Presentation on theme: "1 Indicators, reporting and sustainable development David Stanners Programme Manager for strategic development & international cooperation European Environment."— Presentation transcript:
1 Indicators, reporting and sustainable development David Stanners Programme Manager for strategic development & international cooperation European Environment Agency International/Interagency Collaboration – Information Technology for Environmental Information & Environmental Data Exchange Network, EEA &EPA, USGS, CNR, JRC and UNEP Copenhagen, April 2002
2 Outline 1. Environmental challenges and responses 2. The role of indicators in the EEAs work in support of the policy process 3. Indicator frameworks and typologies 4. Linking indicators to the policy process 5. A few thoughts on sustainability indicators Aim: to reflect on the background and approches to the indicator choices being made to help build a more relevant, effective, consistent and streamlined reporting system
3 To develop a more robust, relevant, effective, consistent and streamlined set of indicators for tracking course towards a more sustainable future…… The final goal
4.....to help.... manage what you measure (indicators); respond and be rewarded or penalised for those things which you can be held accountable (benchmarking); and, achieve what has been agreed (targets).
5 1. Environmental challenges State of the environment Sectoral trends Responses – main policy processes
6 Overall, what do we see ? The environmental problems that are most difficult to solve persist Tackling climate change Greenhouse gas emissions million tonnes CO 2 equivalent EU15 greenhouse gas emissions kyoto target
7 Overall, what do we see ? (2) The environmental problems that are most difficult to solve persist Protecting nature and bio-diversity from land take and use Every day during , about 10 hectares of land (10 football pitches) were taken for motorway construction in the EU built-up area forest land length of road network permanentgrassland
8 Overall, what do we see ? (3) The environmental problems that are most difficult to solve persist Sustainable management of waste and natural resources 600 waste generated waste landfilled kg/per capita
9 Overall, what do we see ? (4) The environmental problems that are most difficult to solve persist Environment and health Air quality in urban areas (ozone and particulate matters) 40 Fine particles Ozone
10 Most issues intimately linked with energy consumption A reflection of the overall scale of resource use 1000 mtoe households industry transport services and agriculture
11 Eco-efficiency and material flows Positive trends in sectoral eco-efficiency have led to a decrease in total air polluting emissions Emissions of ozone precursors Emissions of acidifying substances acid equivalents ktonnes NH 3 NO x SO 2 CLRTAP target 2010 total proposed NECD target 2010 GDP GDP in billion US$ CH 4 CO NMVOC EU15(NO X +VOC) NO X proposed 2010 target NECD only NO X + VOC 2010 CLRTAP target only NO X + VOC GDP TOFP equivalents ktonnes GDP in billion US$
12 The challenge: evolving patterns and scale of consumption and production Transport is constantly increasing and is a core activity of the tourism sector The number of inbound tourist visitors grew faster than total passenger transport Passenger transport 1980 = number of cars passenger-km population million tourists Tourist arrivals
13 Country performance on selected indicators The indicators used in this report give a clear signal to Ireland and the southern European countries that more needs to be done. ir popopopogritfres lulululubesw dkdkdkdkau ukukukukfi nlnlnlnl dededede climate change air emission s water quantity waste
14 Headline Indicators Keys Good progress towards meeting objective, improvement No significant change, static Movement away from objective, declining ? Insufficient data = tool for awareness raising
15 2. The role of indicators in the EEAs work in support of the policy process
16 The aim of EEA indicator reports is to provide signals: yon the integration of environmental policy into other policy fields yon eco-efficiency and material flows yon country performance yon progress made and promises for the future
18 What steps for sustainable decision making? Sustainable development strategy (Gothenburg Summit, June 2001) Cardiff integration strategy (since April 1998) Lisbon Socio-economic process (since March 2000) 6 th environmental action programme (still to be finally agreed) All include – reporting and indicators to measure & benchmark progress
19 The 'three corridors model' to follow progress in sustainable development Strategy for Sustainable Development (Gothenburg Summit June 2001 to RIO+10 June 2002) Structural Indicators Lisbon agenda (socio- economic policies) ('Synthesis report' to Stockhom summit, March 2001) Sectoral integration ind. Sectoral strategies & action programmes (Economic councils for Gothenburg Summit June 2001) Issue indicators Environmental action plan (Env council, 6EAP for Gothenburg 2001 and specific development plans) Integrated Monitoring and reporting
20 EU Indicator architecture EU Indicator architecture (tentative number of indicators per group) Spring Council indicators 36 sectoral headline indicators (n x 3) env. issue indicators ~100 sectoral indicators n x 30 env. issue headline indicators 10 structural indicators 30
21 The EEA focus for indicators in support of the policy process Indicators and the 6th Environmental Action Programme Indicators and the integration strategies Monitoring progress with the Sustainable Development Strategy – indicators for the Synthesis report and Spring Councils
22 Priorities under the ECs 6 th Environmental Action Programme (6EAP) Limiting climate change Nature and biodiversity – protecting a unique resource Environment and health & quality of life Ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources and wastes
23 The 6EAP seeks to develop...ex ante evaluation of the possible impacts of new policies...ex post evaluation of the effectiveness of existing measures in meeting their environmental objectives
25 Göteborg European Council, June 2001 Presidency Conclusions...agrees a strategy for sustainability development which..... adds a third, environmental dimension to the Lisbon strategy and establishes a new approach to policy making.
