Presentation on theme: "Conceptual and Practical Framework of Measuring Progress on SD."— Presentation transcript:
Conceptual and Practical Framework of Measuring Progress on SD
Operational Interpretation of SD
SD as an inter-generational equity concept 3 Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (1987, Brundtland Commission). is about enabling people to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations. It combines social, environmental and economic goals … Economic growth Environmental Protection Social Integration New issues : Good Governance, Climate Change, etc.
There was a worry about an irreversible expansion of E… 4 Nature Environment Human Civilization Economy Market / Plan Nature Environment M Human Civilization
We need an operational definition of SD. 5 Economy, Humanity and Nature Humanity (society) is part of Nature (environment) and Economy works on the Nature to support Humanity Economy develops what was enveloped by Nature and Humanity in the form of natural resources and human heritages Resources: Land, Air, Water, Animals & Plants, Soil, Minerals, Oil… Heritages: Population, Culture, History, Knowledge, Laws, Institutions, Infrastructures… Resources and heritages, identified as given amount of stock, provide material and non-material bases for the sustainability of Humanity.
Sustainability in operational definition 6 Natural Resources Human Heritage Production- Consumption fr(t) fa(t) fe(t) Sh(t) Sr(t) Sustainability depends on Available stock of resources and heritages: Sr(t), Sh(t) Exploitation speed: fe(t) Renewal and Accumulation feedback speed: fr(t), fa(t) A non-negative time derivative of per capita net stock (d(Sr+Sh+fe+fr+fa)/dt≥0) confirms development is sustainable.
Socio-economic and environmental context of “de-velopment” 7 OECD, Towards Green Growth, 2011, p.115 Sr(t) Sh(t) fe(t) fa(t) fr(t)
Measuring Progress on SD in Practice
In measuring progress, the Agenda 21 recommended… 9 Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 was on “Information for Decision Making” and identified two programme areas : (a)Bridging the data gap; (b)Improving information availability. Six areas of activities were proposed : 1)development of (a)* indicators of sustainable development; 2)promotion of global use of indicators of sustainable development; 3)improvement of data collection and use; 4)improvement of methods of data assessment and analysis; 5)establishment of a (b)* comprehensive information framework; 6)strengthening of the capacity for traditional information. There is currently no single universally accepted measurement metric for sustainable development indicators. The United Nations, European Union as well as OECD have all made their own work in the development of sustainable development indicators. UNDESA (2012), National Institutions for Sustainable Development
(a)* SD Indicators in practice 10 1) United Nations The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) finalized the third, revised set of CSD indicators in 2007, based on the previous two (1996 and 2001) editions, which have been developed, improved and extensively tested as part of the implementation of the Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development adopted by the CSD at its third session in 1995 and presented to the CSD in This third set of indicators consists of 50 core indicators, alongside 46 additional indicators intended to allow a “more comprehensive and differentiated assessment of sustainable development” where data are available. The indicators are grouped into a series of themes and sub-themes, and are designed to allow countries to track progress towards nationally-defined goals. UN DESA (2007), Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, Third Edition, available at
SD Indicators in practice (continued) 11 2) European Union The European Union worked alongside the UN Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development and published its own indicator sets in 1997 and An EU-oriented indicator set was proposed following the adoption of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy in 2001, and was endorsed by the European Commission in Since then, a series of minor revisions have resulted in the existing indicator set, comprising 11 headline indicators across 10 themes, and over 100 indicators in total. The existing set also describes indicators either in development or as yet undeveloped, and the suitability of the indicator set in the context of emerging environmental concerns is constantly reviewed. Eurostat (2009), Sustainable Development in the European Union, 2009 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy, available at ITY_OFFPUB/KS /EN/KS EN.PDF
SD Indicators in practice (continued) 12 3) OECD The OECD has cooperated with UNCSD, the EU and other international organizations to develop its own environmental indicators. Notably, the OECD has focused on developing multiple sets of indicators, each appropriate to specific context. The Core Environmental Indicators, designed to track ‘environmental progress and performance’, comprise of about 50 individual indicators; separate indicator sets adapted in part from the core set aim at informing the public, promoting integration and monitoring progress towards sustainable development. OECD (2008), OECD Key Environmental Indicators, available at
(b)* Comprehensive Information Framework 13 Measuring sustainability with multi-dimensional SD indicator sets lead to the concept of integrating indicators into a system of accounts. Therefore, it’s not to take up the approach of one-dimensional environmentally adjusted macro-economic aggregates such as ‘Green GDP’, but rather to follow the principal idea of describing the sustainability gap with the multi-dimensional indicator approach. In the simple individual indicator approach described above, it is unlikely that the individual indicators are to be systematically linked with integrated physical and monetary economic, social and environmental accounting data.
