45 indicators of sustainable development: a contribution from Ifen

i n s t i t u t f r a n ç a i s d e l ’ e n v i r o n n e m e n t

Ce document s’inscrit dans la continuité des travauxsur les indicateurs de développement durable quel’Ifen a entamés à la fin des années quatre-vingt-dix.Il présente une sélection de 45 indicateurs, élaborésselon une méthode originale, intégrant les troisdimensions du développement durable, qui tente detraduire sous une forme chiffrée la définition issue durapport Brundtland : "le développement durable estun type de développement qui permet de satisfaireles besoins des générations présentes sanscompromettre la capacité des générations futures àrépondre aux leurs".

Après une description de la méthode utilisée parl’Ifen, chaque indicateur (un graphe ou une carte) estprésenté de façon homogène : un exposé introductifindique les raisons de son choix et sa pertinence ; ilest ensuite commenté et documenté. De plus, lorsquecette relation est possible, l’indicateur est situé parrapport aux objectifs de la stratégie de l’Unioneuropéenne en faveur du développement durable.

Cet ouvrage constitue une contribution de l’Ifen auxréflexions nationales et internationales relatives à lamesure du développement durable.

Prix : 15 €

© Ifen, 2003Dépôt légal : décembre 2003

ISSN 1263-9508ISBN 2-911089-68-5

45 indicators of sustainable development: a contribution from Ifen

(Extracts from: “45 indicateurs de développement durable : une contribution de l’Ifen”, realised by Cécile Dormoy)

E t u d e s e t t r a v a u x

n°

41

45 indicateurs de développement durable : une contribution de l’Ifen

ifen

45 in

dic

ateu

rs d

e d

ével

op

pem

ent

du

rab

le :

un

e co

ntr

ibu

tio

n d

e l’I

fen

Et

ud

es e

t tr

avau

x n

°41

45 indicators of sustainable development: a contribution from IFEN

1institut français de l’environnement Etudes et travaux n°41

45 INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

A CONTRIBUTION FROM IFEN

(extracts from:“45 indicateurs de développement durable :

une contribution de l'Ifen”realised by Cécile Dormoy)



CONTENTS

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

READER'S GUIDE TO THE DOCUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

THE MAIN SOCIOECONOMIC DYNAMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

• An Identikit picture of France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

• Gross domestic product per capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

• Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

• Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

THEME 1: SUSTAINABLE GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Module 1: “Eco-efficient” growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

• CO2 emissions and GDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

• Energy consumption and GDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

• Raw materials consumption and GDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

• Mobility and GDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

• Household waste production and income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

• Eco-efficiency in the agricultural sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Module 2: Integrating the environment into the production structure . . . . . . . . . .35

• Energy production from renewable sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

• The changing pattern of rail transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

• Organic agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

• Changes in treatment methods for household waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

• Environmental protection expenditure in the French economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

THEME 2: CRITICAL HERITAGE AND RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Module 3: Sustainable use of resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

• Production of aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

• Changes in artificially sealed land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

• Changes in agricultural land uses: potential effects on concentrations of organic matter . . . .54

• Overfishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Module 4: Maintaining and transferring our heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

• Contamination of inland waters by pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

• Biodiversity: changes in the population of common bird species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

• The population's state of health and life expectancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

• Proportion of young people leaving school with no qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

• Road safety problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

• Expenditure on nature protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

• Maintaining and protecting heritage monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72



THEME 3: THE SPATIAL DIMENSION AND THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Module 5: Inequality and spatial distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

• Urban sprawl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

• Distribution of technological risks across France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

• Spatial pressures induced by tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

Module 6: Relationships between France and the rest of the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

• France's contribution to the greenhouse effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

• Official development assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

• Governance and respect for Community law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

THEME 4: SATISFYING THE NEEDS OF PRESENT-DAY GENERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

Module 7: Inequality and exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

• Gender inequalities in salary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96

• Proportion of households living below the poverty line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

• Occupational hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

• Access to justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

Module 8: Behaviour reflecting dissatisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

• The suicide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106

• Electoral abstention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108

• Engagement in non-governmental, not-for-profit groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110

• Confidence in French institutions regarding environmental issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

THEME 5: THE LONG TERM AND FUTURE GENERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115

Module 9: Principles of responsibility and precaution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

• Research and development efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118

• The national debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120

• “Highly active, long life” radioactive waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122

• Local Agendas 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124

Module 10: Vulnerability and adaptability to unforeseen circumstances . . . . . . .127

• Energy independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128

• Enterprise initiatives and business failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130

• Expenditure on continuing education and training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

• Farm specialisation and crop rotation practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134

• Natural risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

INDEX OF INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143



INTRODUCTION

Sustainable development, from Stockholm to Rio

The origins and characteristics of the sustainabledevelopment concept as it has emerged today arerooted in international policies for the environment.

In 1972, the United Nations Conference on theHuman Environment in Stockholm, adopting themotto “One Earth”, issued a declaration and anaction programme and established a new institu-tion, the United Nations Environment Programmeor UNEP, to take charge of oversight. The confer-ence was held in a context where “growth” 1 wastaxed with being “unsustainable”, meaning that inorder to support continuing growth, raw materialsand food resources were being extracted from theplanet's natural environment at a rate that it couldnot sustain indefinitely. The impacts of pollutionon human health were already considered to be amatter of concern.

Twenty years later, by the time the United NationsConference on Environment and Development(UNCED) was organised in Rio, ecology hadbecome an increasing imperative in economicdevelopment.

Since 1972, policies have been developed and min-istries established to address sustainable develop-ment2, fuelling hopes that the Summit had signalledthe coming of age of international environment anddevelopment policy - hopes that gained in strengthas, in 1980, the World Conservation Strategy, devel-oped by the UICN (World Conservation Union) intro-duced the concept of “sustainable development” forthe first time 3: “the aim of the World Strategy forNature Conservation is to contribute to sustainabledevelopment by preserving living resources”. Inaddressing the issue of the carrying capacity ofecosystems, the UICN drew on the model of econom-ics: “in a sense, sustainable use is like using the inter-est on an investment without touching the capital. Asociety that requires all uses of living resources to besustainable is making sure it will enjoy the benefit ofthose resources virtually indefinitely”4.

Development issues were included in the strategy,foreshadowing what would later appear in the1987 Brundtland Report (Our Common Future).Although it was written primarily for decision-makers at all levels, this report from the WorldCommission for Environment and Developmentwas aimed at a broad readership. Briefly, its argu-ments are based on the idea that not only can eco-

(1) Meadows and al, 1972. The limits of growth. Universe Books, NewYork, 1972.(2) France and The Netherlands established their Ministries for the Environment in

1971, after the creation of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1969.(3) According to the journal Problèmes économiques (n°2764, 5th June 2002), the

term “sustainable development” originated in Prussian sylviculture in the 18thcentury. The concept holds that “any use of natural resources must ensure thatthe quality and quantity of agricultural and forest yields remain sustainable”.

