculture
and the state of rural development are associated with most land resource
issues. Increasing land
degradation, desertification, and deforestation are caused by poverty,
population pressure, unsuitable land allocation, inappropriate farming and
grazing practices, and lack or misuse of appropriate technologies.
Desertification affects 1.6 billion people in over 100 countries.[70]
Land degradation, including compaction, erosion, fertility decline, loss
of biomass and soil biodiversity, occurs on about 2 billion hectares.
It is estimated that about 30% of the world’s irrigated lands, 40% of
the rainfed agricultural lands, and 70% of rangelands are affected by land
degradation.[71]
Between 1980 and 1990, it is estimated that the global forest area
declined by 180 million ha; with a further decline of 56 million ha from 1990 to
1995.[72]
Although successes are apparent in specific countries, efforts at implementing
integrated land management have yet to significantly ameliorate these trends.
The
rapid urbanization trend discussed previously brings land use adjustment
pressures to both urban and rural areas. Migration
forces may be too strong and society’s resources insufficient to prevent the
spread of informal settlements. In
addition, urbanization tends to shift consumption patterns towards horticultural
crops, meat, and dairy products. Increased
livestock numbers, while creating income opportunities, could amplify
overgrazing, encourage deforestation, and increase health risks.[73]
Meanwhile, in rural areas, labour shortages can encourage the adoption of labour-saving
technologies based on agro-chemicals and machinery, with implications for land
and water resources.[74]
The
indicators under the land theme in the CSD framework focus on the key sub-themes
of agriculture, forests, desertification, and urbanization.
The selected indicators are relevant for assessing sustainable
development at the national level, and are generally supported by appropriate
data sets. As illustrated above, indicators from other environmental
sub-themes complement these measures of land sustainability, for example
ecosystems, water quality, climate change, and coastal zones.
In addition, pressures on land and land use impacts are reflected in
social, economic, and institutional themes, such as poverty, drinking water,
population change, energy use, and natural disaster preparedness and response.
Specific international goals have generally not been established for the
land resource, although national targets may apply (for example, forest area
as a percent of land area and wood harvesting intensity).
Existing international goals do apply to food security and the trade of
tropical timber.[75]
The
importance of interpretation in the context of sustainable development is
illustrated by some of the land indicators. The use of fertilizers, for
example, while enhancing productivity also reflects soil fertility decline and
potential impacts on the environment including eutrophication, acidification,
and contamination of water supplies. Specific countries may wish to expand the
range of land indicators for national purposes. In this case, indicators to
portray progress with mining rehabilitation, agricultural productivity, or the
impacts of increasing livestock numbers may be pertinent.
4.3.9. Oceans, Seas and Coasts
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
Algae
Concentration in Coastal Waters |
|
Percent
of Total Population Living in Coastal Areas
|
|
Annual
Catch by Major Species |
Occupying
about 70% of the earth’s surface, oceans and seas represent highly productive
ecosystems that continuously recycle chemicals, nutrients, and water. This
recycling regulates weather and climate, including global temperature. In
addition, marine, estuary and coastal ecosystems (such as coral reefs, wetlands,
and mangrove forests) are significant to biodiversity and support valuable
natural resources.[76]
It is estimated, for example that 90% of the world’s fish production is
dependent on coastal areas at some point in its life cycle.
Coastal
zones, at the interface of land and water, occupy less than 15% of the earth’s
surface; yet accommodate over 2 billion people, more than one-third of the
world’s population. This population primarily lives in large cities frequently
sited in association with key ecosystems such as river estuaries. The proportion
of people living in the coastal zone (within 100 kilometers of the shore) is
estimated to be approximately 37% of the global population and is expected to
grow substantially by the year 2020.[77]
Agenda
21, based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, advocates an
integrated, ecosystem approach to protect oceans and coastal areas.[78]
Such an approach is heavily dependent on the application of precautionary and
anticipatory principles to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem productivity
while improving the quality of life of coastal communities. Various
international instruments have adopted the concept of integrated marine and
coastal area management. These include the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the
International Coral Reef Initiative, and the Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries.
The
marine and coastal issues significant to sustainable development include:
·
degradation from land-based
activities;
·
marine pollution from shipping
and offshore oil and gas projects;
·
the protection of biodiversity
and fragile ecosystems; and
·
the relationship to climate change,
including the
implications of sea level rise.[79]
While
a measure of success is evident in the control of marine pollution, the
unsustainable development of coastal and marine resources largely continues. The
Commission on Sustainable Development concluded in 1996 that the most important
traditional ocean resources, including coastal environments and conventional
fishery resources, are over-used and require improved management.[80]
While international conventions[81]
have proved effective at controlling marine pollution from shipping (except for
ships flying flags of convenience) and marine dumping of industrial waste; and
progress is being made with respect to the dumping of hazardous waste and
ship’s ballast, marine pollution continues to increase. Furthermore, effective
measures are still required to address degradation of the marine environment
from offshore oil and gas activities.
