Experiments in Measuring Sustainability The Environmental Sustainability Index

Experiments in Measuring Sustainability - The Environmental Sustainability Index and its Critics Marc Levy CIESIN marc. levy@ciesin. columbia. edu http: //sedac. ciesin. columbia. edu/es/esi/

CIESIN involvement with sustainability indicators • 1999 -2005 – Environmental Sustainability Index • Collection of national-level indicators suitable for comparison and aggregation • 2005 -2006 – Environmental Performance Index • Collection of national-level “report cards” measuring proximity to policy “targets” – Proposal to U. S. Millennium Challenge Account currently in public review (http: //www. mca. gov/countries/selection/NRS_indicator. shtml) • 2002 -2006 – Collection of integrated well-being / environment indicators to support research into systemic interactions • E. g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Understanding Goal-Setting Engagement and Deliberation Evaluation and Learning Sustainability Indicators in Context Implementation Useful Indicators can improve ability to - Describe problems accurately and saliently - Diagnose the causes of these problems - Design solutions commensurate with description and diagnosis - Drive action with ongoing monitoring and evaluation

Criticism • Multi-dimensionality plus aggregation = confusion • Aggregates not grounded in theory; not subject to testing • Weights are ultimately arbitrary

Response • There is a demand for aggregated numbers • Although aggregation can be misused, it can be useful • Transparency can temper arbitrariness

The ESI gives strong weight to social and institutional capacity measures • Social and Institutional Capacity one of five core components of the ESI – 4 of the ESI’s 21 indicators are capacity measures • • Governance Eco-efficiency Private Sector Responsiveness Science and Technology – 24 variables used to quantify these indicators

The critique • “Rewards” wealthy countries • Capacity measures aren’t environmental, so they cloud the picture of environmental sustainability • Some of attributes of high capacity are linked to patterns of high environmental stress (e. g. resource consumption)– might send wrong signal

Response • Stick with it because it matters • Erect clear boundaries separating governance from drivers and impacts

The ESI combines things that are within governments near-term control and those that are not • • Exposure to environmental natural hazards Endangered species Anthropogenic land conversion Projected population growth

Criticism: This confuses whatever signal the ESI wants to send about performance • Things that happened long in the past aren’t relevant for current planning • Things that can’t be controlled aren’t relevant

Response, I • Given what ESI was trying to quantify, it makes sense to include both kinds of metrics – ESI is meant to measure ability to maintain favorable environmental conditions long into the future – That is a function of the cumulative, interacting effects of exogenous conditions, behaviors undertaken in the past, and behaviors undertaken in the future

Response, II • A Pilot Environmental Performance Index – Focuses only on measures subject to policy intervention – Metrics are benchmarked in terms of proximity to target • Natural Resource Management Indicator – Proposed for use by Millennium Challenge Account • Unweighted average of – – Access to water Access to sanitation Child mortality (age 1 -4) Achievement of 10% protection target, by biome

Clear Sustainability Targets Remain Elusive • Human-oriented indicators tend to be linked to clear targets – Child Mortality – Drinking Water – Sanitation – Urban Particulates – BIG EXCEPTION: Indoor Air Pollution

• Ecosystem-oriented targets hard to find – Regional ozone – Nitrogen loading – Water consumption – Wilderness Protection – Overfishing These are problems that manifest themselves over complicated transnational multi-scale, coupled-system dynamics

Measurement Infrastructure is not Adequate • Of the 16 indicators included in EPI, only 9 are updated on a regular basis – The indicators measured regularly are dominated by human-focused indicators • This reinforces the current policy stalemate – Hard to set goals when metrics aren’t available – Hard to mobilize support for measurement in the absence of policy goals – MDGs help reinvigorate many socioeconomic measurement efforts – did not have same effect on the environment