| As part
of Durban's participation in the CEROI project, the CSIR
was requested to evaluate the proposed core set, and
suggest sustainability indicators for the Durban Metropolitan
Area (DMA) region. As the preparation of sustainability
indicators should form a project on its own basis, this
is a preliminary description of sustainability indicators
which should be advanced during future State of Environment
reporting activities.
In presenting and
evaluating indicators, this section:
- Describes in general terms the
concept of indicators with particular reference to
sustainability indicators;
- Evaluates whether the indicators
suggested by the CEROI project are relevant sustainability
indicators for the DMA situation;
- Provides a detailed description
of the recommended P-S-R indicators framework for the DMA;
and
- Suggests parameters that could
be used as sustainability indicators.
Due to time and budget
constraints, the indicators framework has not been tested with
the relevant service departments in the metropolitan area.
SUSTAINABILITY
INDICATORS
An environmental
information system should be built on a variety of conceptual
models, and include many different kinds of environmental,
economic and societal data and information. The basic
functions of an environmental information system are to
support the assessment of environmental problems, and to
facilitate reporting on these questions to policy-makers and
the general public. Sustainability indicators are commonly
used to report the state of a system.
A conceptual framework
for an ecosystem-based information system should consist of
hierarchical sets of environmental values, goals and
priorities for ecosystems defined at various spatial scales,
with sustainability of human activities as an explicit goal
and constraint. The following are elements of an
ecosystem approach:
-
inclusion of people
and their activities in the ecosystem;
-
viewing ecosystem
structure and function at multiple scales;
-
use of ecological
boundaries to define environmental planning, assessment and
management units;
-
geographically
comprehensive, systems-level analyses of interactions among
physical, chemical, biological, and social
components;
-
adaptive management
strategies, based on feedback from new information, to
improve management and policy under conditions of
uncertainty;
-
participatory
management involving all stakeholder groups;
-
integration of
science and human values in formulating goals for protecting
ecosystem integrity; and
-
recognition of ecosystem limits to
action, i.e., defining and seeking sustainability (EPA).
Environmental indicators
are communication tools between environments and people. They
focus and condense information about complex environments for
management, monitoring and reporting uses. The indicator
process can take account of social and economic information.
Indicators are used to
reflect complex systems that may need to be controlled or
monitored.
As a few examples (after Meadows, 1998)
- a mother will be alert to
her child's behaviour through the brightness of her eyes or
even the way they breathe in their sleep;
- the learning of children is
reflected in exam results;
- doctors take the temperature of
patients, look at their tongues etc.
- economists use leading
indicators, lagging indicators, cost-of-living indicators,
employment indicators, the Dow-Jones index or even GDP to
reflect the state of an economic system;
- the canary in a coal
mine
Indicators can be
devised at three
levels:
-
Community
based indicators (CBI's) are derived through
local community involvement and participations (e.g. Nurick
& Johnson, 1998; MacGillivray et al, 1998). They
are often expressed qualitatively and while reflecting the
perspectives of the community are difficult to relate to "on
the ground conditions". Furthermore, CBI's commonly have a
"quality-of-life focus rather than one which relates
directly to environment condition or sustainability"
(Leitman, 1999; Smith et al, 1999).
-
Environmental Performance Indicators
(EPI's) reflect the environmental performance
of an individual operation (typically they have been applied
in industrial settings). They are often derived for
Environmental Management System purposes and are based on a
life-cycle assessment. EPI's are often developed on a
stand-alone basis with no relationship to community needs or
sustainability concerns.
-
Indicators may be
developed through specialist scientists who focus on the
more technical and mechanistic elements of establishing
indicators. These are often expressed quantitatively
(the traditional criteria and
indicators).
Several organisations
have created specific programmes to develop technical
indicators (at a technical level), these include the UN Centre
for Human Settlements, the UN Commission on Sustainable
Development, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, the European Environment Agency,
and the World Health Organisation (e.g. Alberti, 1996; Harger
& Meyer, 1996; Friend, 1996; Crilly et al, 1999;
Foxon et al, 1999). The indicators developed through
these initiatives are often at a broad level and may have
limited application to local decision-making. Despite these
limitations a number of countries around the globe, including
South Africa, have adopted the approaches suggested through
these initiatives for decision-making and reporting
(Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 1998).
Furthermore, mechanistic indicators have been developed for
specific sectors and environmental parameters (e.g. Inhaber,
1976; WHO, 1997; Crabtree & Bayfield, 1998; Prato &
Hajkowicz; 1999; Koch & Skovsgaard, 1999; Grandos &
Peterson, 1999; Cornforth, 1999). The mechanistic indicators
are commonly termed sustainability indicators.
It was following the United Nations Earth Summit
in Rio (1992) that the concept of sustainability
indicators was put forward. From Chapter 40 of Agenda
21, "Indicators of sustainable development need to be
developed to provide solid bases for decision-making at all
levels and to contribute to the self-regulating sustainability
of integrated environment and development systems".
A sustainability indicator should differ from
the common/traditional indicator in one of three ways (i.e.
the dimensions of time, limit or target is introduced). In
this way an activity should be expressed not as, for example,
emission values of SO2 but rather how long before
an accumulated pollutant could cause irreversible damage to
the environment. If the indicator is not expressed as a unit
of time then it should reflect carrying capacity or the
threshold of irreversible change. As an example, tons of
nutrient per year into a waterway has little value but the
amount released relative to the amount that a waterway can
absorb without becoming toxic begins to carry a message.
A number of broad criteria have been
proposed for sustainability indicators that generally
suggest that they should focus on a broad range of concerns,
such as:
- furthering inter- and intragenerational equity;
- not exceeding the carrying capacity of natural resources
and ecosystems;
- reducing the impact that human activities have on the
environment (particularly the rate at which renewable and
non-renewable resources are used);
- integrating long-term economic, social and environmental
goals; and
- preserving biological, cultural and economic diversity.
The proposed core set of
indicators which are intended to compare the CEROI cities
were evaluated against these criteria. It was
concluded that the indicators merely reflect the
environmental condition and do not necessarily have a bearing
on sustainability in the DMA. The indicators are, however, a
useful set of indicators for State of Environment reporting
and to compare that state between cities. The indicators
reflect the environmental condition but do not necessarily
have a bearing on sustainability. This is clear in that the
indicators have no relationship with clearly determined
targets, thresholds to systems or to limits of acceptable
change. A further limitation of the indicators provided is
that they do not show causal relationships between the
different indicators. In essence the indicators do not reflect
the total system nor the key action points that may be
necessary to redress the imbalances that may exist in the
system.
A FRAMEWORK OF
SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS FOR DURBAN
PROVISIONAL APPROACH
FOR SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS IN DURBAN
REFERENCES |