Land-based
activities contribute about 80% of marine pollution. Over half of the world’s
coastal ecosystems face moderate to high potential risk of degradation as a
result of inappropriate development. The influence of climate change on sea
level rise, and the frequency and intensity of floods and storms is particularly
pertinent to small island states and densely populated delta areas.
Coral
reefs, which occupy only 1% of the marine environment, are particularly
susceptible to damage. It is estimated that 58% of the world’s reefs are
potentially threatened by human activities.[82]
Marine fishery production began to stagnate in the second half of the 1990s
after two decades of expansion. Many fisheries have surpassed their optimum
long-term sustainability, with recent increased production stemming from
aquaculture. It is estimated that about 60% of world fisheries are either fully
exploited or over-fished. In addition, discard and waste levels remain high,
with an estimated 27 million tons of fish discarded each year. With better
management, processing, and conservation practices, it is possible that
sustainable management and conservation, including stock rehabilitation and
reduction of wastage, could increase marine fisheries production.
In
general, suitable candidate indicators for oceans and the coastal zone are not
readily available or supported by commonly accepted goals.
However, the CSD core set includes three indicators under the sub-themes
of coastal zone and fisheries that are national in scope and within the
capabilities of most countries to develop.
The total population in coastal areas and the algae
concentration in coastal waters provide measures of the overall pressure on
the coastal resource particularly from land-based activities.
Bathing water quality represents an impact indicator that some countries
may wish to consider, although a standard methodology is not well advanced or
widely accepted. The annual
catch by major species provides a core indicator where data is generally
available to measure the intensity of fishery activity. In terms of key marine
ecosystems such as coral, mangrove, and sea grass, countries may wish to
consider trends in the extent of these areas under the biodiversity ecosystem
sub-theme.
4.3.10. Freshwater
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
Annual
Withdrawal of Ground and Surface Water as a Percent of Total Available
Water
|
|
BOD
in Water Bodies |
|
Concentration
of Faecal Coliform in Freshwater |
Freshwater
is essential to support human life, ecosystems, and economic development.
It supports domestic water supplies, food production, fisheries,
industry, hydropower generation, navigation, and recreation. The ecosystem services of freshwater systems include food
production, reduction of flood risk, and the filtering of pollutants.
The global issues of health, poverty, climate change, deforestation,
desertification, and land use change are all directly associated with the water
resource and its management.
The
long-term sustainability of water is in doubt in many regions of the world.
Currently, humans use about half the water that is readily available.
Water use has been growing at more than twice the population rate, and a
number of regions are already chronically short of water.
About one third of the world's population lives in countries with
moderate to high water stress. With
population increases, economic growth and rising living standards, as much as
two thirds of the world's population could be living in water-stressed countries
by 2025.[83]
This has serious implication for socio-economic development, in
particular future food production.
Both
water quantity and water quality are becoming dominant issues in many countries.
Problems relate to poor water allocation and pricing, inefficient use, and lack
of adequate integrated management. The
major withdrawals of water are for agriculture, industry, and domestic
consumption. Most of the water used by industries and municipalities is
often returned to watercourses degraded in quality.
Irrigation agriculture, responsible for nearly 40% of world food
production, uses about 70% of total water withdrawals (90% in the dry tropics).[84]
Groundwater, which supplies one third of the world's population, is increasingly
being used for irrigation. Water
tables are being lowered in many areas making it more expensive to access.
Major
water quality problems stem from sewage pollution, the intensive agricultural
use of fertilizers and pesticides, industrial wastes, saltwater intrusion, and
soil erosion. In many developing
countries, rivers downstream of large cities are little cleaner than open
sewers. Only 2% of sewage in Latin
America receives any kind of treatment, while the faecal coliform count in many
Asian rivers is 50 times recommended water quality guidelines.[85]
Nitrate pollution from high fertilizer use is a serious concern in both
developed and developing countries. High
nitrate levels in drinking water are dangerous to human health, and cause algae
growth and eutrophication in waterways. Industrial wastes are a source of heavy
metal and persistent organic pollutants in the environment.
About 20% of the world's irrigated land is salt-affected to such an
extent as to significantly reduce crop production.
Salt water intrusion is of particular concern to arid and semi-arid
regions, and small island states. Poor
land use practices aggravate soil erosion resulting, for example, in degraded
fish habitat and loss of reservoir capacity.
