Introduction - Why Sustainability Indicators In Practice?

Agnieszka E Latawiec and Dorice Agol

1  From Rio To Rio – A Short History Of Sustainability Indicators At The International Level

1.1 The First Earth Summit And Aftermath

Sustainability indicators attempt to capture measures of economic, social and environmental processes in order to assist decision making to improve social and environmental outcomes. In other words, they are a means of gauging sustainability. Criteria that sustainability indicators should satisfy abound in the literature including, among others, the need to accurately reflect changes in the system, be transparent, measurable, verifiable, socially acceptable, adaptive, and easily communicated (see Meadows, 1998; Hak et al., 2007; Agol et al., 2014). Indeed, sustainability indicators are as complex and varied as the definition of sustainability itself and the source of this variety is discussed further in chapter 1.

Although sustainability indicators in one guise or another have been employed throughout human history, such as the use of soil colour by farmers as a simple indicator of soil fertility, they first started to become widely recognized following the first United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21, adopted at the Rio 1992 conference, for the first time explicitly emphasized the need for sustainability indicators for monitoring and fostering sustainable development via the action points of the Agenda (UNCED, 1992). The significance of the first Rio Summit was that the environmental concerns were suddenly no longer the obsessions of green pressure groups but part of global development solutions for humanity that were being sought by governments across the world.

During the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development in 1994 in New York, concrete ideas for sustainability indicators were proposed, yet the political will to adopt them was lacking (Hak et al., 2007). As a consequence, the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) were commissioned to undertake a joint project to foster the design and application of science-based sustainability indicators. The synthesis of sustainability indicators resulting from this project, SCOPE 58, was distributed to all delegations at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session in 1997. During the subsequent meetings of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and other international forums it was highlighted and re-affirmed that indicators are widely accepted and recognized as critical tools for sustainable development. Ten years after Rio, in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, voluntary use of sustainability indicators at the national level was encouraged. Both summits, which were held five and ten years after the first Rio Earth Summit, were considered disappointing by many observers (Dresner, 2008). Targets and timetables related to key sustainability issues such as overpopulation, overfishing and biodiversity loss were weakened, while targets to increase renewable energy were blocked by countries and industries closely linked to the fossil fuel-based energy sector. Moreover, no new commitments were made to increase international aid and relieve debt to tackle the commodity crisis.

In May 2004, a workshop was held in Prague in the Czech Republic, gathering experts from a range of countries in order to review and formulate the specific features of sustainability indicators in an attempt to resolve discrepancies and inconsistences in their use (Hak et al., 2007). Indeed, many indicators have been developed at the national and state levels, many organizations and communities have used sustainability indicators to measure their progress. There have been various recommendations on use of sustainability indicators following a number of different meetings and workshops (Bell and Morse, 2008). Bossel (2001) proposed a system-based framework where sustainability was perceived through a lens of a system and not an isolated set of unconnected attributes. Bossel’s distinct approach also leaves plenty of scope for selecting a particular sustainability indicator, whilst providing context regarding its relationship to other aspects of the system. Furthermore, the approach recognizes the need to involve multiple actors in the development of sustainability indicators.

1.2 Advances Of Rio +20 – Promise And Disappointment

Twenty years after the first Earth Summit, the international community went back to Rio de Janeiro for The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) to reinforce political commitment for sustainable development, assess its progress, identify gaps and address its new and emerging challenges. Within the context of sustainable development, the Conference focused on three themes which include: the institutional framework for sustainable development; a green economy and poverty eradication; and the thematic areas that would comprise the Plan of Action.

One of the main outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference was the agreement by Member States to establish an intergovernmental process to develop a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to be ´action-oriented, concise and easy to communicate, limited in number, aspirational, global in nature´ to help drive the implementation of sustainable development. Obviously, the progress towards these goals is to be measured by sustainability indicators. SDGs would build upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were established following the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000 and converge with the Post 2015 Development Agenda. There is broad recognition that the eight MDGs are unlikely to be achieved.