(4) and (5) Edwin Zaccaï, 2002. Le développement durable, dynamique et constitu-tion d'un projet (Sustainable development: the dynamics and forging of an idea).Brussels, EIE, Peter Lang.

nomic growth harm the environment, but ecologi-cal damage can in turn jeopardise economicgrowth. Furthermore, developing countries areforced to overexploit their own resources to com-pensate for the industrialised countries' overuse oftheir own. The economic interdependence ofnations thus goes hand in hand with their ecologi-cal interdependence. Conflicts over resource man-agement then become likely, giving rise to hostili-ties whose consequences can be catastrophic bothfor humans and ecosystems. Finally, the Brundtlandreport stresses that if current patterns of develop-ment continue unchanged, “future generations”may well be deprived of the vital natural capitalthey would need to satisfy their needs.

As a “pool of analyses and arguments that aims toforge alliances with a view to mobilisation” 5, thisdocument seeks to make strong connectionsbetween development and the environment andto stress their inseparable nature.

In 1992, the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development held in Rio deJaneiro was prepared with the Brundtland report asa basis. Three official documents were adopted, theRio Declaration on Environment and Development,Agenda 21 and the Declaration on Forests. Twointernational conventions were sent to participat-ing countries for ratification: the United NationsConvention on Biodiversity and the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change.The key concept of the world summit was as follows:if we are to pursue the development of our planetwithout jeopardising the rights of future genera-tions, development policies must simultaneouslyencompass all the economic, social and environmen-tal components of the activities that ensue fromthem.Agenda 21 is a plan which, if it were put into prac-tice, would create a new generation of institutionswith responsibility for worldwide policy-makingand governance. It is a guide to the managementof our environment that offers political leaders away in to the integration of ecological and socio-economic issues.



(6) OECD, 2001. Policies to enhance sustainable Development. Paris, OECD, 108 p.and OECD, 2001. Sustainable Development: Critical issues. Paris, OECD, 420 p.

(7) These are initiatives designed to supplement the “Type I” initiatives adopted bygovernments.

From the 1990s to advances at the Johannesburg Summit

The late 1990s saw the emergence of a new series ofinitiatives for sustainable development, particularlywithin the EU and the Organisation for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD). A sustain-able development strategy was adopted by the EUat the Göteborg Council Meeting in June 2001. TheOECD's plans for sustainable development, whichwere launched in 1998, have been set out in twomajor publications 6. They also led to an OECDCouncil Meeting, in May 2001, between ministers ofeconomics and finance and ministers of the environ-ment, who reasserted on this occasion that sustain-able development is a fundamental objective for thegovernments of member countries and for theOECD itself.At the Johannesburg Summit, the United NationsGeneral Assembly was given a mandate to reviewthe actions undertaken since the Rio Agreements,and to define new measures to provide for theirenforcement. The Summit also called on participantsto list the areas where measures need to bestrengthened and to highlight new challenges andopportunities. The Johannesburg Summit was con-vened in order to draw attention to the need to rec-oncile economic interests with social and ecologicalconcerns, and to boost international commitmentsto sustainable development. In these respects, thenegotiators have fulfilled their mandate.

The undertakings made at the summit include thefollowing: to halve the number of people living onless than one US dollar a day by 2015; to improveaccess to sanitation for the 2.4 billion people whocurrently live without; to reduce the rate of biodi-versity depletion by 2010 and to maintain andrestore fish stocks to levels that allow sustainablefishing by 2015.Finally, emphasis should be laid on the role of the sup-porting measures (known as “Type II Initiatives”)7 pro-posed by groups of countries, businesses and partic-ipants in civil society, which involve substantialfinancial commitments. These are the measureswhich should allow the objectives set out inJohannesburg to be met, in particular through themultilateral policy commitments negotiated by thegovernments.

How should sustainable development be measured?

In the Rio Summit's Agenda 21, an entire chapter isdevoted to the issue of information to support pol-icy making (Chapter 40). Two objectives are set out:• To bridge the existing data gap ;• To improve information availability.

Definitions of sustainable development

Brundtland Commission (1987)

“Sustainable development is a form of development that meets the needs of the present without com-promising the ability of future generations to meet their own”.From the 27 principles of sustainable development as declared at the Rio Summit in 1992:• “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy

and productive life in harmony with nature” (principle 1);• “The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet the developmental and environ-

mental needs of present and future generations” (principle 3);• “In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part

of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it” (principle 4).

French Environment Code

L. 110-1. “Natural areas, resources and habitats, sites and landscapes, animal and plant species and their diversityand the biological equilibrium to which they are necessary are all part of the nation's shared heritage. Protecting,enhancing, restoring, rehabilitating and managing these features are a matter of common interest and contributeto the objectives of sustainable development, of which the aims are to satisfy the development needs of our gen-erations without jeopardising the ability of future generations to satisfy their own. Within the framework of thelaws defining their scope, these actions are based on the following principles: the precautionary principle, theprinciple of preventive and remedial action, the polluter-pays principle and the principle of participation”.

French Government Charter for the Environment

“Public policies must promote sustainable development. To this end, they must take environmental protec-tion and enhancement into account, and reconcile them with economic and social development” (Article 6).



Particular emphasis is laid on the need for indica-tors of sustainable development: “Commonly usedindicators such as Gross National Product (GNP)and measurements of individual resource or pollu-tion flows do not provide adequate indications ofsustainability. Methods for assessing interactionsbetween different sectoral, environmental, demo-graphic, social and developmental parameters arenot sufficiently developed or applied. Indicatorsof sustainable development need to be devel-oped to provide solid bases for decision-making atall levels and to contribute to a self-regulating sus-tainability of integrated environment and devel-opment systems”.

The most outstanding initiative that followed onfrom the recommendations in Chapter 40 ofAgenda 21 came from the United NationsCommission on Sustainable Development in 1995.This was a work programme covering a list ofabout 134 indicators of sustainable development,which were organised into three types: “drivingforces”, “states” and “responses”. “Driving force”indicators are those which illustrate humanprocesses and activities having an effect on thesustainability of development. “State” indicatorsare used to review factors of sustainability indevelopment processes, while “Response” indica-tors reflect the policies and measures taken inresponse to the way development is proceeding.

The relevance of this list of indicators and theirability to be expressed in figures were tested by anumber of candidate countries (France, Finland,Belgium, Austria, Germany and the UnitedKingdom) in partnership with developing coun-tries (Tunisia and Morocco worked with France, forexample).

