Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Operational Interpretation of SD
SD as an inter-generational equity concept
3
Sustainable Development is
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (1987, Brundtland Commission).
is about enabling people to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations.
It combines social, environmental and economic goals … Economic growth Environmental Protection Social Integration New issues : Good Governance, Climate Change, etc.
There was a worry about an irreversible expansion of E…
4
Nature Environment
Human Civilization
Economy
Market / Plan
Nature Environment
MHuman Civilization
We need an operational definition of SD.
5
Economy, Humanity and Nature
Humanity (society) is part of Nature (environment) and Economy works on the Nature to support Humanity
Economy develops what was enveloped by Nature and Humanity in the form of natural resources and human heritages Resources: Land, Air, Water, Animals & Plants, Soil, Minerals, Oil… Heritages: Population, Culture, History, Knowledge, Laws, Institutions,
Infrastructures…
Resources and heritages, identified as given amount of stock, provide material and non-material bases for the sustainability of Humanity.
Sustainability in operational definition
6
Natural Resources
Human Heritage
Production-
Consumption
fr(t)
fa(t)fe(
t)
Sh(t)
Sr(t) Sustainability depends on
Available stock of resources and heritages: Sr(t), Sh(t)
Exploitation speed: fe(t) Renewal and Accumulation
feedback speed: fr(t), fa(t)
A non-negative time derivative of per capita net stock (d(Sr+Sh+fe+fr+fa)/dt≥0) confirms development is sustainable.
Socio-economic and environmental context of “de-velopment”
7
OECD, Towards Green Growth, 2011, p.115
Sr(t)
Sh(t)
fe(t)
fa(t)
fr(t)
Measuring Progress on SD in Practice
In measuring progress, the Agenda 21 recommended…
9
Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 was on “Information for Decision Making” and identified two programme areas :(a)Bridging the data gap;(b)Improving information availability.
Six areas of activities were proposed :1)development of (a)* indicators of sustainable development;2)promotion of global use of indicators of sustainable development; 3)improvement of data collection and use;4)improvement of methods of data assessment and analysis;5)establishment of a (b)* comprehensive information framework;6)strengthening of the capacity for traditional information.
There is currently no single universally accepted measurement metric for sustainable development indicators. The United Nations, European Union as well as OECD have all made their own work in the development of sustainable development indicators.
UNDESA (2012), National Institutions for Sustainable Development
(a)* SD Indicators in practice
10
1) United Nations
The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) finalized the third, revised set of CSD indicators in 2007, based on the previous two (1996 and 2001) editions, which have been developed, improved and extensively tested as part of the implementation of the Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development adopted by the CSD at its third session in 1995 and presented to the CSD in 2001.
This third set of indicators consists of 50 core indicators, alongside 46 additional indicators intended to allow a “more comprehensive and differentiated assessment of sustainable development” where data are available.
The indicators are grouped into a series of themes and sub-themes, and are designed to allow countries to track progress towards nationally-defined goals.
UN DESA (2007), Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, Third Edition, available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf,
SD Indicators in practice (continued)
11
2) European Union
The European Union worked alongside the UN Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development and published its own indicator sets in 1997 and 2001.
An EU-oriented indicator set was proposed following the adoption of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy in 2001, and was endorsed by the European Commission in 2005.
Since then, a series of minor revisions have resulted in the existing indicator set, comprising 11 headline indicators across 10 themes, and over 100 indicators in total.
The existing set also describes indicators either in development or as yet undeveloped, and the suitability of the indicator set in the context of emerging environmental concerns is constantly reviewed.
Eurostat (2009), Sustainable Development in the European Union, 2009 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy, available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ ITY_OFFPUB/KS-78-09-865/EN/KS-78-09-865-EN.PDF
SD Indicators in practice (continued)
12
3) OECD
The OECD has cooperated with UNCSD, the EU and other international organizations to develop its own environmental indicators.
Notably, the OECD has focused on developing multiple sets of indicators, each appropriate to specific context.
The Core Environmental Indicators, designed to track ‘environmental progress and performance’, comprise of about 50 individual indicators; separate indicator sets adapted in part from the core set aim at informing the public, promoting integration and monitoring progress towards sustainable development.
OECD (2008), OECD Key Environmental Indicators, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/40/37551205.pdf
(b)* Comprehensive Information Framework
13
Measuring sustainability with multi-dimensional SD indicator sets lead to the concept of integrating indicators into a system of accounts.