The main outcome document that came from the Rio+20 conference was entitled ´The Future We Want´ (UN, 2012). This document mandated the creation of an inter-governmental Open Working Group (open to all stakeholders) of the General Assembly that is tasked with preparing a proposal for Sustainable Development Goals for consideration and appropriate action to be agreed by the United Nations General Assembly. The Conference also adopted guidelines on green economy policies and member states decided to establish an intergovernmental process under the General Assembly to develop options on a strategy for financing sustainable development. Governments also requested the United Nations Statistical Commission to launch a process to assess development progress that could complement the gross domestic product, and could better inform policy decisions. The Conference also took forward-looking decisions on a number of thematic areas, including energy, food security, oceans and cities. The Rio +20 Conference galvanized the attention of thousands of representatives of the United Nations system and major groups. It resulted in over 700 voluntary commitments and witnessed the formation of new partnerships to advance sustainable development.

However, while for many the first Earth Summit of 1992 carried a strong message of hope, Rio +20 attracted widespread criticism with claims that it offered little beyond what the original Earth Summit delivered, and that it was short of real commitments to change and failed to establish better governance to tackle global challenges. Expectations were low yet critics maintained that a simple rephrasing of 20-year old statements would never result in ambitious outcomes and that the agenda was overly dominated by assumptions of technocratic solutions and the voice of the private sector. By the final day, speculation among the press corps went as far as to suggest the Rio Earth Summit process was on its deathbed, there were no negotiations – no bust ups – and less access for the press. The Non-Governmental Organizations sector also seemed exhausted and disenchanted with the process.

Nevertheless, despite this disappointment the Summit did bring wider attention to sustainability and stimulated a large number of smaller new initiatives and activities. The parallel People’s Summit attracted 15,000 indigenous and land rights groups, environmental activists, and trade unionists, and reflected a more positive and hopeful perspective. It was reassuring to see that Rio+20 did welcome the UN/FAO Committee on World Food Security (CFS) to consider agricultural and food issues. The CFS includes a model for bringing together both UN and non-UN intergovernmental agencies to address common issues and the expanded participation of social movements and civil society in intergovernmental negotiations. When the food crisis became apparent in 2008, peasant organizations, among others, called for the renewal of the CFS in Rome as preferable to UN-New York proposals to create an alternative body for food and agriculture on the other side of the Atlantic. Rio+20 explicitly endorsed the CFS’s work on assessment of sustainable food production and food security at the national level, as well as its work on land tenure, fisheries and forests in the context of food security. While the formal outcomes of Rio +20 provide little ground for optimism, the value of the Summit is more felt through longer-term projects and initiatives, changes in attitudes and understanding, and hopefully may reach beyond 2015. Moreover, the aforementioned development of Sustainable Development Goals has also already resulted in tangible outcomes. In July 2014, the United Nations General Assembly’s Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, at the conclusion of the Group’s thirteenth and final session at United Nations Headquarters, presented to the Assembly its proposal for new 17 Sustainable Development Goals1. They consider social, environmental and economic aspects to promote people’s wellbeing and protect the natural resources2 and they set development priorities for governments and businesses. However, in order for the Goals to contribute to real changes, funding agencies and academia must support this process and the right expertise must be involved at international and regional levels (Stafford-Smith, 2014).

2 Sustainability Indicators Today

2.1 Indicators In Policy, Private Sector And Science

Discourse on sustainability is widespread across the public and private sector, from individual projects and companies, to municipalities, cities, regions, and countries. Sustainability has now reached a “buzzword” status in both science and policy, and although the reasons and the drivers for this popularity are different depending on the actors and circumstances, the concept is now embedded in political and scientific agendas worldwide. On the one side, multiplicity of approaches to sustainability is not necessarily bad, as it shows that some progress has been made since the Rio Earth Summit underpinned by a general recognition of the role of sustainability indicators in fostering sustainable development. However, sustainability indicators are often not used appropriately, are weakly grounded and subject to frequent misinterpretation and misuse (Bell and Morse, 2008).