In France, IFEN received a mandate from theMinistry for the environment to contribute to thetest 8. Three conclusions were submitted to theUnited Nations:• Half of the indicators were not very meaningful

with respect to the concept of sustainable devel-opment as defined in the Brundtland report;

• The absence of ranking between indicators was aproblem for users ;

• Juxtaposing the three dimensions of sustainabledevelopment makes it impossible to discern linksof cause and effect between them.

Other initiatives emerged, for example from theOECD and other developed countries.The idea was to sketch out possible indicators tomonitor sustainable development plans orstrategies, compiling them into “trend charts”that could be used to monitor progress towardsthe standards or objectives set out in approveddocuments.

Working method

While applying to test the method put forward bythe United Nations, IFEN undertook, as from June19979, to build up a set of much more specific indica-tors that would enable it to reply as coherently andwith as much information as possible to the questionput by the National Commission on SustainableDevelopment: “how far - if at all - has France pro-gressed towards a form of development that may beconsidered sustainable?”

To reply to this, we believed that we needed to inno-vate in terms of both the design of indicators and themethod used to build them. These innovations maybe summed up in two main points:

• In defining the concept of sustainable develop-ment, priority is given to the issue of our “legacyto future generations”;

• The choice of a method that is at once consistentand open-ended (by alternating relatively prescrip-tive parameterisation phases with consultationphases that were open to a broad spectrum of sci-entists and practitioners).

Choosing the vital lead: the Brundtlandreport's definition and the issue of our

legacy to future generations

In many of the countries which have attempted tobuild up indicators of sustainable development, theexperts called upon have often chosen either to“recycle” conventional environmental indicators ormerely to add on social or economic data with no realconcern for integration 10. However, we felt that inorder to translate the definition of sustainable devel-opment set out in the Brundtland report (“a form ofdevelopment that meets the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future genera-tions to meet their own”) into quantified data, theone overriding issue that would have to be addressedwould be that of intergenerational arbitration, inother words our legacy to future generations.

Even though we cannot define what the needs offuture generations will be, it can be assumed thatthey are all the more likely to be capable of satisfy-ing them if:

• today's generations exercise care and efficiencyoverall in their patterns of production and con-

(8) IFEN, 1998. Test des indicateurs de développement durable des Nations unies(Testing United Nations Indicators of Sustainable Development, Report producedby France). Orléans, IFEN, 410 p. (coll. Etudes et Travaux, 17).

(9) IFEN, 1997. Indicators of sustainable development: a synopsis of work abroad andkey points for discussion. Orléans, IFEN, 72 p. (coll. Notes de méthode, 8). Of par-ticular note is Jacques Theys' presentation of the method: “We need to agree onthe architecture before we start laying bricks”.

(10) For experiences in other countries, readers are referred to the synopsis written byCécile Rechatin in n°8 of IFEN's methodology notes series, mentioned above.



(11)For any given utility produced, the aim is to minimise both the resources used,especially those which are “critical” (scarce, irreplaceable, etc.) and the mostimportant risks involved for future generations (potential disasters, cumulativerisks, etc.).

(12)“Critical” capital is capital whose disappearance would gravely jeopardise devel-opment for future generations. Capital of this kind is always of strategic impor-tance, vulnerable and impossible to replace with anything else.

(13) The United Nations and other institutions add “governance” as a fourth institu-tional dimension that addresses the capacity of societies to respond to sustainabledevelopment challenges through public policy tools.

sumption (which implies that growth has to be“uncoupled” 11 to some extent from resource useand generated pollution) ;

• we preserve and develop (in terms of both quan-tity and diversity) our natural capital and her-itage, especially those components that are con-sidered “critical” 12 ;

• we close the widening gap between the needsand aspirations of the most vulnerable socialgroups and their actual fulfilment ;

• our behaviour patterns and institutions reflect astrong collective preference for the future as wellas effective capacities for response to accidentalor unforeseeable events;

• the interconnections between local and globalconcerns are effectively addressed.

The central aim of the indicators proposed by IFENis to compile, for each question, a set of assump-tions that are sufficient for the purpose of makinga global assessment as to whether France, when itcomes to intergenerational arbitration, is develop-ing sustainably or unsustainably. On questions suchas this, the diagnosis can never be categorical, oreven synoptic: the idea is to compile quantifiedinformation that is as reliable as possible.

The fact that priority has been given to the prob-lems of future generations does not mean thatother important aspects of sustainable develop-ment have been deliberately left aside. The link-ages between what are known as the “threepillars13” of sustainable development - econom-ic, social, and environmental - are also explicitlyaddressed, albeit with an overriding concern tointegrate the three aspects. Hence the emphasiswe have placed, for example, on indicators of“uncoupling” or on hopes of addressing the issueof “ecological inequality” in the future.

Finally, special attention is given to the questionof links between different scales of reference.Although the indicators put forward by IFEN aremainly for use at the national scale, we have alsosuggested that information should be compiledto characterise patterns of interconnectionbetween national and global scales, and betweennational and local scales (such as France's contri-bution to the greenhouse effect as well asinequalities and risk concentrations within itsown territory).

The outcome of all these considerations is a list of“specifications” for indicators of sustainable devel-opment, which can be summed up into five majorcharacteristics: specificity, the ability to highlightintergenerational arbitration, a clear concern forthe integration of economic, social and ecologicaldimensions, geographical multidisciplinarity and,finally, transparency (hence the decision not to useaggregate indices like “green GDP”). This was theinitial ambition.

Methodology - meeting the dualrequirement of consistency and openness

A tool for consistency: the modular approach

To meet the specifications given above and avoidinconsistencies, it soon became clear that the onlyrealistic solution was to build up the indicatorsaround modules, each having specific character-istics but all linked to each other through a com-mon framework.

The proposed structure has ten modules. Thesehave been defined to help assess how far a givenaspect of development dynamics (modules 1 and 2)is likely to satisfy the needs of present and futuregenerations (modules 7 and 8) thanks to the time-ly renewal of different kinds of capital and her-itage (modules 3 and 4). Geographical aspects assuch are taken into account through dual linkagesbetween national and global scales (module 6) andnational and local scales (module 5).Since the object is to build up indicators of the sus-tainability of development, particular emphasis hasbeen placed on the long term. Two approacheswere used here: firstly, measurement of the implic-it preference given to the future in today's behav-iour patterns (module 9); secondly, an attempt toassess individual or collective capacities to react tounforeseen circumstances (vulnerability to risks)(module 10).

The first two are central to the framework thusconstructed: this where we are seeking morespecifically to assess the “overall performance” ofdevelopment trends, in terms of both economicgrowth and the long-term preservation of environ-mental quality (residual pollution and extraction of“critical” resources) and employment. In this case,more emphasis has been on indicators of “uncou-pling” between the environment and growth(module 1), but also on measuring the integrationof the environment (or the social dimension) inproduction and consumption systems (module 2).The point is to bring out the tensions or, converse-ly, the mutually reinforcing aspects between thethree “pillars” of development: the economy,social issues and ecology. This is also true, to a less-er extent, in modules 7 and 8, with which we seek



to measure the distances between the perceptionand fulfilment of needs - distances that are at onceobjective (module 7) and subjective (module 8).However, attempts made in this area to bring outaccumulated inequality - in economic, social andenvironmental terms - were not successful.

