 Show
Under a Creative Commons license Open access AbstractThis paper deals with quality of life in terms of the environment and develops a system of indicators to assess this. An improvement in quality of life is the main aim of sustainable development and is evaluated by applying various factors and indicators. The environmental dimension is one of the major influences on quality of life, and this can be assessed by applying the following groups of indicators: environmental quality, environmentally responsible behaviour and consumption of environmental services. These groups are related because responsible behaviour has a positive impact on environmental quality and leads to greater consumption of services provided by the environment. This paper presents the concept of assessing the environmental dimension in quality-of-life measurements and the main associated indicators. These dynamics were investigated and compared in Lithuania and other EU member states, with policy recommendations developed. KeywordsQuality of life Environmental quality Environmentally responsible behaviour Consumption of environmental services Assessment JEL classificationI31 I38 O47 Cited by (0)Copyright © 2015 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Introduction CHAPTER 2: Assessing Progress Towards Sustainable Development A.
The CSD Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development CHAPTER 3: Guidelines for Developing a National Programme of Indicators of
3.1 Organization CHAPTER 4: CSD Core Indicator Framework 4.1
Adoption of a Theme/Sub-theme Framework CHAPTER 5: Methodology Sheets Social Percent of Population Living Below Poverty Line Environmental Emission of Greenhouse Gases Economic Gross Domestic Product Per Capita Institutional National Sustainable Development Strategy REFERENCES Annex 1:International Goals, Targets, and Standards Related to Themes and Sub-Themes 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 A. The CSD Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable DevelopmentThe CSD work programme comprised the following key elements:
(e) Evaluation of the indicators and adjustment as necessary (2000); (f) Identification and assessment of linkages among the economic, social, institutional and environmental elements of sustainable development to further facilitate decision-making at all levels (2000); (g) Development of highly aggregated indicators, involving experts from the areas of economics, the social sciences and the physical sciences and policy makers as well as incorporating non-governmental organization and indigenous views (2000). B. Main Phases And Approaches To Implementation Phase 1 (May 1995-August 1996) (a) Development of the Indicator Methodology Sheets One of the significant tasks of the first phase was the preparation of the methodology sheets for each indicator. Building on existing work, a cooperative, consultative, and collaborative approach was used to produce the methodology sheets. More than thirty organizations of the United Nations system, other intergovernmental, non-governmental and major group organizations supported this work, assuming lead roles in the drafting of methodology sheets appropriate to their mandate and experience. An Expert Group, consisting of forty-five (45) members from non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies, guided the overall process of developing the methodology sheets. In addition, approximately 100 individuals with indicator experience from international and national agencies, and non-governmental organizations participated in the process by providing advice and comments and contributing their ideas, information and expertise. In February 1996, an international Expert Workshop on Methodologies for Indicators of Sustainable Development was held in Glen Cove, New York to review the preliminary methodology sheets. Several workshops sponsored by national governments were also held to further discuss and refine the draft methodology sheets. The collection of methodology sheets was published by the United Nations in August 1996 under the title of �Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies�. This document, commonly referred to as the �blue book�, was distributed to all governments with the invitation to use and test the indicators, and to provide feedback on the results. The goal was to have a more accepted and definitive set of sustainable development indicators by the year 2001. (b) Content of the Methodology Sheets The methodology sheets contain, inter alia, the following information: � Basic information on the indicator, including its definition and unit of measurement. In addition, the relevant Agenda 21 chapter and the type of indicator are listed to locate the indicator in the DSR framework; � Purpose and usefulness of the indicator for sustainable development decision-making (i.e., policy relevance); international targets where these are available; and the relevant international conventions, if the indicator is primarily of global significance; � Conceptual underpinnings and methodologies associated with the indicator, including the underlying definitions, measurement methods, and a summary of its limitations and alternative definitions; � Data availability to illustrate the importance of regular data collection and updating to support systematic reporting; � Listing of the agency(ies) (lead and cooperating) involved in the preparation of the methodology sheets; and � Other information (e.g., contact points, other references and readings). A conscious effort has been made to use a consistent format to frame the contents of the methodology sheets. The methodology sheets were designed to assist countries with the task of developing the priority indicators that are considered most relevant in the context of their sustainable development policies and programs. The methodology sheets were to form a base and starting point for the process of indicator development and were understood to be open for enhancement, refinement, amendment, and change. Phase 2 (May 1996-January 1998) (a) Training and Capacity-Building To address the need for building the necessary capacity and knowledge on the use of indicators, a series of briefing and training workshops at the regional level was initiated from November 1996 through June 1997. These were organized by the CSD Secretariat with the support and cooperation of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and the