Therefore, it’s not to take up the approach of one-dimensional environmentally adjusted macro-economic aggregates such as ‘Green GDP’, but rather to follow the principal idea of describing the sustainability gap with the multi-dimensional indicator approach.
In the simple individual indicator approach described above, it is unlikely that the individual indicators are to be systematically linked with integrated physical and monetary economic, social and environmental accounting data.
Comprehensive Information Framework means integration of...
14
Karl Schoer, “Note on a Proposed Structure of the Revised SEEA”, 2007, LG/11/4, p.711th Meeting of the London Group on Environmental Accounting Johannesburg, 26-30 March
German case of indicators-accounts integration
15
Karl Schoer, “Note on a Proposed Structure of the Revised SEEA”, 2007, LG/11/4, p.1211th London Group Meeting on Environmental Accounting Johannesburg, 26-30 March
A sustainable development in 3 dimensions
16
Social
Environmental
Economic
More details in the system of environmental economic accounting
17
Environmental Policy Intervention
Material Flow
end-of-pipe pollution
control
· Water ·Air ·Soil
cleaner productionpromotion
Labor, Capital
Environmental Pollution
Con.
Inv.
I-O Table
EPEAEPEA
PIOTPIOTOutflow
EAAEAA
Natural & Environmental
Resources
Export
Imported Int’l Trade
Environment as Input
Environmental Management
SEEA*
18
System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA)
developed by UN Statistical Commission in collaboration with the IMF, the World Bank, the European Commission and OECD, as a guideline in 2003.
known as the most significant attempt to integrate national accounting and environmental accounting as satellite accounts in both monetary and physical terms.
following work is under way to transform SEEA into an international accounting standard equivalent to the System of National Accounts (SNA).
SD indicators could be linked to the SEEA through the uniform classifications and definitions, and the inclusion of sectoral breakdowns appropriate to the SEEA’s composition.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/Brochure.pdf
Some details on the socio-economic interface of SD
19
Social Value System
Socio-Cultural Resources
Labor, Capital
Con.
Inv.
I-O Table Export
Imported Int’l Trade
Population, Social Capital
Job and Income Distribution, Public services
Social Security, Health care
SESAME*
20
System of Economic and Social Accounting Matrices and Extensions (SESAME)
developed as an information system integrating economic, social and environmental statistics (Keuning, 2000, Accounting for Welfare with SESAME, UN.)
Very recently recognized as equal part of SD, due to the lack of commonly accepted definition and consensus of the social dimension.
Two popular ways of addressing the social dimension of sustainability: the capability approach (HDI) and the social capital (Stock/Flow) approach.
In practice, social dimension is represented as part of SD subjects (Denmark) 1) Economic development and employment2) Poverty3) Elderly society4) Health5) Change in climate and energy6) Sustainable production and consumption patterns7) Protection of natural resources8) Traffic and use of area
Ismir Mularic, Statistics Denmark, London Group Meeting September, 2004
Challenges in Post 2015 Development Framework
SD in environmental-economic interface asks…
22
Quality of Development?- Environmentally Sound and Sustainable
Development -
Quality of Development?- Environmentally Sound and Sustainable
Development -
Green Economy in micro-economics: market prices, investment- Quality of economy in short-term and mid-term
Green Economy in micro-economics: market prices, investment- Quality of economy in short-term and mid-term
Green Growth in macro-economics: investment, technology, R&D,- Quality of growth, mid-term and long-term
Green Growth in macro-economics: investment, technology, R&D,- Quality of growth, mid-term and long-term
Global, Regional, National and Local Program for a Planet Responsibility
Global, Regional, National and Local Program for a Planet Responsibility
23
Objective of Development?- Inclusive Human Civilization -
Objective of Development?- Inclusive Human Civilization -
National agenda – jobs, (re)distributional, social policiesNational agenda – jobs, (re)distributional, social policies
Global agenda - gap closing initiatives between South and NorthGlobal agenda - gap closing initiatives between South and North
Global, Regional, National and Local Program for a Humanity Responsibility
Global, Regional, National and Local Program for a Humanity Responsibility
SD in socio-economic interface asks…
Past concept of development shows…
24
EconomicGrowth
EconomicGrowth
Human HeritagesHuman
Heritages
Quality of LifeQuality of Life
NaturalResources
NaturalResources
an economic growth supposedly increasing quality of life may result in degradation and depletion of natural resources and human heritages, which brings negative impact on the quality of life.