Despite its complexity, the modular structure has anumber of advantages:

• Although the structure as a whole is complex andopen to discussion, each individual module isinherently uniform and consistent, and can easi-ly by summarised in one or two key words orsimple questions: in module 1, for example, isthere a tendency or not to uncouple growth fromthe environment or growth from employment,and therefore, is there a trend or not towardsdevelopment that is more effective overall interms of added value, employment and environ-mental quality?

• The second advantage is the overall coherence ofthe system: even though each module can beconsidered independently, they are all closelyinterlinked, with the output from one becomingthe input to another. We have avoided the classicsolution, which involves adding different indica-tors together (economic, social and ecological)without building true composite indicators;

• The third advantage is flexibility: the differentmodules can be developed either to meet thespecific needs of different users, or in accordancewith a strategy for gradual implementation.

Nevertheless, the modular structure also has tworather important disadvantages:

• It necessarily produces a large number of indica-tors, which adversely affects its readability ingeneral;

• It provides no guidance as to ways of ranking oraggregating indicators, which raises problemsdownstream with the overall evaluation of allthe data collected.

We felt, however, that for immediate purposes, theadvantages of the method should outweigh itstwo disadvantages provided that a rigorous andopen approach is adopted in selecting indicators.

Selecting indicators: an open-ended approach

Having defined the framework, IFEN's approach tothe selection of indicators involved alternatinginternal work phases and external consultationphases. The process, which lasted for nearly threeyears, took place in five main stages:

• The first stage was to define “specifications” anda methodological framework 14;

• The framework was then submitted to the scien-tific community for validation and further sug-gestions 15;

• Based on the suggestions put forward by the sci-entific community, a preliminary table of nearly300 indicators (about thirty for each module) wasproposed by an internal IFEN working group 16;

• IFEN then organised a consultation to select about45 of these, taking into account the potentialfor quantifying the indicators selected;

• The final stage was devoted to the quantificationof the chosen indicators, as described in this doc-ument.

Work in progress

At this stage in the process, the provisional natureof the list of 45 indicators proposed by IFEN needsto be clearly emphasised:

• The indicators selected are by no means exhaus-tive: they have merely been chosen to illustratethe problems at issue in each module and are tobe read or assessed in that light;

• Given its institutional position, the IFEN has tend-ed to emphasise indicators with an environmen-tal dimension. The work should therefore to beseen as a contribution to efforts on indicatordevelopment that can only be undertaken with-in an inter-ministerial framework 17;

• The final selection of indicators was severely con-strained by the information available. Aspectsthat are of great importance a priori, such astrends in ecological inequality or the economicand ecological vulnerability or areas to risks havenot been fully taken into account for lack ofquantified data.

The following document is therefore in no wayintended as a definitive conclusion to ongoing dis-cussions on indicators of sustainable development,but rather as a means of opening up the debate asproductively as possible - which necessarily meansconducting further statistical studies in the future.

Thierry Lavoux (*), Jacques Theys (*)

(14) See IFEN Note on methodology n°8, mentioned above.(15) IFEN, 1999. Les indicateurs de développement durable - métohodes et perspec-

tives (Indicators of sustainable development, Methods and perspectives). Orléans,IFEN, 145 p. (coll. Etudes et Travaux, 24).

(16) IFEN, 2001. Propositions d'indicateurs de développement durable pour la France(proposal for indicators of sustainable development for France). Orléans, IFEN, 106p. (coll. Etudes et travaux, 35).

(17) In accordance with the conclusions of a government seminar held on 28 November 2002, a work programme was carried out under the aegis of theNational Planning Commission. The outcome was the publication, in 2004, of alist of indicators resulting from in-depth groundwork at the interministerial level :Ministry of ecology and sustainable development, 2004. Indicateurs nationaux dedéveloppement durable : lesquels retenir ? (National indicators of sustainabledevelopment: making the right choice). Paris, La Documentation française, 236 p.(coll. Réponses environnement - Environment Responses).

(*) respectively Head, Synopses Department and Scientific Director when this workwas realised.



One of the main challenges of sustainabledevelopment lies in the ability to generatelong-term, enduring growth. Creating wealth thus appears to be aprerequisite for development and of economicand social progress. However, growth has to be such as to allow the preservation of capital stocks (human, economic and natural) and for wise management of the natural heritage.

Theme 1 aims to characterise society'sproductive activity from the angle of sustainability. Indicators on this topictherefore have to provide answers to two questions:

• What evidence is there of coupling oruncoupling between economic growth andgrowth in the use of capital or resources?Can “eco-efficient” growth be ensured?

• Is the organisation of productive structuresbeing improved with respect to theenvironment?

MODULE 1: “Eco-efficient” growth.

MODULE 2: Integrating the environment into the production structure.

THEME 1:

SUSTAIN

ABLE G

ROW

TH



HOUSEHOLD WASTE PRODUCTIONAND INCOME

Sustainable development depends primarily onuncoupling economic growth from pressures on theenvironment. This requires more rational use of nat-ural resources and materials in production systems,but changes in consumer behaviour also have totake place.

To reflect changing lifestyles and consumption pat-terns, trends in household waste production areanalysed with respect to one of the components ofeconomic growth, i.e. household purchasing powerestimated through gross disposable householdincome.

According to available estimations, householdwaste production increased sharply over the lasttwenty years from about 300 kg per capita in theearly 1980s to about 450 kg per capita (some 27 mil-lion tonnes) in 2000. The change is largely account-ed for by the increase in quantities and use of pack-aging, mostly in the food sector. According to aCREDOC survey for the ADEME covering 1979-1999,each inhabitant of France was throwing away126 kg of food packaging in 1999 as against 88 kgin 1979.

From 1980 to 1993, household waste productionincreased much faster (4% per year) than house-hold income (1,7% per year). From 1993 to 2000,household waste production continued to increase,though at a slower rate (+10% over the whole peri-od), closer to household income growth. The newtrend could be linked to policy changes and to newproduction methods (reduced packaging at source,for example).

RELEVANCE

ANALYSIS

Nevertheless, caution is needed in interpreting thenew trend, especially in view of the gradualimprovement in the statistical coverage of house-hold waste treatment centres, which has only beenexhaustive since 1993. Consequently, the trend inquantities of waste produced until 1993 may havebeen slightly overestimated.It does appear, however, that there is no clear cor-relation between household income and the quan-tities of waste produced, which tends to strengthenthe assumption that more “qualitative” factors areat work, such as changes in lifestyle and consump-tion patterns.