In
calling for integrated water resource management, Agenda 21 emphasized the need
to protect water, its quality, and ecosystem functions through improved
assessment and greater understanding of the impacts of climate change.[86]
Water for drinking supply, food production, and sustainable urban and
rural development were recognized as key priorities.
There
is evidence of progress in improving some aspects of freshwater resources
management since 1992. In specific
watersheds, water quality has improved, the application of demand management is
raising efficiency levels, and conservation efforts are improving fish habitat. However, overall progress has been neither sufficient nor
comprehensive enough to reduce the overall trends of increasing water shortages,
deteriorating water quality, and growing ecosystem stress. To address this gap,
the Commission on Sustainable Development has identified the following priority
areas:[87]
·
access to urban and rural water
supply and sanitation;
·
water for sustainable food
production and rural development;
·
the use of clean and efficient
wastewater technologies for industry;
·
a greater appreciation of the
water resource requirements of ecosystems;
·
the efficient use of water based
on its economic value; and
·
strengthening water management
institutions.
The
freshwater indicators in the core set capture the two essential dimensions of
quantity and quality. The withdrawal of available water measures a country’s
demand for water and reveals its vulnerability to water shortages.
The measurement of biological oxygen demand and faecal coliform
concentration reflect respectively the two significant aspects of ecosystem
health and human health. These
three indicators are policy-relevant and generally measurable at the national
level.
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
Area of Selected Key Ecosystems |
|
Protected Area as a Percent of Total Area |
|
Abundance of Selected Key Species |
Biological
diversity consists not only of variety among species, but also genetic variation
within species, and variation between communities of species, habitats and
ecosystems. This biodiversity of genes, species, and ecosystems
contributes essential products and services to human welfare. Maintaining biodiversity helps ensure that the Earth will
continue to perform natural ecological processes upon which all life depends.
Major changes, loss, or degradation of biodiversity can result in serious
economic, social, and cultural impacts; and have profound ecological and ethical
implications. More than 40% of the
world's economy and about 80% of the needs of the world's poor are dependent
upon biological diversity.[88]
Food security, climatic stability, freshwater security and human health
needs are all directly associated with the maintenance and use of biodiversity.
The
total number of species on Earth is very large with estimates ranging form 5 to
100 million. The most species-rich
environments are the moist tropical forests that probably contain over 90% of
the world’s species.[89]
Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America are the richest
biodiversity regions. The
conservation status of most species is not known in detail. However, in a 1996
assessment, 25% of the world’s mammals and 11% of birds were threatened with a
significant risk of extinction.[90]
Many other species now exist in reduced numbers, as fragmented
populations, or are threatened on a national scale.
Loss
of biodiversity results when policies and development activities fail to
properly value natural resources and the environment.
Inequity in ownership and access to natural resources also contribute to
unsustainable use. Biodiversity can
be adversely affected by the following causes:
Many
international treaties were in effect before the 1992 Earth Summit aimed at
protecting biodiversity. These
instruments include: the International Plant Protection Convention, the
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Wildlife
Habitat, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora, and the International Tropical Timber Agreement.
Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity both provide a
comprehensive perspective for future action to address biodiversity
conservation; the sustainable use of ecosystems, species, and genetic material;
and the equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources.[91]
Countries are encouraged to complete national assessments of
biodiversity, develop national strategies and action plans, integrate
biodiversity considerations into national development strategies, use
traditional methods and knowledge, and foster the sharing and sustainable use of
biotechnology.
The
development of suitable indicators of biodiversity is at a relatively early
stage due to the incomplete scientific knowledge and understanding of
biodiversity, especially with respect to ecosystem functions and processes.[92]
Promising work in this area is being pursued under the auspices of the
Convention on Biological Diversity.[93]
Nevertheless, it is feasible at this time to include three pertinent
indicators in the core set which capture significant
aspects of the ecosystem and specie attributes of biodiversity. It should also
be noted that other core indicators in the land, marine, and freshwater themes
of the framework are significant from a biodiversity viewpoint.
The selected biodiversity indicators measure the area of selected key ecosystems, the abundance of selected key species, and the protected area as a percent of total area. They are relatively easy to calculate, meaningful to decision makers, and allow countries flexibility in determining the most important ecosystems and species from a national perspective. Area of key ecosystems, for example, was suggested as a valuable indicator by testing countries and could include those areas subject to greatest change or those with special biodiversity value. It may also be possible in some countries to disaggregate the protected area indicator by ecosystem type to provide information on ecosystem representation.