There is little consensus on a common set of indicators and the criteria that should be used to determine what qualifies as a good indicator. There are few commonly recognized assumptions and underlying concepts on the use and evaluation of indicators and there is often little agreement on their scientific basis. Sustainability indicators therefore need to be flexible and adapted to the real world, and not give the impression of offering a black and white, silver-bullet approach (see also chapter 1). Although some claim that the complexities associated with the use of sustainability indicators and sustainability itself justify lack of progress towards sustainability, others state that we already know enough about what is unsustainable and that this appreciation is widespread (Sir Robert Watson, broadcasted interview - BBC). But the concept of sustainability also may lead to misuses – everybody wishes to show that their work, company or department is sustainable leading to the risk of ‘green washing’.

3 Why Sustainability Indicators In Practice?

Currently, a multitude of different indicators exist and they are used in different contexts, for various purposes by inter and non-government organizations, national and regional authorities, private sector and in academia. It is not the purpose of this book to review the range of indicators currently in use, but rather to critically discuss their application in practice across a variety of environment and development projects and initiatives and how their use contributes to public and private sector decision making. It is also not the objective of this book to propose new indicators and reject others (although discussion on preferred indicators in certain situations is presented) but to look into their use and contexts in practice, and discuss the reasons for different applications.

A lot of criticism of the use and design of sustainability indicators has already been written (e.g. Wilson et al., 2007; Ramos and Caeiro, 2010; Agol et al., 2014) with many commentators finishing their critique by proposing a new set of indicators that are deemed to be preferable to the last. Practitioners commonly struggle to apply sustainability indicators in practice due to various, often contradictory pressures, such as requirements of funders, public perception, time and financial constraints to number just a few. In this book we take a closer look at the use and misuse of sustainability indicators in practice, and discuss what has and has not worked and why.

We invited specialists from different parts of the world who have experience with designing and implementing sustainability indicators in practice in a broad range of projects from conservation, reforestation, agriculture, water and wastewater management to air quality control. In drawing on these rich case studies and perspectives, the book identifies some of the most common challenges and opportunities presented in applying sustainability indicators to a diverse range of circumstances. Whilst we are restricted in what can be included in one volume we believe that the selected examples presented here illustrate a range of circumstances, approaches, their challenges and advantages.

We view a sustainability indicator as something that aims to capture the measure of sustainability – i.e. progress towards sustained social, environmental and economic outcomes. In doing so we embrace a systems approach, recognizing that different aspects of a system are tightly interlinked and that for an indicator to confer useful information about sustainability it has to provide a long-term perspective. For example, a number of planted trees in a reforestation project is a traditional indicator but survival rate would tell more about actual long term impacts of the project, thus can better represent sustainability.

Ultimately progress towards sustainable development depends on the combined decisions of individual people. Without understanding the choices of individuals sustainability actions at other levels have little effect. This is where the idea of this book was born and the ‘practicality’ of indicators is discussed throughout all chapters. We are aware that the topic of sustainability indicators is a daunting experience and the contributions of this book clearly illustrate that many challenges associated with practical use of indicators remain, and guidelines continue to be neglected.

Although indicators are only partial reflections of reality, they form a necessary part of the information we use to understand what is happening around us, make decisions and plan for the future actions (Meadows, 1998). Indicators do not guarantee results, but the desired results are unlikely to happen without appropriate indicators.

This volume provides a handbook of lessons learned from various case studies worldwide on practical use of sustainability indicators, and we hope that you find it useful.

4 Contents

Chapter 1 - What Are Sustainability Indicators For?

This chapter discusses the purpose of sustainability indicators, describes the features of good sustainability indicators, and highlights past examples of good uses of sustainability indicators. The chapter begins with a discussion on different definitions and understanding of “sustainability” that guides the discussion on the purpose, quality, and history of indicators. The chapter also discusses why progress towards sustainability should be measured, whether in quantitative or qualitative ways. Moreover, based on scientific literature, a set of examples of uses and misuses of indicators is provided. This is followed by a discussion of the challenges of measuring sustainability indicators.