The declared aim, at EU and national level, ofreducing quantities of waste has therefore notbeen achieved. In most European countries, house-hold waste production is still increasing, generallyat a faster rate than growth.

The priority objective set out in the EU's sustain-able development strategy is to “break down the

EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

links between economic growth, use of naturalresources and waste production”.

THEME 1:

SUSTAIN

ABLE G

ROW

TH



1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

base 100 in 1980

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Production of household wasteGross disposable income

• ADEME, 1998. Atlas des déchets en France (Atlas of waste inFrance) Paris, ADEME, 23 p. (coll. Données et références).

• Poquet G., 2001. “Nouveau regard dans nos poubelles” (Adifferent view of dustbins), Consommation et modes de vie,n° 152, July 2001, 4 p.

• Ronconi M., 2001. Measuring progress towards a more sus-tainable Europe - Proposed indicators for sustainable devel-opment - Data 1980-1999. Luxembourg, Eurostat, 167 p.

MethodologyHousehold waste in the broad sense includes waste from smallenterprises that is collected along with it. Estimations aremainly based on the ADEME's inventory of installations for thetreatment of household and similar waste (ITOMA - installa-tions de traitement des déchets ménagers et assimilés). Thequestionnaire covers treatment centres for household and sim-ilar wastes as well as authorised landfills with a capacity of3 000 tonnes per year and more, particularly as to the quanti-ties of household and similar waste they receive.

INDICATOR : Household income and production of household waste

Gross disposable income volume (euros at 1995 prices).Production of household waste in the broad sense (i.e. including waste from enterprises collected with household waste ) in millions of tonnes.

Source: INSEE, National Accounts - ADEME.

OrganisationsADEME: French Agency for Environmental and Energy

Management.

CREDOC: Research Centre for Studies and Observations ofLiving Conditions .

EUROSTAT: Statistics Office of the European Communities.

INSEE: National Institute of Statistics and Economic studies.

UnitsKg: kilogramme.Per capita: per inhabitant.

For more information

THEME 1:

SUSTAIN

ABLE G

ROW

TH



Sustainable development depends on thepreservation and enhancement of oureconomic, natural, human, institutional andcultural heritage. Some aspects of our heritagehave become “critical” in terms of theextraction or releases to which they aresubject, and sometimes in terms of theirsymbolic character. We have to ensure thatthey are maintained and enhanced for thebenefit of future generations. To do so, thepressures exerted on these forms of heritage byhuman activities have to be limited.Technical advances (in recycling, substitution,etc.) are implicitly required here to ensurethat we are able to recover enough room formanoeuvre in the use of our heritage.

The chosen indicators are designed to illustrate:• The extent to which our heritage and

resources are being exploited in view ofavailable stocks, in order to assess thesustainability of development patterns;

• The state of “critical” heritage and capital,in order to assess the value of our legacy tofuture generations.

MODULE 3: Sustainable use of resources.

MODULE 4: Maintaining andtransferring our heritage.

THEME 2: CRITICA

L HERITAG

EA

ND

RESOURCES



CHANGES IN ARTIFICIALLY SEALED LAND

Because it is generally irreversible, the increase inartificially sealed land is a negative legacy to futuregenerations. Man-made landscape alteration hasmultiple effects on the environment: encroachmentover fragile areas such as coastlines, grasslands andwetlands, losses of natural and agriculturalresources, fragmentation of natural habitatsthrough infrastructure construction - creating obsta-cles to the movement of various fauna species -increasing impermeability of soils and a consequentincrease in flood risks, blighted landscapes, etc.

The artificially sealed areas under considerationinclude built-up areas, roads and car parks, as well asother non-built areas such as building sites, landfills,quarries and amenity parks and gardens.The chosen indicator shows changes in artificiallysealed land, illustrating the increasing pressure ofurbanisation and infrastructure development incomparison to the increase in population from 1982to 2001.

In 2001, artificially sealed areas covered 43 685 km2,or 8% of mainland France. Roads and car parksaccounted for 39% of these areas and built-upareas for 25% (Source : SCEES, TERUTI survey).

The extent of artificially sealed areas rose sharply(+38%) from 1982 to 2001, encroaching mainly onagricultural and natural areas.

In the last decade (from 1992 to 2001), the totalartificially sealed area increased sharply, by almost15%. Areas built up for individual housing rose by

RELEVANCE

ANALYSIS

20%, areas planted with amenity parks and gar-dens linked to housing developments rose by 18%while the area covered by roads and car parksincreased by 11%. This trend, which reflects grow-ing urban sprawl, is less a result of demographicgrowth (the population increased by only 3% overthe same period) than of a higher standard of liv-ing and societal changes, and particularly a desirefor more living space among many city-dwellers.Urban sprawl is a factor of increasing environmen-tal stress, however, as it creates ever more demandfor transport and infrastructure.

In its conclusions set out on the 3rd December 2001,concerning key environmental indicators for sus-tainable development to enable it to monitorprogress in implementing the EU strategy for sus-tainable development, the Council of the


European Union recommends the use of an indica-tor on changes in land use by major categories(extension of built-up areas, for example), amongthe indicators listed for development.

THEME 2: CRITICA

L HERITAG

EA

ND

RESOURCES



1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

base 100 in 1982

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

Population Artificially sealed land

• European Environment Agency, 2002. “Land” inEnvironmental Signals 2002 - Benchmarking the millennium.Copenhagen, EEA, pp. 106-1133. (coll. Environmental assess-ment report, 9).

• IFEN, 2003. “Ville et agriculture : dialogue ou mono-logues ?” (Cities and farms: dialogue or monologue?), Lesdonnées de l'environnement, n° 81, 4 p.

• IFEN, 2003. “L'artificialisation s'étend sur tout le territoire”(Changes in artificially sealed land are affecting the entireterritory), Les données de l'environnement, n° 80, 4 p.

INDICATOR: Changes in artificially sealed land and population

Artificially sealed zones (in km2) : series stopped in 1991, mainland France.Population: average population between two consecutive January 1st

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs (SCEES), Teruti survey, physical nomenclature - Insee, National accounts.

IFEN: French Institute for the Environment.

SCEES: Central Office for Statistical Studies and Surveys(Ministry of Agriculture).

INSEE: National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies.

THEME 2: CRITICA

L HERITAG

EA

ND

RESOURCES

For more information Organisations

Km2 : square kilometre.

Units

The data on artificially sealed areas are from the TERUTI sur-vey carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture's statisticsdepartment (SCEES). The operation is carried out annually,using aerial photographs and ground surveys, to produce landuse data over grids with 36 points 300 metres apart. Each year,the survey describes 15 500 grids, covering 1/10th of the terri-tory of France.