Comprehensive Information Framework means integration of Karl Schoer, “Note on a Proposed Structure of the Revised SEEA”, 2007, LG/11/4, p.7 11th Meeting of the London Group on Environmental Accounting Johannesburg, March
German case of indicators-accounts integration 15 Karl Schoer, “Note on a Proposed Structure of the Revised SEEA”, 2007, LG/11/4, p.12 11th London Group Meeting on Environmental Accounting Johannesburg, March
A sustainable development in 3 dimensions 16 Social Environmental Economic
More details in the system of environmental economic accounting 17 Environmental Policy Intervention Material Flow end-of-pipe pollution control · Water ·Air ·Soil cleaner production promotion Labor, Capital Environmental Pollution Con. Inv. I-O Table EPEA PIOT Outflow EAA Natural & Environmental Resources Export Imported Int’l Trade Environment as Input Environmental Management
SEEA* 18 System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) developed by UN Statistical Commission in collaboration with the IMF, the World Bank, the European Commission and OECD, as a guideline in known as the most significant attempt to integrate national accounting and environmental accounting as satellite accounts in both monetary and physical terms. following work is under way to transform SEEA into an international accounting standard equivalent to the System of National Accounts (SNA). SD indicators could be linked to the SEEA through the uniform classifications and definitions, and the inclusion of sectoral breakdowns appropriate to the SEEA’s composition.
Some details on the socio-economic interface of SD 19 Social Value System Socio-Cultural Resources Labor, Capital Con. Inv. I-O Table Export Imported Int’l Trade Population, Social Capital Job and Income Distribution, Public services Social Security, Health care
SESAME* 20 System of Economic and Social Accounting Matrices and Extensions (SESAME) developed as an information system integrating economic, social and environmental statistics (Keuning, 2000, Accounting for Welfare with SESAME, UN.) Very recently recognized as equal part of SD, due to the lack of commonly accepted definition and consensus of the social dimension. Two popular ways of addressing the social dimension of sustainability: the capability approach (HDI) and the social capital (Stock/Flow) approach. In practice, social dimension is represented as part of SD subjects (Denmark) 1) Economic development and employment 2) Poverty 3) Elderly society 4) Health 5) Change in climate and energy 6) Sustainable production and consumption patterns 7) Protection of natural resources 8) Traffic and use of area Ismir Mularic, Statistics Denmark, London Group Meeting September, 2004
Challenges in Post 2015 Development Framework
SD in environmental-economic interface asks… 22 Quality of Development? - Environmentally Sound and Sustainable Development - Quality of Development? - Environmentally Sound and Sustainable Development - Green Economy in micro-economics: market prices, investment - Quality of economy in short-term and mid-term Green Economy in micro-economics: market prices, investment - Quality of economy in short-term and mid-term Green Growth in macro-economics: investment, technology, R&D, - Quality of growth, mid-term and long-term Green Growth in macro-economics: investment, technology, R&D, - Quality of growth, mid-term and long-term Global, Regional, National and Local Program for a Planet Responsibility Global, Regional, National and Local Program for a Planet Responsibility
23 Objective of Development? - Inclusive Human Civilization - Objective of Development? - Inclusive Human Civilization - National agenda – jobs, (re)distributional, social policies Global agenda - gap closing initiatives between South and North Global, Regional, National and Local Program for a Humanity Responsibility Global, Regional, National and Local Program for a Humanity Responsibility SD in socio-economic interface asks…
Past concept of development shows… 24 Economic Growth Human Heritages Quality of Life Natural Resources an economic growth supposedly increasing quality of life may result in degradation and depletion of natural resources and human heritages, which brings negative impact on the quality of life.
