Presentation on theme: "Indicators, reporting and sustainable development"— Presentation transcript:
1 Indicators, reporting and sustainable development International/Interagency Collaboration – Information Technology for Environmental Information & Environmental Data Exchange Network, EEA &EPA, USGS, CNR, JRC and UNEPCopenhagen, April 2002Indicators, reporting and sustainable developmentDavid StannersProgramme Manager for strategic development & international cooperationEuropean Environment AgencyThe European Environment Agency (EEA) is a European Community institution with the aim of serving the Community and the Member States with information to support policy making for environmental protection put in the perspective of sustainable development. We do that by collecting and assessing data on the current and foreseeable state of the environment.With the development in attention going from ‘environment’, to the environmental pillar in sustainable development’ to ‘environmentally sustainable development’ we are in a constant process of creating clear lines for our clients focusing on the essentials in the overload of environmental and sustainability information.
2 OutlineAim: to reflect on the background and approches to the indicator choices being made to help build a more relevant, effective, consistent and streamlined reporting systemEnvironmental challenges and responsesThe role of indicators in the EEA’s work in support of the policy process3. Indicator frameworks and typologies4. Linking indicators to the policy process5. A few thoughts on sustainability indicators
3 The final goalTo develop a more robust, relevant, effective, consistent and streamlined set of indicators for tracking course towards a ”more sustainable” future……
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 environmentSectoral trendsResponses – main policy processes
6 Overall, what do we see ? Tackling climate change The environmental problems that are most difficult to solve persistTackling climate changemillion tonnes CO2 equivalent4500EU15 greenhouse gas emissions40003500kyoto target30002500200019901992199419961998Greenhouse gas emissions
7 Overall, what do we see ? (2) The environmental problems that are most difficult to solve persistProtecting nature and bio-diversity from land take and use120115forest landbuilt-up area110length ofroad network1051009590permanentgrassland851980199019941998Every day during , about 10 hectares of land (10 football pitches) were taken for motorway construction in the EU
8 Overall, what do we see ? (3) The environmental problems that are most difficult to solve persistSustainable management of waste and natural resources600waste generated500400kg/per capita300200waste landfilled1001990199319951996
9 Overall, what do we see ? (4) The environmental problems that are most difficult to solve persistEnvironment and health40Fine particles3530252015105899091929394959697Ozone3530252015105939495969798Air quality in urban areas (ozone and particulate matters)
10 Most issues intimately linked with energy consumption A reflection of the overall scale of resource usemtoe1000services andagriculture800households600industry400200transport1986198819901992199419961998
11 Eco-efficiency and material flows Positive trends in sectoral eco-efficiency have led to a decrease in total air polluting emissionsGDP inbillion US$GDP inbillion US$60006000GDPGDPNH350005000acid equivalentsktonnesTOFP equivalentsktonnesNOxSO21400total400040004000CLRTAP target 201012003500proposed NECDtarget 20103000300030001000CH42500CO800NMVOC200020002000NOX600EU15(NOX+VOC)15002010 CLRTAPtarget onlyNOX + VOC400The emission of acidifying gases has decreased 45% from 1980 to 1996, and 27% between 1990 and 1996, mainly due to the decrease in sulphur dioxide emissions in the energy and industry sector. The emission of ozone precursors decreased by 15% between 1990 and 1996, mainly due to less NMVOC emissions from industries and cars.The reduction of air pollutant emissions was possible due to the combination of end-of pipe measures, such as flue gas desulphurisation, catalysts on cars, and the change in the use of inputs, like the use of low sulphur coal and the switch from coal to natural gas.While an absolute decoupling occurred for the main air pollutants, this is not yet the case for energy use. A previous graph showed that the total use of energy has not decreased; between 1985 and 1997 it increased with 13% and it is still rising although not as fast as GDP.For material flows the situation appears better: An absolute decoupling has occurred between direct material inputs and GDP on the EU level, where we disregard all flows of materials between the individual countries. Between 1988 and 1995 the direct material input decreased in absolute terms by 6%. The main reason is a decrease of imports by the EU as a whole in the beginning of the nineties. Since 1993 the material inputs of most Member States have been increasing slightly, however.On the country level all trade, also imports and exports with other EU countries, are taken into account in calculating the direct material input. The considerable flow of materials between EU Member States changes the picture radically. Only Finland, France, Italy and the UK managed to combine production growth with a reduced Direct Material Input, which was mainly caused by less use of building materials (see slide below).In the other countries material inputs remained the same or increased, with a rise in GDP.100010001000200proposed 2010target NECDonly NOX + VOC500198019821984198619881990199219941996198019821984198619881990199219941996Emissions of acidifying substancesEmissions of ozone precursors
12 The challenge: evolving patterns and scale of consumption and production Transport is constantly increasing and is a core activity of the tourism sectorThe number of inbound tourist visitors grew faster than total passenger transport1980 =100250200150100501980198519901995200020052010number of carspassenger-kmpopulationmillion tourists300250200150100501980198519901992199419961998Passenger transportTourist arrivals
13 Country performance on selected indicators irpogritfreslubeswdkauukfinldeclimate changeair emissionswater quantitywasteThe result shows a division of countries into three groups for the selection of indicators used:Above average performers: Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and the UK;Intermediate performers: Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, and those countries that still have a lot to do: Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland.Although the classification is rough and the division into groups artificial, the general line of this country benchmarking is clear: Obviously, countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and the UK have successfully implemented policy measures for the topics considered. It will be worthwhile to study what they have done, how much the costs were, and what it resulted in. Conversely, a closer look is needed on the characteristics of the problems in southern European countries, and the difficulties of moving forward.EEA’s regular indicator report provides the details to find out what is the reason for a certain place in the scorecard. For Portugal, for example, the increase in the emissions of most air pollutants, the increase in waste production and insufficient progress in recycling of specific waste flows are the main reasons for the relatively poor performance.The indicators used in this report give a clear signal to Ireland and the southern European countries that more needs to be done.