26 Göteborg conclusions on sustainable development Four priority areas singled out for future policy development (based on SDS, 6EAP, sector strategies): Climate change, Transport Public health Natural resources [The other SDS priorities are: social exclusion and poverty, demography and ageing, clean energy (with climate change), mobility and land use.]
27 Göteborg conclusions cont... the Commission will evaluate the implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy, in its annual synthesis report, on the basis of a number of headline indicators... Starting from Spring 2003, the Commission will begin covering the candidate countries and their national policies in its annual synthesis report.
28 Six indicators each for: General Economic background I. Employment II. Innovation III. Economic reform IV. Social Cohesion Six indicators for environment: V. Environmental aspects of Sustainable Development 1. Greenhouse gas emissions 2.Energy intensity of the economy 3. Volume of transport (tonnes and passenger km) relative to GDP 4. Modal split of transport 5. Urban air quality 6. Municipal waste Possible indicators for the Spring European Council published by the Commission on 30/10/2001
29 List of indicators to be developed under Environment chapter of Commission publication 30/10/01 Consumption of toxic chemicals Disability-free life expectancy Biodiversity Resource productivity Recycling rate of selected materials Generation of hazardous waste
30 3. Indicator frameworks and typologies A typology of questions and indicators The assessment framework and the role of indicators in the policy life cycle
31 Indicators are chosen to answer policy questions Type A: How are pressures on the environment and how is the quality of the environment developing? Descriptive indicators Type B:... and is that relevant/does it matter? Performance indicators Type C: Are we becoming more efficient in our economic processes? Eco-efficiency indicators Type D: What has been the effect of policy?" Policy-effectiveness indicators
32 Descriptive indicator (Type A) Nitrate concentrations in different sized European rivers
33 A Performance Indicator (Type B) Emissions of ozone precursors, EU15 target
34 An eco-efficiency indicator (Type C): An eco-efficiency indicator (Type C): the energy supply sector, EU15 The energy supply sector
35 Reference emission Measures taken Actual emission Policy effectiveness indicator (Type D): Policy effectiveness indicator (Type D): sulphur dioxide emissions by conventional power plants, EU15
36 l Ill health (e.g. accidents and respiry diseases, especially in children and the elderly) l biodiversity loss l congestion l transport poverty l etc. l Regulation (e.g. technical standards, movement restrictions, speed limits, etc.) l Taxes (fuel, road pricing, and subsidies l Investment in public transport l smog warnings etc. l air, water, soil quality l noise levels and exposures l concentrations and exceedances (e.g. NOx AQG from traffic) l settlements and biodiversity fragmentation l CO 2, No x, CO, Particulates, l VOCs, noise emissions and materials l movement for settlement and development l land take airports road, rail and canal networks airports l vehicle stock and related wastes l Economic activity (GDP) l Disposable income l Market price of transport (income and inflation adjusted) l No. of households l Work and settlement patterns l Distribution and trade patterns l Leisure activities Result: Passenger & freight transport Impact Responses State Drivers Pressures The DPSIR Framework applied to Reporting on Environmental Impacts of Transport
37 Transport and environment monitoring mechanism (TERM)
38 Remember the policy life cycle When designing indicator lists be conscious of the position of the issue in the policy life cycle and use the frameworks and typologies Gaining recognition phase: state & impacts Policy response phase: pressures & driving forces For gaining wide acceptance of measures: eco-efficiency and policy-effectiveness indicators
39 4. Linking indicators to the policy process Experiences – 4 indicator classes –some success factors Making indicators more relevant –The link between indicators and the policy process –Redisigning indicator lists to improve relevance
40 Experience with indicators in policy process show 4 classes: 1. Those showing functioning of the system and not designed to be policy relevant (eg, wetland birds) 2. Those fully related to policy process (eg, GHGs) 3. Clearly relevant to a policy process, but lacking precise link to policies to lead to an immediate reaction from the side of policy makers (eg, N & P in surface waters) 4. Limited relevance to policy due to units used or relationship to processes with limited influence by policy measures (% of population linked to waste water treatment facilities)
41 Some success factors Indicators should report progress over time and be accompanied with an assessment; They should be few in number, and users should get used to their presentation; They are more powerful when linked with formal targets or informal or indicative (sustainable) reference values – as such they become management and accountability tools Using indicators to compare or benchmark individual sectors, countries or companies fosters progress as both failure and success stories
42 Steps in indicator based reporting 1.Agree on the story (define environment- sector model; DPSIR) 2.List (most important) policy questions (and identify policy levers) 3.Identify indicators that come close to answering these (ideal & actual; define new ones!) 4.Data compilation 5.Assessment 6.Make conclusions, modify, adapt, update – iterate!
