12/11/2013

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 regionf g2-4 December 2013, Bangkok

Background

Better measure of progress are needed and the need to go b d GDP i i (Ri +20)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?

12/11/2013

2

Background

Focusing on economic growth as driver of change

Post-2015 development agenda to focus on transformation 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)

12/11/2013

3

Linking climate change, resource use, land use, and economic activity Can we really do this atand 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

Management for How hmanagement

for timber production

Private sector (plantations)

L l

service provision

Ecotourism operators Local governments Water utilities Hydropower companies Water users Energy users Beverage producers

much should

we pay?

Why should we pay ?

Local governments

Local communities

Beverage producers Agro-industries Local communities Farmers

12/11/2013

4

Assessing priorities key questions

There is a wide range of possible set of indicators g pbut…..

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

12/11/2013

5

Asia-Pacific development context

The Quality of Growth Framework - (work in progress)

12/11/2013

6

Assessment of Quality of Growth indicators Main

CriteriaProbing assessment question

R RelevantDoes the indicator touch on a specific dimension of green growth/quality of growth?

A AcceptedHas the indicator been widely accepted as useful for policy agenda?

C CredibleIs the indicator unambiguous, easy to interpret and convey a clear and meaningful message?

Is the indicator widely available, easy to monitor and can be E Easy

y , yeasily adopted by developing countries?

R RobustIs the indicator methodological sound and can stand to expert scrutiny?

Assessment of Quality of Growth indicators Assessment of Quality of Growth indicators Main

CriteriaSub-Criteria Probing assessment question

R Relevant

Linkage to quality of growth & GG

Is the indicator specifically and logically associated with specific quality 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)

Policy makersHas it been adopted into the national plans and programs of member

A AcceptedPolicy makers

states?

Other institutionsIs the indicator developed/adopted by institutions such as the UN and the international community?

C Credible

Data reliability Are the data sourced from credible and reliable institutions?

Unambiguous result Does the indicator show a clear, evident and understandable result?

TransparencyHas the indicator been published and the methodology been reviewed and taken on by academe and other institutions?

Assumption and limitations

Are the underlying assumptions credible and realistic limitations of indicator widely documented?Is the indicator regularly collected and available to most ESCAP

E EasyData availability

Is the indicator regularly collected and available to most ESCAP member states in electronic form (including proxy indicators)?

Technical feasibility Can it be easily developed by a country’s statistical agencies?

R Robust

Data quality Does the indicator use robust real, modeled, or approximation data?

ConsistencyIs the indicator consistent with other sustainability frameworks such as UN SEEA, Agenda 21, OECD and WB identified SD indicators?

ComparabilityDoes the indicator and result allow comparability across countries and time periods?

12/11/2013

7

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

12/11/2013

8

RELEVANTAssessment category

Linkage to GG and QG Trends Scale/Level

Criteria Reinforces the quality of growth determinants

Availability of time series data

Level (macro, micro, national, local, sectoral) of

RACER scoring

)disaggregation of indicator

Fully satisfied (2 points)

Strong link to at least 2 determinants of QG

Long time series available (time series for more than 10-years)

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

Indicator covers only 2 levels

(1 point) QG years or at least 5-data-point year observation)

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 Rapid assessment - Subjectivity and bias in the evaluation

12/11/2013

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 attentiony y

12/11/2013

10

Additional slides

Result of assessment (work in progress) Distribution determinants

12/11/2013

11

Result of assessment (work in progress) Allocation determinants

Result of assessment Scale determinants

12/11/2013

12

Result of assessment Scale determinants