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
GDP per Capita |
|
Investment Share
in GDP |
|
Balance of Trade
in Goods and Services |
|
Debt to GNP Ratio |
|
Total ODA Given or
Received as a Percentage of GNP |
Trade
and investment are important factors in economic growth and sustainable
development. Improved access to
markets, transfer of financial resources and technology, and debt relief are
critical to assisting developing countries meet the objectives of sustainable
development. Poverty, natural
resource exploitation, and consumption and production are all intimately
connected to economic growth or the lack of it.
It represents a considerable challenge to ensure that economic growth
leads to social equity and does not contribute to environmental degradation.
To
support economic performance within the context of sustainable development,
Agenda 21 recommends trade liberalization; making trade and environment mutually
supportive; providing new and additional financial resources to developing
countries; and encouraging macroeconomic policies favourable to environment and
development.[94]
Trade liberalization usually has positive effects on sustainable
development. It can stimulate
economic diversification, improve the efficiency of resource allocation, reduce
environmentally unsound trade restrictions, and encourage the transfer of
cleaner, more efficient technology. Freer trade can also result in increased resource use when
the environmental costs of production are not fully internalized and reflected
in market prices.
In
principle, the financing of policies and programmes to attain sustainable
development comes from a country’s own public and private resources.
Nevertheless, external resource
flows are essential to assist developing countries. Official Development
Assistance (ODA) remains the primary source of external funding, but a basic
shift is occurring with flows of foreign direct investment (FDI) steadily
expanding and flows from financial markets increasing dramatically. Whatever the
source, it is essential that all funding contribute to sustainable development
through the integration of economic growth, social development, and
environmental protection.
Total
net resource flows from Development
Assistance Committee (DAC)
countries and multilateral organizations to aid-receiving developing countries
increased between 1991 and 1996, but have since fallen in both absolute and
relative terms.[95]
Collective ODA disbursements from
member countries of DAC declined from 0.33% of GNP in 1987/88 to 0.24% of GNP in
1998;[96]
both figures well below the United Nations target of 0.7%.
For developing countries, the per capita ODA has fallen from US$11.8 to
US$8.3 between 1992 and 1998. A few
countries have been able to take advantage of rising FDI and have experienced
substantial economic growth. However,
many other countries, particularly the poorest ones, have shown slow or negative
growth and continue to be marginalized.[97]
The
level of external debt continues to impede the progress of developing countries
towards sustainable development. Comparing
1985 and 1998, debt levels in relation to GNP remained at about 42% for
developing countries as a whole, while increasing from 67% to nearly 100% for
the least developed countries.[98]
For most of these countries, effective solutions to the debt problem
through debt rescheduling, reduction, or cancellation; debt swaps; or grants and
concessional flows, are essential to help restore credit worthiness and
encourage investment.
The
indicators selected for the core set under the economic structure theme are well
known and commonly used measures at international and national levels.
They reflect the important issues of economic performance, trade, and
financial status discussed above. Trade
and economic dependency represented key indicator theme areas for testing
countries.
GDP
per capita is a standard measure of basic economic growth, while investment
share in GDP shows the level of financial capital available to stimulate
economic development. The balance
of trade in goods and services illustrates the openness and/or vulnerability
of an economy. High levels of debt
inhibit a country’s ability to address socioeconomic and environmental
priorities related to sustainable development.
The provision of ODA is a measure of commitment of the international
community, while its receipt shows one measure of reliance on external funding.
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
Intensity of
Material Use |
|
|
Annual Energy
Consumption per Capita |
Share of
Consumption of Renewable Energy Resources |
|
Intensity of
Energy Use |
|
|
Generation of
Industrial and Municipal Solid Waste |
Generation of
Hazardous Waste |
|
Generation of
Radioactive Waste |
|
Waste Recycling
and Reuse |
|
Distance Traveled
per Capita by Mode of Transport |
Unsustainable
patterns of consumption and production, particularly in developed countries, are
the major cause of the continued depletion of natural resources and
deterioration of the global environment.[99]
It is widely acknowledged that the Earth cannot support the consumption
levels of industrialized countries on a global scale.
In addition, such high levels of consumption affect the current and
future consumption and production options of developing countries.
A
change to more sustainable lifestyles calls for the concerted, combined efforts
of governments, producers, and consumers. It requires less emphasis on material
consumption, more emphasis on resource and energy-efficient technologies, a
stronger commitment to meeting the needs of the poor, and a focus on economic
systems that account for social and environmental costs.
Such a fundamental change is very difficult to achieve because of
strongly ingrained beliefs and behaviours.
Agenda
21 calls on developed countries to take the lead in promoting and implementing
more sustainable consumption and production patterns. It recommends five actions
to assist in reaching this objective:
Since
the Earth Summit, only limited progress has been made in the adjustment to more
sustainable consumption and production patterns.