43 Making indicators more relevant
44 M : Monitoring D : Data I : Information A : Assessment R : Reporting A : Assessment I : Information D : Data M : Monitoring Use MDIAR to analyse the information provision process MDIAR stands for:
45 An example: Air pollution: Reporting Is progress in the implementation of agreed policies on ammonia enough to reach targets?
46 Air pollution: Assessment "Changes in agricultural practice and lower animal numbers are expected to reduce ammonia emissions to X mln tonnes above the NECD target in In Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium it will be necessary either to reduce the amount of cattle with an additional Y% or to support the building of low-emission stables and to ban the conventional distribution of liquid manure on the fields".
47 N-critical load exceedance Air pollution: Information Ammonia emissions, EU15 CLRTAP target emissions NECD target
48 Air pollution: Data Basic statistics Emission coefficients and emissions Scenarios for societal developments Measures and their effects data spreadsheets models bases
49 Implications What does this imply for the EEA and EIONET concerning required expertise, networks and processes?
50 To identify this question you need: contacts with the clients definition of appropriate indicators harmonised scenarios (socio-economic, sectoral & environment)
51 To make this assessment expertise in EEA & other networks is needed on: agriculture & air policies & their degree of implementation agriculture practices use/assessment of socio-economic, agriculture scenarios development of air emission, dispersion-deposition projections distance to target analyses stakeholder involvement for endorsement of process/results
52 In order to build the defined indicators for the assessment we need: Data flow analysis & management Past data: data management at ETCs, Eurostat, EMEP etc Future trends: models & other tools Non-environmental data inputs – cooperation Eurostat...
53 Redisigning indicator lists to improve relevance Group 1 – connected with quantitative targets (eg, the Kyoto target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) Group 2 – unquantified but equally clear policy objectives: eg, to reduce the discharge of pollution from agricultural sources into ground and surface water. Group 3 – vague policy intentions: eg, to make rail freight transport more attractive,
54 Key EEA activities contributing to streamlining Identification, cataloguing and analysis of the policy questions, targets, compromises, etc (REM, ROD, REC projects and STAR database) Definition of core indicator sets (use DPSIR & the TERM model) Definition of priority data flows
55 5. A few thoughts on sustainability indicators General model Some critical points for SD indicators
56 General model of sustainability indicators
57 General model of sustainability indicators – how the indicators fit in the model
58 Some critical points for SD indicators Identify the right questions at the right moment in the policy cycle –This will lead to the right indicators –Use consistent & systematic methodologies and frameworks to guide this process (eg, the indicator typology, DPSIR framework.....)
59 Go beyond a collection of environment, social and economic indicators: –identify & include systemic indicators: multi-causality, critical thresholds, ecosystem services analyse the whole system and look for win-win situations at novel SD interfaces (not just env & economy, env. & health) –Identify upstream indicators: Shift from questions like: How many roads are we building to Do people have access to basic services? Monitor efficiency of use of energy, materials and chemicals –Measure stocks (environmental, social and economic capitals) as well as flows Some critical points for SD indicators cont...
60 Some critical points for SD indicators cont... Promote long term environmental health monitoring to: –Build a base for future historical reference –Look out for early warnings –Focus on interlinkages not apparent in single issue or media approaches Develop scenarios and outlooks Develop & strengthen participatory processes with all stakeholders Promote international cooperation and exchange