Chapter 2 - Sustainability Indicators In Complex Socio-Ecological Systems

Chapter 2 outlines our current understanding of indicators and monitoring for sustainability in the context of complex social-ecological systems. The chapter first gives a general introduction to social-ecological systems thinking, then reviews the implications of social-ecological systems thinking for the design and interpretation of (any) indicator being used to measure and promote sustainability, and finally it explores ways in which sustainability indicators themselves, due to the complex, adaptive nature of the societal systems with which they interact, can change perceptions of values and goals (for better or worse).

Chapter 3 - Biodiversity Indicators And Monitoring For Ecological Management

This chapter presents a broad overview of some of the key features of any process to monitor and evaluate biodiversity. Selection of appropriate indicators is a central part of this. Yet as is the case for the assessment of any indicator, good biodiversity indicators represent only a necessary, yet insufficient condition for a monitoring process to provide the kind of support necessary to foster improvements in sustainability. The chapter briefly identifies ways in which biodiversity monitoring can be most effective in facilitating and guiding any management process. The chapter focuses on the importance of first thinking about the why and what of biodiversity monitoring, as well as the ways in which monitoring activities fit within a wider framework of the management system itself – whatever that management system may be. Following this an overview of different types of indicators that can be used to support a biodiversity monitoring program is presented, including different ways to assess the status and trends of biodiversity. The chapter ends with practical considerations regarding the human resources necessary for biodiversity monitoring to work on the ground.

Chapter 4 - Monitoring REDD+ Impacts: Cross Scale Coordination And Interdisciplinary Integration

The objective of this chapter is to examine possibilities for more integrated monitoring of the carbon and non-carbon impacts of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhancing carbon stocks (REDD+). Since the climate impact from reduced emissions (and increased removals) is the centerpiece of REDD+, countries are asked to set up systems to monitor changes in forest carbon stocks for reporting at the international level. The multidimensionality of REDD+ poses great challenges to identifying efficient trade-offs between in-depth, fully comprehensive monitoring and increasing complexity and costs, which is a serious problem given the limited funds available for REDD+ monitoring. Monitoring both the carbon and non-carbon impacts of REDD+ requires development of systems that are scientifically sound, yet simple enough to be implemented effectively. In this chapter, the authors first present key concepts in monitoring as related to REDD+. They then review available options for carbon monitoring, social monitoring and environmental monitoring, with particular attention to issues of scale. Finally, they present strategies for moving forward through a more integrated REDD+ monitoring across scales and between disciplines, which can go beyond REDD+ to inform approaches for measuring sustainability in landscapes. Integrated monitoring of REDD+ performance is not only important for assessing adherence to safeguards, but can go well beyond REDD+ to inform indicators of sustainability towards promoting benefits for both people and the environment.

Chapter 5 - Measuring Indicators For Sustainable River Basin Management

This chapter discusses the complexities associated with measuring sustainability in river basins. With a case study of the River Nyando, which drains into Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya, the chapter highlights key concepts in sustaining the river basin such as ecosystem services, decentralization, multi-stakeholder participation and institutional arrangements. It identifies sustainability indicators for water quantity and quality, biodiversity and public participation and discusses the different approaches used to measure them, opportunities and shortcomings.

Chapter 6 - Sustaining Local Livelihoods Through Coastal Fisheries In Kenya

This chapter covers past and present strategies for managing coastal fisheries in Kenya. It discusses how coastal fisheries management has evolved in Kenya, where from the 1990s, there has been a paradigm shift from top-down to bottom-up approaches which embrace local community participation. It emphasizes the importance of the fishery sector in Kenya and the need to sustain the sector for improved food security and livelihoods of the dependent local communities. It discusses key strategic approaches used to sustain coastal fisheries in Kenya such as community conserved areas (CCA) and Beach Management Units (BMU) and highlights their strengths and weaknesses taking into account sustainability indicators. The importance of livelihoods diversification and local capacity building are also highlighted and key lessons learnt are outlined.