Overall, insufficient progress has been achieved in the more efficient
use of materials, reducing energy demand and waste, and using more sustainable
transportation systems. In
industrialized countries, there has been progress in reducing energy and
material consumption per unit of production.
However, the improvement in efficiency has been more than offset by
increases in the volume of production
and consumption.[101]
Meanwhile, developing countries require sharp increases in energy services to
improve the standard of living of a growing population.
World commercial energy use increased 74% between 1980 and 1997.[102]
Over the near term, transportation is expected to be the major driving
force behind a growing world demand for energy.
Current
patterns of transportation and their energy requirements are not sustainable and
will significantly compound future environmental and human health problems.[103]
While there has been progress in fuel and emission efficiency of vehicles, the
number of vehicles has dramatically increased and consumers are driving longer
distances.[104]
Some predictions estimate a five-fold increase in global waste generation
by 2025. In the developed world,
per capita waste generation increased three times between 1977 and 1997 and is
approximately five to six times higher than in the developing world.[105]
The
United Nations General Assembly and testing countries have advocated that
consumption and production patterns be represented in the core set of
indicators. This reflects the
policy priority of this issue area. The
core indicators provide a good coverage of the significant sub-themes of
consumption and production patterns; namely material consumption, energy use,
waste generation and management, and transportation.
The core indicators, except for those for waste, are included in the
recommended set of consumption and production indicators published by the United
Nations in 1998.[106]
It will be possible to relate the solid waste and recycling indicators to
national waste reduction targets in countries where such national objectives
have been established. It should be noted that other indicators in the environmental
dimension of the core set are complementary to the consumption and production
theme. These include, for example, emissions
of greenhouse gases, use of fertilizers, wood harvesting intensity,
and annual withdrawal of ground and surface water.
Some
of the core indicators, such as annual energy consumption per capita,
are well tested and already commonly used at the national level.
The indicator for intensity of energy use is covered by five methodology
sheets that include: (1) Energy Intensity – Commercial/Service sector, (2)
Energy Intensity-Transportation, (3) Energy Intensity – Residential Sector,
(4) Energy Intensity – Manufacturing and (5) Energy Use per unit of GDP. Other
indicators, such as intensity of material use and distance traveled
per capita by mode of transport
are not so well developed or used, probably reflecting methodological and data
difficulties. Nevertheless, it is important to include these indicators
because of their policy relevance and in order to achieve a comprehensive core
set. Where they are not feasible in
the short term, countries may wish to use alternative measures, such as total
material requirement and total number of road vehicles.
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
National
Sustainable Development Strategy |
|
Implementation of
Ratified Global Agreements |
Appropriate
legal and policy instruments are required as an institutional framework to
encourage and implement sustainable development.
The integration of social, economic, and environmental factors is a
particular important feature of such instruments.
Implementation of sound sustainable development strategies and
international treaties by countries should contribute to improved socioeconomic
and environmental conditions, and help reduce potential sources of conflict
between countries.
Agenda
21 calls for the adoption of national strategies of sustainable development.
The goal of such strategies should be to ensure socially responsible
economic development while protecting the environment and the natural resource
base for future generations.[107]
The strategies should build on existing initiatives, such as
environmental action plans, reflect current priorities, and take into account
emerging issues. They should be
based on the widest possible participation and involvement of all segments of
society. Agenda 21 also advocates
improving the effectiveness of national and international legal instruments and
mechanisms with respect to achieving sustainable development.
In this context, the action plan supports the participation of developing
countries in formulating international law; the coordination and consistency
among international legal instruments; and the identification of new and
emerging issues in the field of sustainable development relevant to
international law.
Since
the Earth Summit, countries have made considerable progress in establishing an
appropriate institutional framework for the implementation of sustainable
development.[108]
This includes the development of national strategies aimed at integrating
social, economic, and environmental priorities; and action to sign, ratify, and
initiate the implementation of global agreements.
Much of the strategy development has been accomplished through the
involvement of major stakeholders. There is considerable diversity in the types
of strategies that have been established reflecting considerable differences in
national priorities and circumstances. In
addition to national strategies, many
countries have also contributed to regional strategies, such as the
Mediterranean Action Plan. Nevertheless,
for developing countries there remains the need to improve the technical and
financial capacity to implement the provisions of national strategies and
international agreements.
Core
indicators under the institutional framework theme point to a country’s
willingness and commitment to shift from a segmented sector approach to a
holistic, integrated sustainable development process.
