Rapid assessment of the Quality of Growth indicators. Better measure of progress are needed and the need to go

Transcription

1 Rapid assessment of the Quality of Growth indicators Brian Carisma and Hitomi Rankine Environment and Development Division Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Expert Group Meeting on Strategies for Improving Environmental Statistics in the Asia-Pacific region 2-4 December 2013, Bangkok Background Better measure of progress are needed and the need to go beyond GDP in assessing progress (Rio +20) Many efforts to develop environment related indicators Increasing interest in the economy-environment integration SEEA has good guidance but how to prioritize? 1

2 Focusing on economic growth as driver of change Background Post-2015 development agenda to focus on transformation Quality of growth as a prerequisite for sustainable development Green growth as a key dimension of QofG ESCAP s work Quality of growth framework and indicators, Eco-efficiency indicators, Assessment framework (tool), Economic modeling for sustainable development to prioritize? Defining priorities Keep demand perspective in mind (including for financing) Initiatives to define indicators in the environmental sphere in A-P (e.g. green growth, quality of growth, sustainable consumption and production) Initiatives to build capacity (SEEA, material flow accounts, economic modeling) 2

3 Linking climate change, resource use, land use, and economic activity.. Can we really do this at the national level? - Yes.. but we need environmental satellite accounts ESCAP/CSIRO/Univ. of Sydney study tour, September 2013, Canberra Expanding the investor base (forests) Traditional management for timber production Private sector (plantations) Local governments Local communities Management for service provision Ecotourism operators Local governments Water utilities Hydropower companies Water users Energy users Beverage producers Agro-industries Local communities Farmers How much should we pay? Why should we pay? 3

4 Assessing priorities key questions There is a wide range of possible set of indicators but.. Are they all feasible? If not, should we invest? Assessing priorities - We adapted the RACER framework and applied to the quality of growth indicators (work in progress) Useful to assess indicators and their feasibility Technical basis for describing the state of individual indicator Support dialogue on statistical investment - which indicator and what investment needed 4

5 Asia-Pacific development context The Quality of Growth Framework - (work in progress) 5

6 Assessment of Quality of Growth indicators R Main Criteria Relevant Probing assessment question Does the indicator touch on a specific dimension of green growth/quality of growth? A C E R Accepted Credible Easy Robust Has the indicator been widely accepted as useful for policy agenda? Is the indicator unambiguous, easy to interpret and convey a clear and meaningful message? Is the indicator widely available, easy to monitor and can be easily adopted by developing countries? Is the indicator methodological sound and can stand to expert scrutiny? Assessment of Quality of Growth indicators R A C E R Main Criteria Sub-Criteria Probing assessment question Linkage to quality of Is the indicator specifically and logically associated with specific quality Relevant growth & GG of growth determinants? Trends Is it possible to track changes through time? Scale/Level Can indicator be applied at different scales/level (national, local, sectors) Accepted Policy makers Has it been adopted into the national plans and programs of member states? Other institutions Is the indicator developed/adopted by institutions such as the UN and the international community? Data reliability Are the data sourced from credible and reliable institutions? Unambiguous result Does the indicator show a clear, evident and understandable result? Credible Has the indicator been published and the methodology been reviewed Transparency and taken on by academe and other institutions? Assumption and Are the underlying assumptions credible and realistic limitations of limitations indicator widely documented? Is the indicator regularly collected and available to most ESCAP Data availability Easy member states in electronic form (including proxy indicators)? Technical feasibility Can it be easily developed by a country s statistical agencies? Robust Data quality Consistency Comparability Does the indicator use robust real, modeled, or approximation data? Is the indicator consistent with other sustainability frameworks such as UN SEEA, Agenda 21, OECD and WB identified SD indicators? Does the indicator and result allow comparability across countries and time periods? 6

7 Result of assessment (GG indicators) (work in progress) 7

8 RACER scoring Assessment category Criteria Fully satisfied (2 points) RELEVANT Linkage to GG and QG Trends Scale/Level Reinforces the quality of growth determinants Strong link to at least 2 determinants of QG Availability of time series data Long time series available (time series for more than 10-years) Level (macro, micro, national, local, sectoral) of disaggregation of indicator Indicator covers over 2 levels Partly satisfied Moderate linkage to at least 1 determinant of Short time series available (time series for at most 10 (1 point) QG years or at least 5-datapoint year observation) Indicator covers only 2 levels Not satisfied (0 point) No/weak link to any determinants of QG No time series data available Indicator covers 1 level Gaps and issues (Rio +20) RACER is promising tool in investigating issues with data Regional application- country specific application needed Rapid assessment - Subjectivity and bias in the evaluation 8

9 What s next? assessing progress (Rio +20) Joint identification of wish list indicators Designing/adapting assessment framework Analysis (expert) Defining investment areas, partners and approaches Thank you for your attention 9

10 Additional slides Result of assessment (work in progress) Distribution determinants 10

11 Result of assessment (work in progress) Allocation determinants Result of assessment Scale determinants 11

12 Result of assessment Scale determinants 12