Government of the Netherlands for Asia and the Pacific; the Government of Costa Rica for Latin America and the Caribbean; and by the Government of Ghana for the Africa region. The Africa regional workshop was co-sponsored by UNDP�s Capacity 21 Programme. The main objective of all the workshops was to provide an introduction and training in the use of indicators as tools for national decision-making and to explore related methodologies for indicator development. Special attention was given to identifying national priorities and relating them to the process of indicator identification and selection. Several countries followed up on the regional workshops with national training workshops. In the Asian and Pacific region, ESCAP provided seed money for implementation of national training workshops, which were convened in China, the Maldives, Pakistan and the Philippines. (b) National Testing At the Fourth Session of the CSD in 1996, the Commission encouraged Governments to pilot test, utilize and experiment with the proposed initial set of indicators and related methodologies over a 2-3 year period. The purpose of the national testing was to gain experience with the use of indicators, to assess their applicability according to national goals and priorities of sustainable development, and to propose changes to the set and its organizational framework. The national testing programme was launched in November 1996, on the occasion of the International Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development held in Ghent, Belgium and hosted by the Governments of Belgium and Costa Rica. The countries attending the meeting reviewed and endorsed the guidelines for national testing. The guidelines essentially provided suggested testing procedures, including modalities for its organization, implementation options, assessment and evaluation methods, institutional support and capacity building, and reporting requirements. Twenty-two (22) countries covering all regions of the world participated, on a voluntary basis, in the testing process. By regions, the testing countries were: Table 1: Testing Countries
In addition to the official testing countries, a number of countries (Canada, Nigeria, Switzerland, and the United States, among others) were affiliated with the process through voluntary sharing of information, participation in meetings and other forms of exchange of expertise. The Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) prepared a test compilation of 54 CSD indicators drawing on statistical data existing within the European Community. This pilot study was produced as an official publication of the European Communities in 1997. Eurostat provided invaluable technical and substantive support throughout the CSD Work Programme and latest produced a publication containing the CSD indicators for the European level[1]. Countries were requested to provide periodic reports on the testing phase to the DSD for analysis and for circulation to members of the Expert Group and testing countries. A format for reporting on the progress of national testing was issued in 1997 to facilitate the submission of consistent and detailed information that would allow for a final revision of the indicators and related methodologies. The reports of all the testing countries can be found on the Secretariat web site at: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/isd.htm. Most of the testing countries adopted different approaches to the testing exercise, ranging from plain evaluation of data availability for all or a few selected indicators to embarking on the whole process of developing their own independent set of national indicators while using the CSD indicators as a point of reference. Nevertheless, the majority of the countries aligned their processes with the CSD Testing Guidelines while others integrated the guidelines into their own unique design. All the testing countries employed participatory implementation strategies. This is evident in the respective institutional arrangements chosen by countries as the coordinating mechanism for the testing process. The majority of the countries adopted highly integrated multi-stakeholder strategies involving government ministries, NGOs, academia and relevant business organizations (as in the case of the Philippines, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Maldives, United Kingdom) while others confined the process within government ministries (as in the case of China, Austria, Belgium, Brazil). Within these national coordinating bodies, most of the countries also created working groups, expert teams and committees that focused on the indicator work. The formation of an Indicator network (for instance, in South Africa and Finland) was also found useful in fostering the integration of ministries and research institutions. Several countries also experimented with �twinning� where two or more countries agreed to either engage in mutual exchange of information and experience in indicator development (e.g., South Africa and Finland) or where one country provided significant technical and financial support to another participating country (France and Tunisia). These arrangements provided an excellent platform for information exchange and sharing of expertise creating win-win situations with the involved countries achieving a wider knowledge base. Midway through the implementation of the testing programme, a global meeting of testing countries was hosted by the government of the Czech Republic in Prague in January 1998. The meeting took stock of the progress of implementation and discussed ways to improve the process and ultimately the results of the programme. Phase 3 (January 1999 - December 2000) � Lessons Learned (a) Evaluation of the Testing Results and Indicator Set The testing phase was officially concluded in December 1999 with the International Workshop on CSD Indicators of Sustainable Development, hosted by the Government of Barbados, and supported by the Government of Germany and DSD. This meeting provided the forum for the assessment of the CSD indicators of sustainable development, their applicability and usefulness in supporting national decision-making; and served as a venue for exchange of information at the national, regional and global level on sustainability indicators and their practical use. All relevant information on the testing programme including country reports was compiled and organized into a database (CSD ISD Database). This database served as an analytical tool for reviewing testing results, the indicator framework and the working list of indicators. Many countries pointed out that the testing process was, in general, a successful exercise. The highly participatory approach adopted by countries in the testing exercise not only heightened awareness of the value and importance of indicators but also increased levels of understanding on sustainable development issues. Moreover, the testing has reportedly inspired the launching of other indicator initiatives and has tied many players together. In many cases, making use of existing structures, such as national committees or councils for sustainable development was seen as useful in organizing the national coordinating mechanism. On the other hand, in some countries, the testing of indicators acted as a positive catalyst in the establishment of new mechanisms for coordinating both the indicators programmes and the formulation of sustainable development strategies and has demonstrated the potential of collaboration and cooperation in advancing the goals of sustainable development. The involvement of major groups and stakeholders had been found effective in achieving the full integration of user perspectives in the identification of national sustainable development priorities and corresponding indicators. Many developing countries, NGOs, the private sector and other major groups have already been involved in the national coordinating committees for environment and sustainable development, and their participation gave impetus to the national testing process. It was also noted that when high-level policymakers have been involved and are genuinely committed to sustainable development, the work on indicators progressed more rapidly. Notwithstanding the aforementioned successes, several institutional constraints affected the implementation of the testing, such as, limitations on the availability of financial and human resources; difficulty in mobilizing the relevant experts and stakeholders, lack of coordination between statistical agencies and the indicator focal point, low level of awareness among stakeholders, low level of commitment on the part of participating institutions, competing work demands and government leadership transitions that resulted in discontinuities in the implementation of the indicator process. This called for beefing up capacity-building programs in the form of human resource and organizational development. A strong human resource base is central to the multi-stakeholder process as are properly coordinated and highly committed institutional mechanisms. Time as well as financial constraints also affected the testing undertaken in some countries. In view of the need to go by the rather strict timetables of the testing process, adjustments had to be made on the degree and level of consultations. To be more successful, it was also felt that theindicator 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; 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 ExpertGroup 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 usefulin 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 - the need for institutional support for data collection and analysis; - other capacity-building needs for the development of a national indicator programme; and - an evaluation of the twinning process, where relevant, and of other international and bilateral cooperation of relevance to indicators of sustainable development. 3.4. Reporting The national coordinating mechanism and the Focal Point may wish to establish a government web site or mechanism for regular reporting on progress during various phases of the indicator development work. This would provide a ready means of communicating results and obtaining feedback from the various participants. Regular meetings should also be held by the coordinating body during the course of its work. Results, difficulties and problems may also be reported to the CSD Secretariat in terms of any advice or support that the Secretariat may be able to provide. At the end of the development phase, a final, comprehensive evaluation of the process may be needed in order to make further adjustments to the national indicators and methodology sheets. The CSD Secretariat would welcome such reports as a means of further assessing changes and modifications that may be required in the programme. The evaluation report could contain such items as: A. Introduction 1. Background and objectives 2. Identification of the users and relevance to national decision-making 3. Institutional, organizational and resource arrangements for indicator development 4. Experience with twinning, as applicable B. Identification and selection of the indicators Description of the process through which the indicators were chosen, and the criteria for selection, including reference to: 1. National strategies, targets and priorities 2. Existing indicators and indicator programmes 3. Data availability 4. Other parameters C. Usefulness of the indicators 1. Usefulness of the methodology sheets 2. Relevance of the data product 3. Development of linkages among the indicators, of national indicator frameworks and of aggregated indicators 4. Comments and suggestions on changes and improvements D. Challenges 1. Problems encountered in data availability, reliability and delivery 2. Strengthening and training of human resources 3. Other capacity-building needs 4. Other E. Recommendation CHAPTER 4: CSD CORE INDICATOR FRAMEWORK A framework for organizing the selection and development of indicators is essential. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that any framework, by itself, is an imperfect tool for organizing and expressing the complexities and interrelationships encompassed by sustainable development. Ultimately, the choice of a framework and a core set of indicators must meet the needs and priorities of users, in this case national experts, civil society groups and decision-makers responsible for the development and use of indicators to monitor progress towards sustainable development. It should be stressed that any country wishing to use indicators, in any systematic way, must develop its own programme drawing on the resources currently available. The CSD framework and core set of indicators outlined in this report provide a good starting point for such a national programme. The framework employed in the CSD work programme to guide the selection of sustainable development indicators has evolved from a driving force-state-response approach to one focusing on themes and sub-themes of sustainable development. This change in organizational framework has been prompted by the experience of countries that assisted CSD in testing and developing indicators of sustainable development. An expert group advising CSD, as well as the testing countries themselves, recommended the adoption of a theme approach. What follows is a brief history of this evolution and the rationale for the change to achieve a small core set of sustainable development indicators useful for decision-makers. The early indicator work under CSD organized the chapters of Agenda 21 under the four primary dimensions of sustainable development�social, economic, environmental, and institutional.[3] Within these categories, indicators were classified according to their driving force, state, and response characteristics; adopting a conceptual approach widely used for environmental indicator development. Table 2 illustrates the essence of this framework. The term driving force represents human activities, processes, and patterns that impact on sustainable development either positively or negatively. State indicators provide a reading on the condition of sustainable development, while response indicators represent societal actions aimed at moving towards sustainable development. This organizational framework was an important starting point for the identification and selection of indicators, and was used to present a preliminary list of sustainable development indicators in the United Nations publication Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies.[4] Table 2: DSR Framework for Sustainable Development Indicators
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 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. Table 3: Key Themes Suggested by CSD Testing Country Priorities[14]
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
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. Table 5: Selection of CSD Indicators by Testing Countries[16]
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
Social equity is one of the principal values underlying sustainable development, with people and their quality of life being recognized as a central issue. Equity involves the degree of fairness and inclusiveness with which resources are distributed, opportunities afforded, and decisions made. It includes the provision of comparable opportunities of employment and social services, including education, health and justice. The notion can be relevant both within and between communities and nations. Significant issues related to the achievement of social equity include poverty alleviation; employment and income distribution; gender, ethnic and age inclusiveness, access to financial and natural resources; and intergenerational opportunity. Impoverished people may feel powerless and isolated, and face pervasive and systematic problems related to insecure livelihoods, malnutrition and poor health, illiteracy, civil insecurity linked to violence and strife, and corruption. The concentration of the rural poor on marginal land leads to resource over-exploitation and land degradation. 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; 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. 4.3.2. Health
Health and sustainable development are closely connected. Safe water supply and sanitation, proper nutrition and a safe food supply, unpolluted living conditions, the control of disease, and access to health services all contribute to healthy populations. Conversely, poverty, lack of information and education, natural and human-induced disasters, and rapid urbanization can all exacerbate health problems. Pollution control and health protection services have often not kept pace with economic development. As a consequence, poor health is associated with decreased productivity, particularly in the labour-intensive agricultural sector. 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; 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. 4.3.3. Education
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; 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. 4.3.4. Housing
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. 4.3.5. Security
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
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. Environment4.3.7. Atmosphere
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. 4.3.8. Land
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 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; 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
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; 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. 4.3.11. 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. Economic4.3.12. Economic Structure
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. 4.3.13.Consumption and Production Patterns
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 ofproduction 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. Institutional4.3.14. Institutional Framework
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 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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. What are the 4 general indicators of sustainable development?Resources, Biodiversity and Habitat, Productive Natural Resources, and Sustainable Energy.
What are the various indicators that can be used to measure sustainable development in South Africa?Common indicators included population growth; community involvement; water availability; water use; water quality trends; soil contamination; non-compliance; species at risk; key species assessment; change in vegetation; agricultural impact; access to recreational opportunities, and ecosystem health.
Why are indicators of sustainability important for development?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.
Which of the following accurately describes the environmental impact of richer nations in comparison to poorer ones quizlet?Which of the following accurately describes the environmental impact of richer nations in comparison to poorer ones? - Richer nations tend to emit more CO2.
|
Choose all the quality of life indicators that represent the least-developed countries.
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 ketiadaan Inc.
