Defra is consulting on a new SD indicator set. \u00a0So far, there have only been 80 responses and the consultation closes on October\u00a015th.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s \u2018guiding principles\u2019 of sustainable development:\u00a0living within the planet\u2019s environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly.<\/p>\n
These are the HIs:<\/p>\n
Economy \u00a0\u2013 <\/em>Economic prosperity \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Long term unemployment \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Poverty \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Knowledge & skills<\/p>\n
Society \u00a0\u2013 <\/em>Healthy life expectancy \u00a0 \u00a0Social Capital \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Social mobility in adulthood \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Housing provision<\/p>\n
Environment \u00a0\u2013 <\/em>Greenhouse gas emissions \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Natural resource use \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Wildlife & biodiversity \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Water availability<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
My comments were ...<\/p>\n
1. \u00a0I 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.<\/p>\n
2. \u00a0In the context of\u00a0sustainable 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). \u00a0Many feel that it is this sort of thinking that has landed us in the predicaments we now face. \u00a0Whilst 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.<\/p>\n
3. \u00a0In many respects, the placing of the 12 HIs under separate\u00a0economy \/ society \/ environment headings is risible. \u00a0Since when has poverty only been an economic issue, for example? \u00a0And are not social mobility \/ housing as much economic issues as social ones? \u00a0Water availability (and quality \u2013 which is not mentioned) would seem to be related to all three aspects \u2013 ie, to a holistic view of\u00a0sustainable development.<\/p>\n
4. \u00a0I question, therefore, the usefulness of the\u00a0economy \/ society \/ environment headings. \u00a0Why is this necessary at all?<\/p>\n
5. \u00a0The existing indicator for Education:\u00a0The proportion of 19 year-olds with Level 2 qualifications and above<\/em> is completely useless, though trend data can be collected easily (which has merit). \u00a0This is because the link to sustainable development is tenuous at best, and it\u2019s an act of some faith that this provides any<\/span> measure that we\u2019re developing on a sustainable pathway. \u00a0I was hoping that something better would emerge, but it hasn't as eduction gets only a passing glance. \u00a0It is sidelined.<\/p>\n
6. \u00a0The only reference to education is within the knowledge and skills HI in the \u201cEconomy\u201d section.\u00a0 The documentation says this:\u00a0The value of knowledge and skills (as a proxy for human capital) per person of working age). \u00a0Where 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 issues we face.<\/p>\n
7. \u00a0The 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. \u00a0None of this is straightforward, and there is no mention of sustainable development or education \/ learning in relation to this.<\/p>\n
8. \u00a0You can see the problem immediately \u2013 it\u2019s really just the same as the old indicator \u2013 the proportion of the population with level 2 qualifications \u2013 though it is somewhat more sophisticated.\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 in that education and\u00a0training. \u00a0So, it seems that any\u00a0education \/ learning in relation to\u00a0sustainable development\u00a0will count for nothing. \u00a0This is not a happy state of affairs.<\/p>\n
9. \u00a0There is, however, a much bigger problem. \u00a0Such headline indicators represent a sort of barometer or compass bearing.\u00a0\u00a0For 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\u2019re making progress along the sustainable development pathway. \u00a0It\u2019s a pleasing, and reassuring, metaphor. \u00a0Thus, when HIs are broadly negative, we can tell that the overall position is not sustainable.\u00a0\u00a0Unfortunately, this does not mean that when they are all positive, the position necessarily is sustainable.<\/p>\n
10. \u00a0Indeed, it is even possible that positive indicator results will operate perversely to move us off a sustainable pathway.\u00a0\u00a0In other words, if you fail to meet an indicator, then you know there\u2019s work to do; if you do meet it, however, there\u2019s always uncertainty about how appropriate the indicator was. \u00a0For example, if we were to succeed in keeping the global temperature rise below, say, 3 degrees C, we\u2019d still have to wait for years to see whether that was enough.\u00a0\u00a0As the old clich\u00e9 has it: only time will tell.<\/p>\n
11. \u00a0In this sense, using indicators is rather like looking in a car\u2019s rear-view mirror. \u00a0This enables us to see where we\u2019ve been \u2013 to see how well we\u2019re driving \u2013\u00a0the sort of social and temporal progress we are making. \u00a0On a bad day we can see the mayhem we\u2019ve caused \u2013 the crashed cars and bodies in the road. \u00a0It alerts us to how we\u2019ve been doing, but is an imperfect guide to the future. \u00a0The point about rear-view mirrors is to keep your eye on them \u2013 and to try to ensure that they don\u2019t distort what has happened. \u00a0This applies to\u00a0sustainable development indicators with some force. \u00a0I cannot see that this point is understood in what is proposed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
.................................<\/p>\n
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. \u00a0Were we not very good at that? \u00a0Or was it mission impossible? \u00a0I lean to the latter view.<\/p>\n