The two indicators selected, national sustainable development strategy
and implementation of ratified global agreements, address the key themes
of integrated decision-making and international conventions suggested by testing
countries. Both indicators are
relatively easy to develop and reflect comprehensive institutional actions in
support of sustainable development. It
is suggested that countries assess the degree of implementation of these
indicators to improve their relevance. As
a goal, it is anticipated that countries will have developed effective national
sustainable development strategies reflecting the interests of all stakeholders
by 2002.
4.3.15. Institutional Capacity
Sub-themes |
Indicators |
Information
Access
|
Number of Radios or Internet Accounts per 1000 Inhabitants |
Main Telephone Lines and Cell Phones per 1000 Inhabitants |
|
Expenditure on Research and Development as a % of GDP |
|
Natural Disaster Preparedness and Response |
Human and Economic Loss Due to Natural Disasters |
The
ability of a country to progress towards sustainable development is largely
determined by the capacity of its people and institutions.[109]
Capacity can be measured by a country’s human, scientific,
technological, organizational, institutional, and resource capabilities.
Institutional capacity enhances participatory planning, implementation, and
monitoring related to sustainable development.
An increase in capacity improves community skills and abilities to
address crucial questions, evaluate policy options and implementation
approaches, and appreciate constraints and limitations.
Communication
systems, information access and availability, the support for science and
technology, and the prevention and mitigation of natural disasters are all
elements of a country’s institutional capacity.
Although a wealth of data and information may be available, finding the
appropriate scale and currency of information is not always easy.
This situation is exacerbated in the absence of modern communications
infrastructure. In this context,
the Commission on Sustainable Development reported little progress in making
national telecommunications systems responsive to the growing demand for electronic
information.[110]
The innovative delivery of health and educational services, the
alleviation of the isolation of remote areas, and the reduction of the need for
transportation represent some of the tangible sustainable development benefits
that can be derived from up-to-date electronic and telecommunications systems.
Science
and technology represent avenues for improving sustainable development
decision-making through better understanding of ecological and social processes,
enhanced efficiency of resource utilization, and systematic assessments of
current conditions and future prospects. To maximize this potential, Agenda 21
advocates interdisciplinary research and better communication between
scientists, decision makers, and the general public. Despite its significant
role, the funding of scientific activity, including investment in research and
development, has declined in most countries since 1992.[111]
Further
to the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (1990-1999), the UN
General Assembly established the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR). The objectives of this programme are to enable communities to
become resilient to the effects of natural, technological and environmental
hazards, and to proceed from protection against hazards to the management of
risk, by integrating disaster prevention strategies with sustainable
development.
Institutional
capacity is a significant means for facilitating movement towards sustainable
development, but is difficult to assess appropriately with a limited number of
core indicators. The indicators selected for this theme measure information
access, communications infrastructure, science and technology, and natural
disaster preparedness and response. These
represented important issues for the testing countries. The four indicators are
primarily national in scope and suitable for measuring trends.
They are structured to be useful to both developing and developed
countries.
[1] Statistical Office Of The European Communities, Measuring Progress Towards A More Sustainable Europe, April 2001.
[2] United Nations Division for Sustainable Development, Report on the Aggregation of Indicators for Sustainable Development: Background Paper No. 2, CSD9 April 2001.
[3] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development of the Commission on Sustainable Development, Division for Sustainable Development, April 1999.
[4] United Nations, Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies, New York, 1996.
[5] Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Kenya, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, South Africa, Tunisia, United Kingdom, and Venezuela.
[6] See United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, CSD Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development Progress Report, Background Paper No. 7, Commission on Sustainable Development, Seventh Session, New York, 19-30 April 1999; and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Fifth International Workshop on CSD Indicators of Sustainable Development, Division for Sustainable Development, Hosted by the Government of Barbados and sponsored by the Government of Germany, Bridgetown, Barbados, 7-9 December 1999.
[7] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Report: Fifth Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Sustainable Development, Division for Sustainable Development, New York, 7-8 April 1999.
[8] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN CSD Theme Framework and Indicators of Sustainability, Final Draft, PriceWaterhouseCoopers for Division for Sustainable Development, November 18, 1999.
[9] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Fifth International Workshop on CSD Indicators of Sustainable Development.
[10] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Report of the Consultative Group to Identify Themes and Core Indicators of Sustainable Development, Division for Sustainable Development, New York, 6-9 March, 2000.
[11] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN CSD Theme Framework and Indicators of Sustainability.
[12] United Nations Environment Programme, GEO-2000: UNEP’s Millennium Report on the Environment, Earthscan Publications, 1999.
[13] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Report of the Consultative Group to Identify Themes and Core Indicators of Sustainable Development.