Enabling conditions for Sustainability for Development In order to overcome the challenges posed by the growth in the globalized world economy, it is imperative to develop green technologies and to introduce them into major industrial sectors leading economic growth to change life-style based on environmentally sound and sustainable production and consumption pattern and to share the experiences with partners to build a planet responsible for sustainable humanity…
Humanity responsible civilization needs… 26 to minimize degradation and depletion of natural resources and human heritage with a paradigm shift based on innovations and life style change. Economic Growth Human Heritages Happiness Natural Resources R&D and Technological Innovation Life Style Change R&D and Technological Innovation Life Style Change
What rest untouched
What rest untouched… 28 Wellbeing, Happiness Environmental Welfare
29 What we need to do … Establish an evidence based decision making framework for SD Clear understanding of the Post 2015 development framework and its implications to national development strategies Restructuring Post 2015 development agenda including SDGs to be tailored to national/local implementation framework: Technology Facilitation, Financing SD, etc… Peer review with indicators on the development challenges within a Matrix of Geo-Ecological and Socio-Economic Criteria: Geographical location, Climate zone, … ; Population, Labor, Production & Consumption, Planning (public) and Markets (private), … Development of monitoring, assessment and reporting procedure for the progress on SD
Strategy, Planning, Programme and Project Management of Implementation with Indicators Baseline t 0 (state) Vision based on baseline analysis Goal/Target to accomplish as a milestone with reference timeframe Strategy to implement the goal/target based on gap analysis Plan in long-term framework / mid-term (or annual) implementation Programme composed of projects Project for individual goal/target Task/Job identified as action component of a project Impact = outcome t 1 – baseline t 0. outputinput Effectiveness= outcome t 1 / baseline t 0. It’s a project (task or job) that could be effective or not. Efficiency= output / input. It’s a process that could be efficient or not. process Outcome t 1 (state) Target t 1 (state) Performance= outcome t 1 / target t 1. It represents a degree of ‘accomplishment’. National / Local Process Inter-governmental Process
Work plan 2014_UNOSD on Measuring Progress Study on Measuring Progress in Post 2015 Development Framework: HLPF, Ministerial Meetings and SDGs Overview on the current status and perspectives of Post 2015 Development Framework discussed at UN Intergovernmental Processes (GA, HLPF, OWG, EGM, etc.) Implication of Post 2015 DF for Member States in achieving SD: What is expected to be done by the member states for coming years? - Integration of SDGs into National Development Strategy and Planning - Preparation of Implementation Plan of SDGs - Establishment of Monitoring & Reporting System on the achievement of SDGs (HLPF, The Ministerial) Implication of Post 2015 DF for UN (DESA/DSD as well as OSD) in supporting Member States: What is expected to be done by DSD and OSD in relation to the works to be done by the member states? Area 1: Research and Policy Analysis (EGM, Consultative Workshop, …) Area 2: Joint Capacity Development in Measuring, Analysis and Reporting (Joint research, Conference, …) Then, development of a sub-work plan (covering joint researches, capacity development, regional/national advisory services, networking) after the December consultative workshop... Thematic issues proposed in priority in relation to Post 2015 DF, which include ‘Eco-tourism Development’, ‘Technology Facilitation’ and ‘Financing’..
