{"id":2188,"date":"2012-08-12T09:17:03","date_gmt":"2012-08-12T08:17:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=2188"},"modified":"2012-08-12T09:17:03","modified_gmt":"2012-08-12T08:17:03","slug":"defra-has-another-go-at-indicators","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2012\/08\/12\/defra-has-another-go-at-indicators\/","title":{"rendered":"Defra has another go at indicators"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defra is reviewing the UK's sustainable development indicator set<\/a>, and is seeking views on its proposals. \u00a0It says this ...<\/p>\n

The Government has committed to measure and report our progress through a new set of sustainable development indicators. \u00a0The intention is that these will provide a high level transparent overview as to whether the UK is developing on a sustainable path [and] support our evidence base for policy development across Government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Just so \u2013 except that such confidence is misplaced. \u00a0Looking at the existing sustainable development indicators shows the difficulties.\u00a0 This is the current one for education \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

The proportion of 19 year-olds with Level 2 qualifications and above<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This has the considerable merit of being easy to measure, but what does it really tell you? \u00a0Only, perhaps, the proportion of 19 year-olds with Level 2 qualifications and above, where the link to sustainable development is tenuous at best, and it\u2019s an act of some faith that this provides any measure that we\u2019re developing on a sustainable pathway. \u00a0As Donella Meadows <\/em>noted: <\/em><\/p>\n

We try to measure what we value. We come to value what we measure<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, maybe a better indicator would be the proportion of PhD theses that address sustainable development \u2013 except we can recall David Orr telling us that the problems were caused by people with PhDs.\u00a0 Well, not quite, of course.\u00a0 Orr is<\/em> given to simplification.<\/p>\n

We are supposed to have a second education indicator in the current set.\u00a0 This one was to focus on ESD and has been \"under development\" for about 10 years, and still is.\u00a0 Is this blank just because we weren\u2019t any good at thinking about it?\u00a0 Or because it\u2019s impossible to create anything meaningful? \u00a0I lean to the latter view. \u00a0The UK\u2019s new proposals sidestep all these problems quite brilliantly.\u00a0 There is no mention of ESD, and even education just gets a passing nod.<\/p>\n

Defra is proposing 12 headline, and 25 supplementary indicators. \u00a0It says that the 12 provisional headline indicators are high-level outcome measures, and capture priority issues for making economic, environmental and social progress in line with the UK sustainable development strategy\u2019s \u2018guiding principles\u2019 of sustainable development:<\/p>\n

living within the planet\u2019s environmental limits; \u00a0 \u00a0ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; \u00a0 \u00a0achieving a sustainable economy;<\/p>\n

promoting good governance; \u00a0 using sound science responsibly.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The headline indicators are:<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Economy<\/strong><\/td>\nSociety<\/strong><\/td>\nEnvironment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  • Economic prosperity<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Healthy life expectancy<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Greenhouse gas emissions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  • Long term unemployment<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Social Capital<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Natural resource use<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  • Poverty<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Social mobility in adulthood<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Wildlife & biodiversity<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  • Knowledge & skills<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Housing provision<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Water availability<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Those of you who think these things matter will have noticed that, in doing this, sustainable development has been split up into what many see as its component parts. \u00a0Sadly, in this Defra view, it never gets put back together.<\/p>\n

    The only reference to education is within the Economy headline indicator of knowledge & skills.\u00a0 This is:<\/p>\n

    The value of knowledge and skills (as a proxy for human capital) per person of working age.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    ... where, human capital is defined as \u201cthe knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes embodied in individuals that facilitate the creation of personal, social and economic well-being\u201d (OECD, 2001). \u00a0Rather ironically, OECD omits any reference to the environmental well-being which is at the heart of the issue here. \u00a0The UK measure uses a discounted lifetime labour income approach which is based on gender, age and the level of qualification acquired during participation in compulsory and post-compulsory, vocational or general education, tertiary education, etc. \u00a0None of this is straightforward, and there is no mention of ESD.<\/p>\n

    And you can see the problem immediately \u2013 it\u2019s really just the same as the old level 2 qualifications\u00a0indicator, though it is somewhat more sophisticated (I think I really mean complex). \u00a0This, 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 which means that ESD counts for nothing.<\/p>\n

    As I hinted at the outset, there is a bigger problem. \u00a0It has been suggested that such headline indicators represent a sort of barometer or compass bearing. \u00a0For example, if all the indicators can be lined up so that they are all pointing in the right direction, then we can assume that we are making progress along the sustainable development pathway. \u00a0It\u2019s a pleasing, and reassuring, metaphor. \u00a0However, there is a major problem with the whole approach. \u00a0ESRC-funded research that Bath and Lancaster were involved in, in 2004, noted this:<\/p>\n

    It is true if the headline indicators are broadly negative, we can tell that the overall position is not sustainable. \u00a0Unfortunately, this does not mean that when they are all positive, the position necessarily is sustainable. \u00a0Indeed, it is even possible that positive indicator results will operate perversely to move us off a sustainable pathway.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    In other words, if you fail to meet an indicator, then you know there\u2019s work to do; if you do meet it, there\u2019s always uncertainty about whether the indicator was appropriate. \u00a0For example, if we were to succeed in keeping the global temperature rise below, say, 3o <\/sup>C, we\u2019d still have to wait for years to see whether that was enough. \u00a0As the old clich\u00e9 has it: only time will tell. \u00a0Does Defra know this?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Defra is reviewing the UK's sustainable development indicator set, and is seeking views on its proposals. \u00a0It says this ... The Government has committed to measure and report our progress through a new set of sustainable development indicators. \u00a0The intention...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":237,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2188","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-comment","category-news-and-updates"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2188","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/237"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2188"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2188\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}