Methodology



The sustainability of development is of concern at every geographical scale, from local to global. Our third theme addresses the geographicaldimension of development, in terms of distribution across France (spatialdistribution of population and ofenvironmental pressures or risks), but also in terms of France's role in the world with regard to povertyreduction, to the preservation of the world's natural resources and to world governance.

The indicators have been selected to answerthe following questions:• Are we seeing any concentration of spatial

inequalities (economic, social andenvironmental) across France?

• What role does France have in globalregulation? What is France's contribution to worldwide environmental concerns such as control of the greenhouse effect?

MODULE 5: Inequality and spatialdistribution.

MODULE 6: Relationships betweenFrance and the rest of the world.

THEME 3: THE SPATIA

L DIM

ENSIO

NA

ND

THE GLO

BAL PERSPECTIVE



OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

Ensuring fair treatment within a given generation -which requires that the industrialised countries con-tribute to development in the South, mainly by provid-ing technical and financial aid - is one of the principlesof sustainable development. The amounts of aid arepartly dictated by rules governing the funding of mul-tilateral organisations and institutions and the manda-tory contributions they require from their members,but they also depend on national priorities.

Official Development Assistance (ODA) is defined as thenet amount of donations and loans awarded, underpreferential conditions, by public bodies to the coun-tries and territories listed as beneficiaries by the OECD'sDevelopment Assistance Committee (DAC). As well asfinancial contributions, ODA also includes technicalcooperation.

Reducing poverty worldwide is the core objective ofdevelopment assistance, to which all DAC members are

committed (Source: OECD, 2001). The DAC's Guidelineson Poverty Reduction define priorities for action andcriteria for awarding aid which combine the economic,social and environmental aspects of sustainable devel-opment.

ODA is made up of bilateral and multilateral aid.Bilateral aid is the portion of ODA which is awardeddirectly by the government in question to partnercountries. There are various forms of bilateral aid,including donations or loans at preferential rates tofinance capital investments, technical assistance, budg-et support, food aid and emergency aid. Multilateralaid covers all ODA contributions to international organ-isations having States as members and whose activitiesare partly or wholly concerned with development.These include multilateral development banks, UnitedNations institutions and regional organisations. ODAdoes not include donations, loans or credits awardedfor military purposes.

Despite repeated undertakings made by France tointernational bodies, French ODA has been droppingconsistently over the last few years, both in terms offinancial volume and as a percentage of Gross DomesticProduct (GDP). The ratio of French ODA to GDP fellfrom 0.57% in 1992 to 0.34% in 2001. Of all DAC mem-ber countries, France has made the largest reductions inits ODA since 1994. In 2001, France paid out 4.8 billioneuros in ODA, or 0.34% of its GDP.It should be noted that aid amounts were artificiallyoverestimated until 2000 because calculations includedtransfers to French overseas areas.

Bilateral aid still makes up by far the largest share ofFrench ODA, even though there has been a proportion-al drop in relation to multilateral aid (from 78% of allODA in 1994 to 63% in 2001). The main components ofbilateral aid have changed in substantially differentways. Means allocated to technical cooperation haveincreased slightly, in particular because of a notableexpansion in programmes to host students from devel-oping countries in French universities. Support to proj-ects and economic assistance in general have dropped.France devotes over half of its bilateral aid to Africa,with 41% spent in sub-Saharan Africa.

In 2000, France ranked fifth among the twenty-twoCAD Member States in terms of overall aid amounts,but only eighth in terms of GNI (Gross NationalIncome), far behind the Scandinavian countries.

RELEVANCE

ANALYSIS

Although the rich nations had decided in 1970 todevote a 0.7% share of their GNI to ODA (follow-ing a recommendation from the OECD's PearsonCommittee in 1969 which was adopted by theUnited Nations in 1970), the average for the year2000 was just 0.22%. Shortly before the opening ofthe European Council meeting in Barcelona inMarch 2002, the EU came to an agreement ondevelopment aid to poor countries, which providesfor an increase in European ODA from the currentfigure of 0.33% to 0.39% by 2006. The aim is still toreach the target figure of 0.7% of GNI by 2010.

It must be stressed that this indicator, because of itspurely quantitative nature, is by no means perfect.It does not allow for any appreciation of the qual-ity or effectiveness of ODA, nor of the ways inwhich it contributes to the sustainability of devel-opment in recipient countries, since this dependson criteria that are specific to each of the latter.Discussions with a view to defining such criteriaand producing performance indicators are current-ly under way in France, under the guidance of theMinistry of Ecology and Sustainable Development.It should also be noted that this indicator does notinclude contributions to ODA via domestic policiesaiding development in the countries of the South(government procurement, fair trade measures,etc.).

THEME 3: THE SPATIA

L DIM

ENSIO

NA

ND

THE GLO

BAL PERSPECTIVE



1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20011992 1993 1994

% of GDP

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

• Agence française de développement, 2001. Rapport annuel(French Development Agency, Annual Report 2001):http://www.afd.fr

• Preparatory Committee for the International Conference onFinancing for Development, 2002. Draft resolutions of theInternational Conference on Financing for Development.Monterrey Consensus, United Nations General Assembly.

• OECD, 2002. DAC Development Cooperation Report 2001:Efforts and policies of DAC Members. (vol. 3, n° 1).

• OECD, 2001. DAC Guidelines on Poverty Reduction.

INDICATOR: Changes in the share of French GDP allocated to Official Development Assistance

Excluding transfers to Overseas Territories.

Source: Ministry for the Economy, Finance and Industry (Directorate for the Treasury) - Office for Development Assistance.

Source: OECD 2002.

• Tavernier Y., 1999. La coopération française au développe-ment. Bilan, analyses, perspectives (French cooperation fordevelopment. Review, analysis and perspectives), Ministry ofForeign Affairs, Paris, ed. la Documentation française, 174 p.

• Ministry of Foreign Affairs (web pages on French policy fordevelopment assistance): http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr

THEME 3: THE SPATIA

L DIM

ENSIO

NA

ND

THE GLO

BAL PERSPECTIVE

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

USAItaly

GreeceSpain

AustriaNew Zealand

CanadaPortugal

AustraliaGermany

JapanIreland

FinlandUnited Kingdom

FranceSwitzerland

BelgiumLuxembourg

NorwaySweden

NetherlandsDenmark

0.3 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.20.13 0.1

1.06

0.840.8 0.8

0.71

0.340.36 0.32 0.32 0.31

%

INDICATOR: Share of Gross National Income allocated in 2000 to Official Development Assistance in DAC Member States

In the conclusions of the Council meeting in Göteborg,the EU reconfirmed its undertaking to achieve theUnited Nations target for ODA of 0.7% of GNI “withinthe shortest possible time”. In a communication enti-tled Towards a global partnership for sustainable devel-


opment (COM (2002) 82 final/2), which adds an “exter-nal” dimension to the Lisbon Strategy, the EuropeanCommission sets an intermediate objective of a mini-mum of 0.33% of GNI for every EU country as from2006.


OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment.

Organisations



MODULE 7: Inequality and exclusion.

MODULE 8: Behaviour reflectingdissatisfaction.

THEME 4: SATISFYIN

G THE N

EEDS

OF PRESEN

T-DAY G

ENERATIO

NS

While sustainable development ischaracterised by a concern to guarantee thefuture of upcoming generations, it alsoaddresses issues relating to present-dayaspirations. This theme addresses thesatisfaction of present-day needs, from theangle of inequalities that people have to livewith, but also in terms of French people'sown perceptions of the state of their countryand its institutions. The topics addressed thusrefer as much to differences in incomebetween different social categories as toinequality in people's exposure to risks, to thevitality of participatory democracy and totrends in behaviour reflecting dissatisfaction.

These indicators are designed to providepoints for discussion on the followingquestions:• Has inequality increased

within our society?

• What is the overall state of mind in Frenchsociety and what are French people'sperceptions with regard to environmentalpreservation and democracy?



CONFIDENCE IN FRENCH INSTITUTIONS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Through problems like air quality, chemical risksand water pollution by nitrates and pesticides, thequestion of the environment also links up withconcerns for public health and safety. It is largelythe responsibility of the public authorities toensure that every citizen enjoys the highest possi-ble level of environmental safety and health. In acontext where proven and potential collective risksare on the increase (global warming, water and airpollution and the management of radioactive

waste), the question of confidence in the informa-tion produced by the government, elected politi-cians or public research institutions is crucial.In 2000, a survey was conducted among the Frenchpopulation on their confidence in various institu-tional players to tell the truth on environmentalmatters. The chosen indicator presents the resultsof this survey (Source : EDF Baromètre environ-nement).

RELEVANCE

According to a survey conducted by EDF in 2000(Baromètre environnement), “doctors” and “scien-tists” are those in whom the population has themost confidence to tell the truth on mattersregarding the environment (cited by more than 8people out of 10). The least credible sources ofinformation on this topic are “politicians” and “thegovernment” (more than 9 people out of 10 saythey have “little confidence” in them or “no confi-dence at all”). “Ecologists” and “journalists” rankin intermediate positions.

This lack of confidence in public authorities inFrance is also reflected in the extent to which thepopulation gives credence to government meas-ures to protect the population. According to a sur-vey conducted by the Institute for NuclearProtection and Safety (IPSN) in 2001, 51% of thosesurveyed had no confidence where nitrates andpesticides were concerned and 48% had no confi-dence where water pollution and radioactivewaste were concerned. 45% had no confidence ingovernment measures on transgenic plants andatmospheric pollution. Similarly, 61% believed that

ANALYSIS

they were not told the truth on the dangers ofchemical wastes, 65% thought the same regardingradioactive waste and 58% regarding GMOs.Confidence in public authorities is at its lowestwhere information on nuclear energy is concerned:86% of the French population believes that thegovernment is not telling the truth, while 53% saythey trust consumer associations on the same topic.

According to the same survey, confidence in tech-nology is also ebbing. In 2001, 61% of respondentsbelieved that scientific and technical progresswould not solve the environmental problemsaffecting Europe today, as against 50% in 1994.

On subjects such as these, where scientific knowl-edge may be incomplete, contested or give rise toconflicts of interest, the independence of thoseproducing information and the transparency of theprocedures used to produce it have become a mat-ter of paramount importance. In view of the wan-ing legitimacy of public institutions, public debatecan become a vital resource in the development ofdecisions affecting the environment.

In view of increasing disillusionment with politicsand weakening confidence in scientific expertsamong the public, the EU is recommending moreopen decision-making processes in order toencourage more interest among citizens and toguarantee transparency in decisions.

In its White Paper on European governance (COM(2001) 428 final), the Commission provides for theestablishment of more systematic dialogue with


local government representatives from the earliestpolicy-making stages, through national andEuropean associations. To help re-establish confi-dence in the opinions of scientific experts, theCommission will be setting out guidelines on itsown use of experts.

THEME 4: SATISFYIN

G THE N

EEDS

OF PRESEN

T-DAY G

ENERATIO

NS



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

no confidence at allnot very confidentno responsefairly confidentfully confident

politicians

the government

journalists

ecologists

scientists

doctors


• Hammer B., 2000. Baromètre environnement EDF - R&D -volet France. Paris, EDF, 106 p.

• IFEN, 2002. “Les attentes des Français en matière d'environ-nement” (Expectations among the French population onenvironmental issues), Les données de l'environnement,n° 74, 4 p.

• IFEN, 2000. La sensibilité écologique des Français à traversl'opinion publique. (Environmental awareness among theFrench population through public opinion.) Orléans, IFEN,187 p.

• Institut de protection et de sûreté nucléaire, 2001 (Institutefor nuclear protection and safety). Perception des risques etde la sécurité - Résultats du sondage de 2001. (Perceptionsof risks and safety - 2001 survey results.) Paris, IPSN, 90 p.

Methodology

The data used in the graph are from the Baromètre environ-nement EDF - R&D - volet France, a survey conducted in early2000. The question on confidence was asked in 2000 for thefirst time. The survey was conducted with a panel made up bythe SOFRES polling institute (3000 people surveyed and about2500 respondents). It addresses topics of concern to EDF(including the greenhouse effect, industrial pollution andwaste, technological risks, renewable energy and manage-ment of water and scarce resources), placing them within abroader context (major issues of concern, intentions to carryout projects).

The 2001 barometer published by the IPSN (which became theIRSN - Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety - in

INDICATOR: Confidence in French institutions regarding environmental issues"In which of the following sources of information do you have confidence to tell the truth onenvironmental issues?"

February 2002) on perceptions of risks and safety was conduct-ed in November 2001 through face-to-face interviews with asample of 1032 people representing the French populationaged 18 and over, using the stratification method (habitat xregion) and quotas (gender, age and socio-professional cate-gory).

Organisations

EDF: Électricité de France.IFEN: French Institute for the Environment.

Abbreviations

GMO: Genetically Modified Organism.

THEME 4: SATISFYIN

G THE N

EEDS

OF PRESEN

T-DAY G

ENERATIO

NS

Source: Baromètre environnement EDF R&D - volet France - Preliminary results from the survey conducted in early 2000.



MODULE 9: Principles of responsibilityand precaution.

MODULE 10: Vulnerability andadaptability to unforeseencircumstances.

In the long term, the ability of society to takefuture generations into account, and theability of society, the economy and ecosystemsto adapt over time and develop a certainamount of resilience are fundamental tosuccessful sustainable development strategies.

