Jan Bakkes
The material in this book offers the best possible overview of current indicator methods in support of sustainable development policies. The emphasis has been on identifying what methods are in supply or being worked on, and what gaps in the methods need to be filled. The following picture emerges.
CONCEPTS AND INSIGHT FLOURISH
Impressive conceptual progress has been made since the mid eighties, when the Brundtland report was being written and when, in the environmental field, the first international indicator projects were being staged. Progress is found both in the design of the indicators proper and in the understanding of the processes of which the indicators are part.
Indicator design has, in particular, been helped forward by the introduction of powerful concepts, such as the challenge to maintain different forms of wealth. Another example: resource intensity is beginning to prove itself as a particularly useful indicator for comparisons of all sorts (between countries, over time, between sectors or even between enterprises). Also, the small sets of very simple distance- to-target graphs that have become customary for official reporting in some countries symbolize important progress. In particular, such indicator systems reflect a clear ethic of accountability. Finally, progress has been made in summary indicators of 'impacts'. Some examples include: Disease Adjusted Life Expectancy as a more meaningful indicator for human health, the Human Development Index as a ranking of human capital, and Exceedence of Critical Loads as an operational tool to negotiate the curbing of transboundary air pollution.
Rather than a measure that was to be fixed and perfect forever, indicators are increasingly seen in the light of the evolving understanding of what environmentally sustainable development is and where policies should focus. In addition, practitioners now realize much more than they did ten years ago about how indicators have to reflect the particular perspective of their assignment and their culture. This helps to ease concern over the rich variety of indicator notions - which is admittedly large -and may well help to focus harmonization efforts where comparability is really needed.
DIVERSITY OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS IS DIFFICULT BUT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
On the one hand, there is a need for diversity. Most importantly, different stages of sustainable development policy require different information tools. For example, the 'syndrome' indicators described by Lüdeke and Petschel-Held are designed in order to easily categorize a problematic situation and communicate the diagnosis. In contrast, performance indicators for annually reporting on progress towards officially set targets, as described by van Esch, are illustrative of a much later phase. Another example of reasons for diversity is described by Gallopín: the cascading use of different indicators in successive phases of analysis for land management, focusing step by step on areas that need closer attention.
Another good reason for diversity is that the nature of sustainable development is different in different regions of the world. This is well illustrated by the findings of the first Global Environment Outlook (GEO). Moreover, because the choice of sustainable development indicators is, in many local and national situations, the outcome of a process in which parties have to find each other, international diversity is to be expected.
On the other hand, there is a need to channel diversity and standardize some concepts and methods. For example, priority setting by governments and donors requires strictly comparable indicators. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that such a set will be available and accepted in the broad area of sustainable development and at a detailed level. However, there is now a loosely accepted set to use amended versions of OECD's pressure- state- response set-up when a framework is needed in an international context - notwithstanding the associated problems, some of which are described in this book. It is often combined with a crude breakdown into social, economic, environmental and institutional issues to form a square matrix. For example, the CSD set of indicators shows clear traits of this 'common gene' .
For the coming years, international conventions are the most promising area of work to turn out harmonized indicators for specific issues. Efforts for international harmonization on a broader scale are, at this point in time, probably best concentrated on the underlying statistics and on crude 'portfolio' indicators.
A RESEARCH AGENDA HAS BEEN FORMULATED
The main finding of this volume is that a research agenda for better indicators of sustainable development has indeed been formulated. Focused efforts on the items of this agenda would help provide tools for future sustainable development policies in more countries. An effective mechanism to bring about such focusing of efforts does not yet exist but needs to be set up. As it was shown in this chapter, the research agenda, focuses on the following topics:
On thematic coverage
On adequate representation
On assessment methods using indicators
APPLICATION
Next to the research agenda, it should be emphasized that the development of sustainable development indicators is not a pure science. Equally important, even from a methodological perspective, is that the existing, imperfect indicators do get applied - in stakeholder consultations, priority setting, design of policies, implementation, review and so forth. In fact, the environmental field provides good examples, described in this volume, about how the mainstreaming of environmental concerns proceeds hand in hand with the development of indicators and shapes them by practice. Obviously, there is an urgent need to strengthen policies towards sustainable development by using good indicators. Yet, in addition to focused research, broad guidance from practice is vital in order to proceed much further.