Enabling conditions for Sustainability for Development
In order to overcome the challenges posed by the growth in the globalized world economy, it is imperative
to develop green technologies and to introduce them into major industrial sectors leading economic growth
to change life-style based on environmentally sound and sustainable production and consumption pattern
and to share the experiences with partners to build a planet responsible for sustainable humanity…
Humanity responsible civilization needs…
26
to minimize degradation and depletion of natural resources and human heritage with a paradigm shift based on innovations and life style change.
EconomicGrowth
EconomicGrowth
Human HeritagesHuman
Heritages
HappinessHappiness
NaturalResources
NaturalResources
R&D and Technological Innovation
Life Style Change
R&D and Technological Innovation
Life Style Change
What rest untouched
What rest untouched…
28
Wellbeing, Happiness
Environmental Welfare
29
What we need to do …
Establish an evidence based decision making framework for SD
Clear understanding of the Post 2015 development framework and its implications to national development strategies
Restructuring Post 2015 development agenda including SDGs to be tailored to national/local implementation framework: Technology Facilitation, Financing SD, etc…
Peer review with indicators on the development challenges within a Matrix of Geo-Ecological and Socio-Economic Criteria: Geographical location, Climate zone, … ; Population, Labor, Production & Consumption, Planning (public) and Markets (private), …
Development of monitoring, assessment and reporting procedure for the progress on SD
Strategy, Planning, Programme and Project
Management of Implementation with Indicators
Baseline t0
(state)
Vision based on baseline analysis
Goal/Target to accomplish as a milestone with reference timeframe
Strategy to implement the goal/target based on gap analysis
Plan in long-term framework / mid-term (or annual) implementation
Programme composed of projects
Project for individual goal/target
Task/Job identified as action component of a project
Impact = outcome t1 – baseline t0 .
outputinput
Effectiveness = outcome t1 / baseline t0. It’s a project (task or job) that could be effective or not.Efficiency = output / input. It’s a process that could be efficient or not.
process
Outcome t1
(state)
Target t1
(state)
Performance = outcome t1 / target t1. It represents a degree of ‘accomplishment’.
National / Local Process
Inter-governmental Process
Work plan 2014_UNOSD on Measuring Progress
Study on Measuring Progress in Post 2015 Development Framework: HLPF, Ministerial Meetings and SDGs
Overview on the current status and perspectives of Post 2015 Development Framework discussed at UN Intergovernmental Processes (GA, HLPF, OWG, EGM, etc.)
Implication of Post 2015 DF for Member States in achieving SD: What is expected to be done by the member states for coming years?
- Integration of SDGs into National Development Strategy and Planning- Preparation of Implementation Plan of SDGs- Establishment of Monitoring & Reporting System on the achievement of SDGs (HLPF, The Ministerial)
Implication of Post 2015 DF for UN (DESA/DSD as well as OSD) in supporting Member States: What is expected to be done by DSD and OSD in relation to the works to be done by the member states?
Area 1: Research and Policy Analysis (EGM, Consultative Workshop, …)Area 2: Joint Capacity Development in Measuring, Analysis and Reporting (Joint research, Conference, …)
Then, development of a sub-work plan (covering joint researches, capacity development, regional/national advisory services, networking) after the December consultative workshop...
Thematic issues proposed in priority in relation to Post 2015 DF, which include ‘Eco-tourism Development’, ‘Technology Facilitation’ and ‘Financing’..
