 |
As societies seek economic
growth that the environment can maintain, they also need ways to measure
how close they are to achieving sustainable development.
It is difficult to include the precise value of environmental
protection - or the costs of damaging the environment - when summing up
the output of an entire country's economy. Nonetheless, some progress has
been made in this area, and though Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is lagging
behind in the use of sustainability indicators, the countries of this region
are in a unique position to employ lessons learned elsewhere.
Chapter 40 of the "Agenda 21" proposals
put forth at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro called for new ways
to measure progress. But 10 years later, our most commonly used measurement
tools, including gross domestic product (GDP), are still in need of rethinking.
Markets, and most economic indicators of progress, improperly value the
health of forests, clean water and the happiness of children, while economic
activities associated with mitigation of environmental disasters continue
to improve balance sheets. Given the faulty accounting, it is not surprising
that decisions and policies that are branded as economically efficient
frequently produce unsustainable results. Getting the metrics right is
still one of the most important practical steps we can take towards sustainability.
While few would question the validity of these
concerns, there is little consensus on how to improve the situation. This
diversity should not be unexpected. Measurement is of concern to a variety
of disciplines working with different theories. And indicators arise from
different environmental and socio-cultural contexts: The indicators for
Tirana and Tallin should probably not be entirely identical.
Furthermore, sustainability is not simply
a matter of having, for example, clean water or full employment. It is
a property of a complex system and a combined outcome of many interacting
forces. And indicators mean little without a reference value. It is of
little use to know that my water quality index stands at eight, without
knowing where that number is on the water quality scale.
It is easier to use indicators to diagnose un-sustainability
than sustainability: a collapse of a fishery is apparent from the drop in
the quantity and quality of the fish catch and the accompanying social and
economic stress. But how do we know that a seemingly stable fishery is actually
sustainable and not on the verge of rapid decline? It is hardly possible
without an attempt to project current trends and dynamics into the future.
Next
page »
|
|
 |
|
Next
page »
Top
|