Consultation the Way Forward (Dec. 11)
Themes of Consultation
Major challenges in measuring progress with indicators Based on the presentations made during the consultative workshop, what kind of challenges can we identify at the national level implementation… Bridging gaps between SD agenda negotiated and SD agenda operationalized at the level of national implementation Institutionalization of monitoring, evaluation and reporting process Technical expertise in collecting, compiling and keeping updated primary data set Analytical capacity in implementing evidence based decision making for SD What type of capacity development demand exists at national implementation level? - Inter-ministerial meeting, Expert group consultation, Stake-holder participatory forum What are the major themes in priority for Capacity Building? - Water, Energy, Food & Agriculture, Greening Industrialization, Eco-tourism, Health
Interests in policy research & CD on measuring progress… Urban Sustainability Management (Mega Urban, Green City, …) -Interested Country Listing : Pilot study on the exploration toward Environmental Welfare (Concept & Indicators, Socio-economic & Geo-spatial analysis …) -Interested Country Listing : Sustainability Assessment on Eco-tourism sites (with indicators) -Interested Country Listing : Type and Theme of Capacity Development Most Interested (in order) Type : Themes :
“Environmental Welfare” in SD 37 Social Environmental Economic Social Welfare Minimum wage Public health care Unemployment insurance Public education Environmental Welfare Minimum Env. standard for all Equitable access to environmental amenity … Resource Efficiency Env. performance 3Rs
Sustainability Assessment on Eco-tourism 38 Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012) 19 sustainability indicators in 5 domains in Eco-tourism
Organization of Consultation
Interactive discussion in small group 60 minutes (09:30~10:30) Country Group Latin America : Chile, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Peru + MI, UN/Statistics Country Group Africa : Ethiopia, Gabon, Jordan, Tunisia, South Soudan + UN/DSD, UNEP Country Group Asia and the Pacific : Bhutan, Fiji, Indonesia, Samoa, Tajikistan, Vietnam + ASEF, UNOSD Plenary Wrap-up (10:30~11:30)
Orientation (09:00~09:10) and “+1 Presentation” (09:10~09:30) Additional introduction on Sustainability Assessment of Eco-Tourism sites (Case Study)
Case study*: Sustainability Evaluation with Indicators on Ecotourism 10 Ecotourism Sites in Korea * Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon, “A Study on the Development of the Indicator Sets for Evaluating the Sustainable Ecotourism and It’s Application” Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University, Korea, 2012.
OVERVIEW 10 Ecotourism sites in Korea (2010)
OVERVIEW 10 Ecotourism sites in Korea (2010) 44
Indicators for Sustainability Evaluation
36 Variables for 19 Indicators in 5 Domains 46 Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
47 Indicator Set for Ecological Domain Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
48 Indicator Sets for Learning & Culture Domains Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
49 Indicator Sets for Governance & Economic Domains Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
Methodology of Evaluation
51 Data Sources and Standardization Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012) DB: 5 domains, 19 indicators and 36 variables for 10 Sites Source: Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism National Survey Report on Environmental GIS Environmental Statistical Information System, etc. Tourism Information System, etc. Source: NSO, Local Government, Survey Data, etc. Annual Statistics Budget Survey Standardization Maximum Score Linear Scale Transformation [0~1]
52 Evaluation Result for the Site 9 “Hwacheon” Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
#9 Ecotourism site 53 9
54 Sustainability Diagram of the Site 9 “Hwacheon” Hwacheon Site Weakness in Economic Domain Near the DMZ Strong regulation on development project Protest from Local Residents lack of local economic benefit from the site low profitability Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
55 Evaluated Composite Scores of the 10 Sites Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012) * A rank sensitivity test based on AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) have shown that the rankings of the sites are quite stable.
56 Highly Sustainable Sites: 10, 4, 3, Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012) Coastal sites show higher sustainability.
HS Ecotourism sites 2, 3, 4,
58 KOREAN CASE Low Sustainability Sites: 7, 1, 6, Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012) Inland mountanous sites show lower sustainability.
LS Ecotourism sites 1, 5, 6, 7,
60 Medium Sustainability Sites: 9, 5 Most ecotourism sites suffer from low economic viability of the project. Ecological consideration, Governance and Cultural dimensions are more prominent factors of sustainability. Average of Domains: 0.68(Ecological) > 0.60(Governance) > 0.55(Cultural) > 0.50(Learning) > 0.32(Economic) Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
61 Benefit of Sustainability Evaluation System Institutionalization of SES is essential for greening tourism development and increasing sustainability of ecotourism, as it helps evidence based policy decision making by providing integrated comparative analysis on different impacts of tourism.