Chapter 7 - Peninsular Pronghorn Conservation: Too Many Paradigms, Too Few Indicators

In chapter 7 the various threats to pronghorn (Antilocapra americana peninsularis) are brought to light. Subsequently, short-term solutions were identified in a knowledge system experiment in relation to assisted reproduction. As to longer-term solutions, recent conservation literature points to rewilding and stewardship as two hitherto unconnected but possibly complementary wildlife management avenues. Wildlife conservation is one of the tenets of environmental sustainability. Efforts in recovering the population of peninsularis pronghorn however seem inconclusive. This is far from an isolated case and warrants a deeper examination than usually afforded in the course of practical animal conservation. Based mainly on fitness, food and habitat information gathered during the year posterior to introduction on an island of a captive and free-roaming population, it seemed that specialization in advisors had come with different conservation paradigms. Taken together they adversely affected individuals and population. Foremost were the zoo, veterinary, ranching and hunting paradigms. Perhaps more surprisingly, non-governmental organizations’ activity also played a role, in a process possibly headed toward privatization and domestication.

Chapter 8 - Restoration Success Of Tropical Forests: The Search For Indicators

This chapter aims to discuss how restoration success is being measured and to find a role for functional ecology in providing reliable indicators for restoration ecology. The objectives of this chapter are threefold: to present the main ideas for the evaluation of restoration success and the indicators used; to discuss the main advantages and drawbacks of the main strategies of restoration - active and passive; and to emphasize the need for a more widespread use of functional approaches to evaluate success in restoring tropical forests. Given the difficulties associated with current indicators of restoration success based on species diversity, vegetation structure and ecological processes, it is extremely timely to consider that functional approaches play an important role in providing reliable and simplified indicators for restoration success. The use of such indicators can catalyze more restoration initiatives, because they offer insurance that such efforts will in fact accomplish their initial goals, as to provide ecosystem services, contribute to biodiversity conservation and increase ecosystem resilience in response to climate change.

Chapter 9 - Sustainability Indicators In Brazilian Cattle Ranching

Brazil is one of the largest agricultural producers worldwide and agriculture is one of the backbones of the country’s economy. The country also owns the largest commercial cattle herd with 211 million heads, responsible for about a quarter of the total volume of meat transacted in foreign trade supply. Opposite to western-style intensive agriculture that is often associated with biodiversity loss and environmental pollution, in Brazil extensive low productivity agriculture often leads to environmental degradation. Similarly, Brazilian pasturelands are characterized by low stocking rates and this low efficiency has historically led to deforestation and to other adverse effects on the environment such as soil erosion. In this chapter we discuss the reasons for unsustainability of Brazilian cattle ranching and indicators to measure progress towards sustainability.

Chapter 10 - Sustainability Indicators For Agriculture In The European Union

Chapter 10 presents a range of aspects associated with sustainability indicators used for agriculture: it highlights the need for monitoring of agriculture worldwide, describes beneficial and harmful effects of agriculture on the environment and society and discusses problems related to farmers´ activity towards sustainable agriculture in the European Union (EU). Different definitions of and approaches to sustainable agriculture including ecological, economic, social and political dimensions are discussed. The chapter also presents a set of agri-environmental indicators used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and within the EU – IRENA project (Indicator Reporting on the integration of Environmental concerns into Agricultural policy). The origins of the concept of sustainable agriculture in Europe, historical and recent trends regarding agriculture and steps towards sustainability and ‘land sparing vs. land sharing’ are also discussed in the chapter. Finally, the reader can find a list of 28 different agri-environmental indicators proposed by the European Commission with the short explanation of domain and sub-domain that they represent. The chapter complements with a discussion on which agri-environmental indicators can be considered good indicators and why. A range of examples of sustainability indicators and the process for their selection in the EU are presented along with recommendations on their use.