[14] Adapted from: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Testing the CSD Indicators of Sustainable Development: Interim Analysis: Testing Process, Indicators and Methodology Sheets, Technical Paper prepared by the Division for Sustainable Development, 25 January 1999; and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN CSD Theme Framework and Indicators of Sustainability, Final Draft, PriceWaterhouseCoopers for Division for Sustainable Development, November 18, 1999
[15] The Agenda 21 context is also provided in the description of themes and sub-themes following.
[16] Adapted from: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Testing the CSD Indicators of Sustainable Development; and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN CSD Theme Framework and Indicators of Sustainability
[17] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Report of the Consultative Group to Identify Themes and Core Indicators of Sustainable Development.
[18] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development.
[19]
The need for better institutional indicators is addressed in Spangenberg,
Joachim H., Pfahl, Stefanie, and Deller, Kerstin, Elaboration of
Institutional Indicators for Sustainable Development, E. Schmidt
Publications, Berlin, Germany, 2001 (in press).
[20] United Nations, Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Chapters 3, 4, 24, 25, and 26, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992.
[21] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Combating Poverty, Report of the Secretary General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Fourth Session, 18 April-3 May 1996.
[22] United Nations, Report of the World Summit for Social Development, Copenhagen, Denmark, 6-12 March, 1995.
[23] United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 1999, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.
[24] World Bank Group, Poverty Trends and Voices of the Poor, http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/ data/trends.
[25] Rosati, Dariusz, Managing Globalization with Equity, in United Nations First Global Forum on Human Development, New York, 29-31 July, 1999.
[26] World Bank Group, World Bank Warns Global Poverty Fight Failing, Unveils Enhanced Poverty Strategy, News Release No. 2000/059/S, http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/extme/059.htm.
[27] United Nations, Agenda 21, Chapter 6.
[28] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Overall Progress Achieved since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Protecting and Promoting Human Health, Addendum Report of the Secretary General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Fifth Session, 7-25 April 1997.
[29] United Nations, Earth Summit +5: Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, June 1997.
[30] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Progress Made in Providing Safe Water Supply and Sanitation for All During the 1990s, Report of the Secretary General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Eighth Session, 24 April-5 May, 2000.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] UNAIDS, Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic, http://www.unaids.org/epidemic_update/report/ index.html, June 2000.
[34] See the World Summit for Children, the World Summit on Social Development, the Fourth World Conference on Women, the World Food Summit, the International Conference on Population and Development, and Agenda 21 of the Earth Summit.
[35] United Nations, Agenda 21, Chapter 36.
[36] The work programme was initiated at the Fourth Session of CSD in 1996, and adopted as an expanded version at its Sixth Session in 1998.
[37] United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2000, http://www.undp.org /hdr2000.
[38] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Education, Public Awareness and Training, Addendum, Report of the Secretary General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Sixth Session, 20 April-1 May, 1998.
[39] United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), The Progress of Nations, New York, 1999.
[40] United Nations, The Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989; United Nations, World Summit for Children, New York, 1990; United Nations Interagency Commission (UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank), Final Report of the World Conference on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, 5-9 March, 1990; United Nations, Report of the World Summit on Social Development; United Nations, Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, 1995.
[41] See http://www.unicef.org/wsc/goals.htm.
[42] For example, the International Consultative Forum on Education for All (EFA) reported in: United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, Progress Report on the Implementation of the Work Programme on Education, Public Awareness and Training, Report of the Secretary-General, Eighth Session, 24 April-5 May, 2000.
[43] United Nations, Agenda 21, Chapter 7; and United Nations, Second International Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), Istanbul, Turkey, June 1996.
[44] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Assessment of Progress Achieved in Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement Development, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Second Session, 16-27 May, 1994.
[45] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement Development, Addendum, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Fifth Session, 7-25 April, 1997.
[46]
United Nations, Earth Summit +5.
[47] See http://www.urbanobservatory.org/indicators; and United Nations Development Group, Guidelines: Common Country Assessment (CCA), Sub-group on Programme Policies, Draft, 26 February, 1999.
[48] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Technical Cooperation, Including Resource Mobilization, and Coordination of Activities, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Sixth Session, Vienna, 28 April-9 May 1997.
[49] United Nations, Report of the World Summit for Social Development; and United Nations, Second International Conference on Human Settlements.
[50] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Technical Cooperation, Including Resource Mobilization, and Coordination of Activities.
[51] United Nations, The State of Crime and Criminal Justice Worldwide, Report of the Secretary-General, Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Vienna, 10-17 April 2000.
[52] Ibid.
[53] United Nations Development Group, Guidelines: Common Country Assessment (CCA).
[54] United Nations, Agenda 21, Chapter 5.
[55] United Nations, Report of the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 5-13 September, 1994.
[56] United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2000.
[57] United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs, Revision of the World Population Estimates and Projections, Population Division, http://www.popin.org/.