14 Headline Indicators = tool for awareness raising Keys Good progress towards meeting objective, improvement No significant change, static Movement away from objective, declining? Insufficient data
15 2. The role of indicators in the EEA’s work in support of the policy process
16 The aim of EEA indicator reports is to provide signals: on the integration of environmental policy into other policy fieldson eco-efficiency and material flowson country performanceon progress made and promises for the futureIndicators are important because we can manage only what we can measure. And while critics may argue that indicators and targets are a far too simplistic response to complex issues, the reality is that they appear to work! At the EEA we face a constant challenge to prevent overload of information on the environment and sustainability, and indicators are a key tool for us in this regard since they distil data into a clear and accessible form.
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)6th 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)StructuralIndicatorsLisbon 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 indicatorsEnvironmental action plan(Env council, 6EAP for Gothenburg 2001 and specific development plans)Integrated Monitoring and reporting
20 EU Indicator architecture (tentative number of indicators per group) sectoral indicatorsn x 30env. issue indicators~100env. issueheadline indicators10sectoral headlineindicators (n x 3)structural indicators30Assuming that policy developers in the EU aim at a rational and efficient set of policies we may expect that under the sustainable development strategy a number of interlinked and mutually supporting policies will emerge. Clear structures are needed to communicate to policy makers how the information that we provide is related to policy processes and to make clear what type of information serves which process. For that purpose, clusters of environmental indicators are being developed.Spring Councilindicators36
21 The EEA focus for indicators in support of the policy process Indicators and the 6th Environmental Action ProgrammeIndicators and the integration strategiesMonitoring progress with the Sustainable Development Strategy – indicators for the “Synthesis report” and Spring Councils
22 Priorities under the EC’s 6th Environmental Action Programme (6EAP) Limiting climate changeNature and biodiversity – protecting a unique resourceEnvironment and health & quality of lifeEnsuring 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, 15-16 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,TransportPublic healthNatural 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 Possible indicators for the Spring European Council published by the Commission on 30/10/2001 Six indicators each for:General Economic backgroundI. EmploymentII. InnovationIII. Economic reformIV. Social CohesionSix indicators for environment:V. Environmental aspects of Sustainable Development1. Greenhouse gas emissions2. Energy intensity of the economy3. Volume of transport (tonnes and passenger km) relative to GDP4. Modal split of transport5. Urban air quality6. Municipal waste
29 List of indicators to be developed under Environment chapter of Commission publication 30/10/01 Consumption of toxic chemicalsDisability-free life expectancyBiodiversityResource productivityRecycling rate of selected materialsGeneration of hazardous waste
30 3. Indicator frameworks and typologies A typology of questions and indicatorsThe 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 indicatorsType B: “... and is that relevant/does it matter?”Performance indicatorsType C: “Are we becoming more efficient in our economic processes?”Eco-efficiency indicatorsType D: “What has been the effect of policy?"Policy-effectiveness indicatorsIndicators should not be solely presentations of statistics on the state of the environment but should form part of an analysis of progress made under the socio-economic and policy contexts. This means that as far as possible indicators should be developed as:· Performance indicators, linked to an agreed policy target· Efficiency indicators, which show the relationship to production and other economic variables· Policy effectiveness indicators, which show the effect of policy measures and structural developments.Some examples of these types of indicators are given below:
32 Descriptive indicator (Type A) Nitrate concentrations in different sized European rivers This type of indicator allows for a key message such as: Nitrate concentrations have not changed. The high concentrations in smaller rivers reflect the impact of agriculture
33 A Performance Indicator (Type B) Emissions of ozone precursors, EU15targetThis type of indicator allows for a key message such as: Emissions of ozone-forming gases (ozone precursors) have fallen by 22 % since 1990, mainly due to introduction of catalysts on new cars. However, emission targets for VOCs and NOx set in the fifth environmental action programme have not been reached, and substantial reductions of non-methane volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides are still required to achieve 2010 targets.