Consultation the Way Forward (Dec. 11)
Themes of Consultation
Major challenges in measuring progress with indicators
Based on the presentations made during the consultative workshop, what kind of challenges can we identify at the national level implementation…
Bridging gaps between SD agenda negotiated and SD agenda operationalized at the level of national implementation
Institutionalization of monitoring, evaluation and reporting process Technical expertise in collecting, compiling and keeping updated primary
data set Analytical capacity in implementing evidence based decision making for
SD
What type of capacity development demand exists at national implementation level? - Inter-ministerial meeting, Expert group consultation, Stake-holder participatory forum
What are the major themes in priority for Capacity Building? - Water, Energy, Food & Agriculture, Greening Industrialization, Eco-tourism, Health
Interests in policy research & CD on measuring progress…
Urban Sustainability Management (Mega Urban, Green City, …) -Interested Country Listing :
Pilot study on the exploration toward Environmental Welfare (Concept & Indicators, Socio-economic & Geo-spatial analysis …)
-Interested Country Listing :
Sustainability Assessment on Eco-tourism sites (with indicators) -Interested Country Listing :
Type and Theme of Capacity Development Most Interested (in order)
Type :
Themes :
Urban Sustainability…
“Environmental Welfare” in SD
37
Social
Environmental
Economic
Social Welfare
Minimum wage
Public health care
Unemployment insurance
Public education
Environmental Welfare
Minimum Env. standard for all
Equitable access to environmental amenity
…
Resource Efficiency
Env. performance
3Rs
Sustainability Assessment on Eco-tourism
38
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
19 sustainability indicators in 5 domains in Eco-tourism
Organization of Consultation
Interactive discussion in small group 60 minutes (09:30~10:30)
Country Group Latin America : Chile, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Peru + MI, UN/Statistics
Country Group Africa : Ethiopia, Gabon, Jordan, Tunisia, South Soudan + UN/DSD, UNEP
Country Group Asia and the Pacific : Bhutan, Fiji, Indonesia, Samoa, Tajikistan, Vietnam + ASEF, UNOSD
Plenary Wrap-up (10:30~11:30)
Orientation (09:00~09:10) and “+1 Presentation” (09:10~09:30)
Additional introduction on Sustainability Assessment of Eco-Tourism sites (Case Study)
Case study*:Sustainability Evaluation with Indicators on Ecotourism
10 Ecotourism Sites in Korea
* Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon, “A Study on the Development of the Indicator Sets for Evaluating the Sustainable Ecotourism and It’s Application” Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University, Korea, 2012.
OVERVIEW
10 Ecotourism sites in Korea (2010)
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
OVERVIEW
10 Ecotourism sites in Korea (2010)
44
Indicators for Sustainability Evaluation
36 Variables for 19 Indicators in 5 Domains
46
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
47
Indicator Set for Ecological Domain
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
48
Indicator Sets for Learning & Culture Domains
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
49
Indicator Sets for Governance & Economic Domains
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
Methodology of Evaluation
51
Data Sources and Standardization
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
DB: 5 domains, 19 indicators and 36 variables for 10 Sites Source: Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Culture,
Sports and Tourism National Survey Report on Environmental GIS Environmental Statistical Information System, etc. Tourism Information System, etc.
Source: NSO, Local Government, Survey Data, etc. Annual Statistics Budget Survey
Standardization Maximum Score Linear Scale Transformation [0~1]
52
Evaluation Result for the Site 9 “Hwacheon”
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
#9 Ecotourism site
53
9
54
Sustainability Diagram of the Site 9 “Hwacheon”
Hwacheon SiteWeakness in Economic Domain Near the DMZStrong regulation on development project
Protest from Local Residentslack of local economic benefit from the sitelow profitabilitySource : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
55
Evaluated Composite Scores of the 10 Sites
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
* A rank sensitivity test based on AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) have shown that the rankings of the sites are quite stable.
56
Highly Sustainable Sites: 10, 4, 3, 2
0.86
0.63
0.64
0.54
0.45
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
Coastal sites show higher sustainability.
HS Ecotourism sites 2, 3, 4, 10
57
2
3
4
10
58
KOREAN CASE
Low Sustainability Sites: 7, 1, 6, 8
0.45
0.40
0.41
0.36
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
Inland mountanous sites show lower sustainability.
LS Ecotourism sites 1, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9
59
1
5
6
7
8
9
60
Medium Sustainability Sites: 9, 5
Most ecotourism sites suffer from low economic viability of the project.
Ecological consideration, Governance and Cultural dimensions are more prominent factors of sustainability.
Average of Domains: 0.68(Ecological) > 0.60(Governance) > 0.55(Cultural) > 0.50(Learning) > 0.32(Economic)
0.50 0.49
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
Source : Lee Jae-Hyuck & Lee Hee Yeon (2012)
61
Benefit of Sustainability Evaluation System
Institutionalization of SES is essential for greening tourism development and increasing sustainability of ecotourism, as it helps evidence based policy decision making by providing integrated comparative analysis on different impacts of tourism.
