Defra is consulting on a new SD indicator set. So far, there have only been 80 responses and the consultation closes on October 15th.
There are now 12 provisional headline indicators [ HI ] that are meant to be high-level outcome measures, and capture priority issues for making economic, environmental and social progress in line with the UK Sustainable Development Strategy’s ‘guiding principles’ of sustainable development: living within the planet’s environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly.
These are the HIs:
Economy – Economic prosperity Long term unemployment Poverty Knowledge & skills
Society – Healthy life expectancy Social Capital Social mobility in adulthood Housing provision
Environment – Greenhouse gas emissions Natural resource use Wildlife & biodiversity Water availability
My comments were ...
1. I am aware of the importance of indicators in relation to social policy, and especially in relation to sustainable development, and welcome the shift from the previous indicator set to the current one, with its division into headline and supplementary ones.
2. In the context of sustainable development, it is unfortunate that it seems necessary to think of indicators separately in terms of economy / society / environment as though these are in some sense separate (and always separable). Many feel that it is this sort of thinking that has landed us in the predicaments we now face. Whilst I recognise there may be a need to do this to an extent (to make the whole process manageable), it is a pity that all the HIs are presented in this atomised fashion.
3. In many respects, the placing of the 12 HIs under separate economy / society / environment headings is risible. Since when has poverty only been an economic issue, for example? And are not social mobility / housing as much economic issues as social ones? Water availability (and quality – which is not mentioned) would seem to be related to all three aspects – ie, to a holistic view of sustainable development.
4. I question, therefore, the usefulness of the economy / society / environment headings. Why is this necessary at all?
5. The existing indicator for Education: The proportion of 19 year-olds with Level 2 qualifications and above is completely useless, though trend data can be collected easily (which has merit). This is because the link to sustainable development is tenuous at best, and it’s an act of some faith that this provides any measure that we’re developing on a sustainable pathway. I was hoping that something better would emerge, but it hasn't as eduction gets only a passing glance. It is sidelined.
6. The only reference to education is within the knowledge and skills HI in the “Economy” section. The documentation says this: The value of knowledge and skills (as a proxy for human capital) per person of working age). Where human capital is defined as “the knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes embodied in individuals that facilitate the creation of personal, social and economic well-being” (OECD, 2001). Rather ironically, OECD omits any reference to the environmental well-being which is at the heart of the issues we face.
7. The UK measure is based on gender, age and the level of qualification acquired during participation in compulsory and post-compulsory education, in vocational and tertiary education, etc. None of this is straightforward, and there is no mention of sustainable development or education / learning in relation to this.
8. You can see the problem immediately – it’s really just the same as the old indicator – the proportion of the population with level 2 qualifications – though it is somewhat more sophisticated. This, especially taken with the limited view of human capital, means that a lifetime of education and training will count whether or not there is any focus on sustainable development in that education and training. So, it seems that any education / learning in relation to sustainable development will count for nothing. This is not a happy state of affairs.
9. There is, however, a much bigger problem. Such headline indicators represent a sort of barometer or compass bearing. For example, if all the indicators can be lined up so that they are all pointing in the right direction, then we can conclude that we’re making progress along the sustainable development pathway. It’s a pleasing, and reassuring, metaphor. Thus, when HIs are broadly negative, we can tell that the overall position is not sustainable. Unfortunately, this does not mean that when they are all positive, the position necessarily is sustainable.
10. Indeed, it is even possible that positive indicator results will operate perversely to move us off a sustainable pathway. In other words, if you fail to meet an indicator, then you know there’s work to do; if you do meet it, however, there’s always uncertainty about how appropriate the indicator was. For example, if we were to succeed in keeping the global temperature rise below, say, 3 degrees C, we’d still have to wait for years to see whether that was enough. As the old cliché has it: only time will tell.
11. In this sense, using indicators is rather like looking in a car’s rear-view mirror. This enables us to see where we’ve been – to see how well we’re driving – the sort of social and temporal progress we are making. On a bad day we can see the mayhem we’ve caused – the crashed cars and bodies in the road. It alerts us to how we’ve been doing, but is an imperfect guide to the future. The point about rear-view mirrors is to keep your eye on them – and to try to ensure that they don’t distort what has happened. This applies to sustainable development indicators with some force. I cannot see that this point is understood in what is proposed.
.................................
Note that there is no ESD indicator, but the previous set had a blank where this was supposed to be, despite 10 years of effort and thinking this through. Were we not very good at that? Or was it mission impossible? I lean to the latter view.
If you're quick, you can respond here, or by emailing sd.scene@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Responses