34 An eco-efficiency indicator (Type C): the energy supply sector, EU15
35 Policy effectiveness indicator (Type D): sulphur dioxide emissions by conventional power plants, EU15Reference emissionMeasures takenActual emission
36 The DPSIR Framework applied to Reporting on Environmental Impacts of TransportEconomic activity (GDP)Disposable incomeMarket price of transport(income and inflationadjusted)No. of householdsWork and settlement patternsDistribution and trade patternsLeisure activitiesResult: Passenger & freight transportRegulation (e.g. technicalstandards, movement restrictions, speed limits, etc.)Taxes (fuel, road pricing, andsubsidiesInvestment in public transport‘smog’ warnings etc.DriversResponsesIll health (e.g. accidents and respir’y diseases, especially in children and the elderly)biodiversity losscongestion“transport poverty”etc.PressuresImpactCO2, Nox, CO, Particulates,VOCs, noise emissions and materialsmovement for settlement and developmentland takeairportsroad, rail and canal networksvehicle stock and related wastesStateair, water, soil qualitynoise levels and exposuresconcentrations and exceedances (e.g. NOx AQG from traffic)settlements and biodiversity fragmentation
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 typologiesGaining recognition phase: state & impactsPolicy response phase: pressures & driving forcesFor gaining wide acceptance of measures: eco-efficiency and policy-effectiveness indicators
39 4. Linking indicators to the policy process Experiences4 indicator classessome success factorsMaking indicators more relevantThe link between indicators and the policy processRedisigning indicator lists to improve relevance
40 Experience with indicators in policy process show 4 classes: Those showing functioning of the system and not designed to be policy relevant (eg, wetland birds)Those fully related to policy process (eg, GHGs)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)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 factorsIndicators 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 toolsUsing indicators to compare or benchmark individual sectors, countries or companies fosters progress as both failure and success stories
42 Steps in indicator based reporting Agree on the „story“ (define environment-sector model; DPSIR)List (most important) policy questions (and identify policy levers)Identify indicators that come close to answering these („ideal“ & „actual“; define new ones!)Data compilationAssessmentMake conclusions, modify, adapt, update – iterate!
44 M: Monitoring D: Data I: Information A: Assessment R: Reporting Use MDIAR to analyse the information provision process MDIAR stands for:M: MonitoringD: DataI: InformationA: AssessmentR: ReportingR: ReportingA: AssessmentI: InformationD: DataM: Monitoring
45 An example: Air pollution: Reporting Is progress in the implementationof agreed policies on ammoniaenough to reach targets?
46 Air pollution: Assessment "Changes in agricultural practice and loweranimal numbers are expected to reduceammonia emissions to X mln tonnesabove the NECD target in 2010.In Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany andBelgium it will be necessary either to reducethe amount of cattle with an additional Y%or to support the building of low-emission stablesand to ban the conventional distribution ofliquid manure on the fields".
47 Air pollution: Information Ammonia emissions, EU15CLRTAP targetemissionsNECD targetN-critical loadexceedance
48 Air pollution: Data Basic statistics Emission coefficients and emissionsScenarios for societal developmentsMeasures and their effectsdataspreadsheetsmodelsbases
49 ImplicationsWhat does this imply for the EEA and EIONET concerning required expertise, networks and processes?
50 To identify this question you need: contacts with the clientsdefinition of appropriate indicatorsharmonised scenarios (socio-economic, sectoral& environment)
51 To make this assessment expertise in EEA & other networks is needed on: agriculture & air policies & their degree of implementationagriculture practicesuse/assessment of socio-economic, agriculture scenariosdevelopment of air emission, dispersion-deposition projectionsdistance to target analysesstakeholder involvement for endorsement of process/results
52 In order to build the defined indicators for the assessment we need: Data flow analysis & managementPast data: data management at ETCs, Eurostat, EMEP etcFuture trends: models & other toolsNon-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 modelSome critical points for SD 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 cycleThis will lead to the ”right” indicatorsUse consistent & systematic methodologies and frameworks to guide this process (eg, the indicator typology, DPSIR framework.....)
59 Some critical points for SD indicators cont... Go beyond a collection of environment, social and economic indicators:identify & include ”systemic” indicators:multi-causality, critical thresholds, ecosystem servicesanalyse 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 chemicalsMeasure stocks (environmental, social and economic capitals) as well as flows
60 Some critical points for SD indicators cont... Promote long term environmental health monitoring to:Build a base for future historical referenceLook out for early warningsFocus on interlinkages not apparent in single issue or media approachesDevelop scenarios and outlooksDevelop & strengthen participatory processes with all stakeholdersPromote international cooperation and exchange