Chapter 11 - Sustainability And Air Quality

The main objectives of the chapter are: (i) to highlight the main problems and main instruments of managing air quality in Europe, (ii) to present general reflections on linkages of air quality with sustainability issues and (iii) to analyze the case study of a specific air quality problem with domestic heating in Poland with special attention to sustainability indicators. Many air quality aspects are strictly linked to sustainability, such as (i) harmful impacts on people and ecosystems, (ii) material losses due to pollution, (iii) connection to the climate change policy, (iv) long range pollution transport, (v) control strategies, including links to energy policy and transport system, selection and optimization with cost-benefit analysis. In Europe air quality is one of the main threats to environmental and human health and air pollution is high especially for particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and ozone (O3). Poland has problems with dust pollution (PM10, PM2,5 and benzo(a)pyrene) and it is estimated that every year about 80% of people living in the Polish towns/cities are exposed to the significant harmful impact of PM pollution. Large effort has been put into emission reduction actions but the air quality has not showed improvement. The chapter discusses further measures and recommendations that require implementation of indicators.

Chapter 12 - How To Measure Wastewater Systems’ Sustainability?

Wastewater collection by pipelines together with the proper treatment system is undoubtedly the most relevant way to deal with the environmental threats that could be caused by wastewater. Large-scale investments in construction of wastewater-systems are being currently realized in Poland. Wastewater investments are rather capital-intensive and therefore the areas to be covered by the pipelines and connections must be chosen very carefully in order to not produce exceeding costs. Although the methodology for selecting the areas that meet certain conditions is known, sometimes it is not implemented by the local authorities. This can lead to an increase of investment costs. The chapter discusses that the wastewater system could be considered sustainable only if all the costs (investment costs and running costs) are covered by the wastewater tariffs and that they are calculated and paid by the end users (society), and that the tariffs must be low enough for all the end users to bear the costs of wastewater collection and treatment (tariffs). The chapter also discusses that in some cases the need for environmental protection stands opposite to economic and social aspects, for example in poorer regions and rural areas – where the unit costs of constructing wastewater systems are higher due to low-density housing. The chapter shows the case study of the single company operating on the territory of ten southern Poland Districts, covering mainly rural areas. The chapter also shows some methods to eliminate negative effects of costly investments on poorer parts of society and demonstrates implications for sustainable wastewater management.

References

Agol, D., Latawiec, A.E., Strassburg, B.B.N. (2014). Project impact assessment using sustainability indicators: opportunities and challenges. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 48, 1-9

Bell, S., Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? London, UK: Earthscan.

Bossel H. (2001). Assessing viability and sustainability: A systems-based approach for deriving comprehensive indicators sets. Conservation Ecology, 5 (2), 12p.

Dresner, S. (2008). The Principles of Sustainability. London, UK: Earthscan.

Hak, T., Dahl, A.L., Molden, B. (2007). Sustainability Indicators. A scientific assessment. Washigton, DC: Island Press.

Meadows D. (1998). Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development. A Report to the Balaton Group. Hartland, VT: Sustainability Institute.

Ramos, T.B., Caeiro, S. (2010). Meta-performance evaluation of sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators, 10, 157-166

Stafford-Smith, M. (2014). UN sustainability goals need quantified targets. Nature, 513, 281p.

UN. (2012). United Nations General Assembly. The Future We Want. A/RES/66/288. Sixty-sixth session. Agenda item 19. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012.

UNCED. (1992). Agenda 21, Programme of Action for Sustainable development adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Wilson, J., Pelot, R., Tyedmers, P. (2007). Contrasting and comparing sustainable development indicator metrics. Ecol. Indic., 7, 299–314.

1 http://www.foresteurope.org/news/final-proposal-sustainable-development-goals-and-targets-agreed

2 http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/newsletter/desanews/feature/2014/08/index.html#11715