Monitoring progress towards sustainable production & consumption:
Indicators, Measures of Success, Network Structures and Points of Intervention and Leverage
- Jeffrey Barber, Integrative Strategies Forum
Presented at the International Workshop on Sustainable Production- Consumption Systems:
Research Frontiers, Chiang Mai, 2004
Measuring success. For years now, unsustainable consumption and production has been identified as "the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment." [i] Yet, as John Manoocherhi and others point out, [ii] there has been a lack of distinction between sustainable development (SD) and sustainable consumption. This confusion could be one explanation why policymakers have been taking such a long time specifying measurable targets and time tables for achieving sustainable production and consumption (SPAC) patterns. In place of measureable targets and strategies, there have been innumerable workshops and meetings, papers and presentations about indicators, policy instruments and best practices for better understanding and moving towards SPAC. Nevertheless, ten years after the UNCED commitment for all countries to "reduce and eliminate" their unsustainable production and consumption patterns, those patterns have resulted in even greater environmental and social deterioration.
Recently the World Summit contributed to an operational clarification of sustainability by identifying its three "overarching objectives" - eradicating poverty, protecting natural resources and changing unsustainable production and consumption patterns. The implication is that all local, regional, national and international sustainable development plans and strategies should include SPAC as one of the overarching objectives. While confusion may still remain about how that objective is defined and measured as well as achieved, the summit nevertheless places SPAC at the top of the
sustainable development policy agenda as a priority distinct from protecting environment and attacking poverty. Developing effective systems for monitoring and assessing progress towards SPAC is an essential part of this overriding objective .
Diagnostic tools. Variations of the pressure-state-response (PSR) model have all contributed to the discussion and development of SD indicators and monitoring systems (see graph). In most applications, production and consumption patterns (sometimes described as "human activity") have been the primary "pressures" (by sector and overall) having an impact on ecosystems and human health. While measures and concepts such as ecological footprints, environmental space and the Genuine Progress Indicator have called greater attention to the complex nature of such pressures, greater attention needs to also be given to additional indicators and assessment methods and systems addressing the underlying factors and relationships associated with the SPAC research agenda. Â In particular, we need measures providing a deeper understanding of the relationships between environmental and social policy concerns. We especially need tools and strategies for identifying and overcoming the gaps and obstacles undermining policy effectiveness . Integrative strategies addressing these gaps and obstacles, supported by alliances of scientific and advocacy networks promoting greater corporate and governmental responsibility and accountability, are critical to progress.
Assessing progress: Yet the compex factors driving production and consumption pressures are often given less attention in environmental and social impact assessments and analyses. SPAC monitoring and assessment needs to distinguish itself as a complementary and essential addition to monitoring the effectiveness of environmental and social policy and initiatives. Rather than superflluous or confusing, SPAC monitoring systems can provide greater insight into why social and environmental policy has not been able to reverse the worsening trends, and to provide strategies addressing the obstacles blocking progress .
To do this, SPAC monitoring systems need to distinguish themselves by (1) identifying the underlying factors driving the pressures identified with many social and environmental impacts, (2) monitoring the effectiveness of policies and strategies in addressing those underlying driving factors, (3) highlighting and clarifying the SPAC objective (especially when this is neglected or ambiguous) in relation to environmental, social and sustainable development policy and strategy, (4) monitoring the development and implementation of national (as well as regional and local) sustainable development strategies, especially regarding production and consumption objectives, and (5) tracking and assessing those political and other pressures and obstacles influencing (and sometimes undermining) effective policy responses to social and environmental problems. This last item is both controversial yet critical, addressing the often unspoken but apparent political and economic influences on policy (e.g., industry and corporate lobbyists and interest groups). For this last monitoring arena, [noncommerical] civil society groups (e.g., the International Coalition for Sustainable Production and Consumption) can play an essential role, putting on the table sensitive yet essential knowledge and questions key to overcoming some of the political obstacles to progress.
[i] Agenda 21 , 1992.
[ii] John Manoochehri, "Post-Rio 'Sustainable Consumption,'" 2002.