[58] United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs, World Urbanization Prospects: The 1999 Revision: Key Findings, Population Division, http://www.popin/wdtrends/urbanization.
[59]
United Nations, Agenda 21, Chapter 9.
[60] United Nations, Earth Summit +5.
[61] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, December 1997.
[62] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Protection of the Atmosphere, Addendum, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Fourth Session, 18 April-3 May, 1996.
[63] European Environment Agency, Environmental Signals 2000, Environmental Assessment Report No. 6, 2000.
[64] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN CSD Theme Framework and Indicators of Sustainability.
[65] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Integrated Planning and Management of Land Resources, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Eighth Session, 24 April-5 May, 2000.
[66]
United Nations, Agenda 21, Chapter 10.
[67] United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, Report of the Eighth Session, Economic and Social Council, Official Records 2000, Supplement No. 9, 30 April 1999 and 24 April-5 May, 2000.
[68] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Eighth Session, 24 April-5 May, 2000.
[69] Ibid.
[70] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Integrated Planning and Management of Land Resources: Combating Desertification and Drought, Addendum, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Eighth Session, 24 April-5 May, 2000.
[71] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Integrated Planning and Management of Land Resources.
[72] Ibid.
[73] Food and Agriculture Organization, The Coming Livestock Revolution, Background Paper No. 6, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Commission on Sustainable Development, Eighth Session, 24 April-5 May, 2000.
[74] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development: Urbanization and Sustainable Agricultural Development, Addendum, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Eighth Session, 24 April-5 May, 2000.
[75] See Annex 1.
[76] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Oceans and Seas, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Seventh Session, 19-30 April, 1999.
[77] The estimate is based on calculations by Andrew Mellinger, et.al., Harvard University, Boston, Mass., 1997 and by Joel E. Cohen and Christopher Small, Columbia University, New York city, USA.
[78] United Nations, Agenda 21, Chapter 17.
[79] Ibid.
[80] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Protection of the Ocean, all Kinds of Seas, including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas and the Protection, Rational Use and Development of Their Living Resources, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Fourth Session, 18 April-3 May, 1996.
[81] Including the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation; and Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.
[82] Ibid.
[83]
United Nations Environment Programme, GEO-2000.
[84] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Fifth Session, 7-25 April, 1997.
[85] United Nations Environment Programme, GEO-2000.
[86] United Nations, Agenda 21, Chapter 18.
[87] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Strategic Approaches to Freshwater Management, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Sixth Session, 20 April-1 May, 1998.
[88] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Preparations for the Special Session of the General Assembly for the Purpose of an Overall Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of Agenda 21, Note by the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Fifth Session, 7-25 April, 1997.
[89] United Nations Environment Programme, GEO-2000.
[90] Ibid.
[91] United Nations, Agenda 21, Chapter 15; and United Nations, Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992.
[92] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Integrated Planning and Management of Land Resources: Conservation of Biological Diversity, Addendum, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Eighth Session, 24 April-5 May, 2000.
[93] See United Nations Environment Programme, Development of Indicators of Biological Diversity, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, Fifth Meeting, Montreal, 31 January-4 February, 2000, http://www.biodiv.org/doc/sbstta-5.htm.
[94] United Nations, Agenda 21, Chapters 2 and 33.
[95] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Financial Resources and Mechanisms, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Eighth Session, 24 April-5 May, 2000.
[96]
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2000.
[97] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Economic Growth, Trade and Investment, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Eighth Session, 24 April-5 May, 2000.
[98] United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2000.
[99] United Nations, Earth Summit +5.
[100]
United Nations, Agenda 21, Chapter 4.
[101] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Comprehensive Review of Changing Consumption and Production Patterns, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Seventh Session, 19-30 April, 1999.
[102]
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2000.
[103] United Nations, Earth Summit +5.
[104] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Comprehensive Review of Changing Consumption and Production Patterns.
[105]
United
Nations Economic and Social Council, Overall Progress Achieved since the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Environmentally
Sound Management of Solid Wastes and Sewage-Related Issues, Addendum, Report
of the Secretary General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Fifth
Session, 7-25 April 1997.
[106] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Measuring Changes in Consumption and Production Patterns: A Set of Indicators, Population Division, New York, 1998.
[107] United Nations, Agenda 21.Chapter 8.
[108] United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, Assessment of Progress in the Implementation of Agenda 21 at the National Level, Report of the Secretary-General, Fifth Session, 7-25 April, 1997.
[109] United Nations, Agenda 21.Chapter 34.
[110] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Overall Progress Achieved since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development, Fifth Session, 7-25 April, 1997.
[111] Ibid.