As our final theme, we have set out todevelop indicators that allow assessments ofFrench society's opportunities and failings inthis respect. Emphasis is given to society'scapacity for organisation with a view to longterm dynamics, but also to areas ofvulnerability that result from its history.Principles of responsibility and precaution,flexibility and the development of reactivityare all appropriate strategies to meet thechallenges of the future. The topics addressedtherefore concern investments for the longterm, expenditures on research andcontinuing education, monitoring of residual pollution and the implementation of mechanisms for the prevention of risks and crises.

The theme is addressed through two keyquestions:

• What efforts is society making to reduce itsvulnerability?

• Has society increased its capacity to respondto breakdown or crisis?

THEME 5: THE LO

NG

TERMA

ND

FUTURE GEN

ERATION

S



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

Research and Development (R&D) and the humanand financial means invested in them are integralto sustainable development trajectories, in thesense that they reflect how far a society takes thefuture into account and the extent to which itimplements capacities for innovation and adapta-tion.Domestic Expenditures on Research and Develop-ment (DERD) are those which concern R&D work

RELEVANCE

taking place in France itself, regardless of thesource of funding. They include corporate expen-diture on research as well as public expenditure oncivilian research, and cover running costs (salariesand overheads) as well as capital expenditures(capital investments and real estate operations ina given year). R&D effort is traditionally measuredas a ratio of expenditures to Gross DomesticProduct (GDP).

From 1978 to 1993, R&D effort grew, on average,at a faster pace than GDP. However, the trend sub-sequently went into reverse, with R&D effortdiminishing from 1994 onwards. A phase ofrenewed economic expansion, with a boost toemployment, began in 1997 but had no notableeffects on R&D expenditure. A steep rise in DERD in1999 appears to have been mainly fuelled by cor-porate expenditure. Figures show that the trendcontinued in 2000 and 2001: in 2001, DERDamounted to 32.2 billion euros (at current prices),or 2.2% of GDP.

According to these results, France ranks slightlyabove the European average in terms of itsresearch effort, with 2.13% of GDP in 2000, andbehind Germany (2.48%), the United States (2.7%)and Japan (2.98%) (Source : Eurostat).

The last twenty years have seen profound changesin the executive structures and funding of research,with an increasing share of corporate effort inexecutive research functions (from 59.7% in 1978to 62.4% in 2001). However, corporate researcheffort in France is still lower, as a percentage ofGDP, than in the other OECD countries. On theother hand, the government's share in researchfinancing has fallen steadily, dropping below 50%in 1995 and still further to 45.5% in 2001. Besidesthe stagnation of the civilian R&D budget from1993 to 1997, the trend is essentially accounted forby the drop in expenditure on research fordefence. Since 1999, corporations have been tak-ing over from government administrations.Nevertheless, France, along with Germany, is still isthe lead among OECD countries where publicexpenditure on civilian research is concerned.

Excluding the defence sector, research and devel-opment was providing the equivalent of 319 000

ANALYSIS

full-time posts in 2000, a 3.7% increase over 1999,with researcher posts accounting for the largestproportion (+6,9%).Four main research branches account for 50% of allexpenditure on research in France, as against 47%in 1992. These are the automobile industry (with13.8% of all Domestic Expenditure on CorporateResearch and Development - DECRD), the telecom-munications industries (13.7%), the pharmaceuticalindustry (12.4%) and the space and aeronauticsindustry (10,2%). The services share is growing, butremains low at around 10% of all DECRD.

Expenditure on research is an indicator of invest-ment, not an indicator of performance. The latteralso depends on the efficiency of the system ofinnovation, which can be addressed in partthrough other indicators, such as numbers ofpatents, numbers of scientific publications andnumbers of citations in scientific publications.

With about 120 European patents taken out permillion inhabitants in 2000 and 69 US patentsapplied for per million inhabitants, France's posi-tion corresponds exactly to the EU average.However, of all EU countries, France is progressingat the slowest pace in this respect. Concerning sci-entific publications, France ranked slightly abovethe EU average in 1999 (with 652 scientific publica-tions per million inhabitants compared to the EUaverage of 613), but progress is slower than aver-age and the number of frequently cited scientificpublications is lower (Source : Eurostat). THEM

E 5: THE LON

G TERM

AN

D FUTURE G

ENERATIO

NS



Series stopped in 2000 ; estimations for 2001.Unit: euro at 1995 prices.

Source: Ministry of Youth, Education and Research (DPD).

INDICATOR: Trends in research and development efforts

• European Commission, Research, 2001. Towards a EuropeanResearch Area - Key Figures 2001. Special edition. Indicatorsfor benchmarking of national research policies.

• Ministry of Education, Research and Technology, 2001.“Recherche et développement en 1999 et 2000”, Note d'in-formation 01.50 (Research and Development in 1999 and2000, Background Notes 01.50), November 2001.

• Ministry of Education, Research and Technology, 2001.“L'effort de recherche et développement des principauxgroupes industriels français”, Note d'information 01.41 (Theresearch effort and the development of the major industri-al groups in France, Background Notes 01.41), August 2001.

• Ministry of Youth, Education and Research, 2002. “Dépensesde recherche et développement en France en 2000”, Noted'information 02.53 (Research and Development expendituresin France in 2000, Background Notes 02.53), November 2002.

The data in the graph are from the Programming andDevelopment Directorate of the Ministry of Youth, Education


Methodology

The European Council meeting in Lisbon stressedthe importance of moving to a knowledge-basedeconomy, through improvements in policies forR&D, education and the information society. It rec-ommended the adoption of measures aiming to”strengthen the European area of research andinnovation by setting a target of 3% of GDP for theoverall level of public and private spending onresearch and development by the end of the


decade. Within that total, the amount funded bybusiness should rise to around two thirds against55% today” 1.

The DERD/GDP ratio and the number of patentapplications sent to European and US PatentOffices are two of the structural indicators meas-ured by Eurostat to illustrate the “innovation andresearch” topic.

and Research. The results were compiled from surveys conduct-ed among businesses and government offices by the Office ofStatistical Surveys on Research.

Definitions:

Domestic expenditures on research and development areexpenditures allocated to R&D work taking place within France,regardless of the source of funding. They include payroll expen-ditures for R&D staff and overheads or other recurrent costs,capital expenditures required to carry out tasks that are specificto R&D plus any real estate operations taking place in the year.

A distinction is made between corporate and public expendi-tures on research and development.

Total funding to research work carried out in France and abroadby French corporations and government administration is knownas National Research and Development Expenditure (NRDE).

Organisations

OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Base 100 in 1978

0

50

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

100

150

200

250

DERD/GDPDERDGDP

THEME 5: THE LO

NG

TERMA

ND

FUTURE GEN

ERATION

S

(1) COM(2002)14 final.

Documents

45 indicators of sustainable development: a contribution from Ifen