Photo: e-elgar.com
How do we ensure that Planet Earth is and remains not only habitable but also liveable for our (grand)children's (grand)children? What factors play a role, what should we consider, and how do we deal with this enormous challenge? To better understand the issues involved, this is a preliminary proposal for developing a Sustainable Development Index (SDI) to monitor, analyze and better manage our performance in this area.
People, Planet, Prosperity, and ...?
Balancing concern for people, the planet, and the equitable distribution of prosperity is a task we could do much better. Where did we come from, where are we now, and what limits us in achieving our self-imposed sustainable development goals?
Overpopulation
The world's population increased by 3.3 after World War II. What is particularly striking is that population growth in Europe since the war is a "modest" 39% (from year to year is 0.43%). In Africa and Asia and this growth is over 660% (around 2.5% year on year) and 350% (almost 1.7% year on year), respectively! The determining factors here are the increased life expectancy and the decreased fertility rate. The increased life expectancy, in turn, is due to improved sanitation and medical facilities. The current expectation is that, with fertility rates falling faster than life expectancy is rising, by 2090, the world population will be falling again. In Europe, the population is already decreasing, by the way. What impact does all this have on the quality of life on this planet?
GHG and pollution
Over the past year, nature has been very emphatic. The balance is disturbed, and by now, you don't have to read a hard-to-access UN report to understand that. In the absence of other human-caused disturbances such as meteorite impacts, increased solar activity, etc., you also don't have to be a great genius to blame climate change on us humans ourselves. The Industrial Revolution has forever strained our relationship with nature and the planet. After World War II, greenhouse gas emissions increased exponentially by almost nine due to the significant increase in population and the significantly increased logistical and technological capabilities. Asia is the undisputed emissions leader, which is unsurprising considering that over 50% of global industrial value creation occurs there.
Red indicates the percentage in that category that is affected, lost, or otherwise threatened, and blue indicates what is intact, standing, or unthreatened
CO2 emissions from oil, gas, coal, wood, waste incineration, and industrial production (cement) are responsible not only for greenhouse gases that cause global warming but also for disturbing biodiversity on land, in soil, surface water, and the sea. In addition, numerous other human activities do not result in emissions but significantly impact life on Earth. Overbuilding (deterioration of groundwater and soil quality, suppression of plant and animal habitats), intensive agriculture (ammonia and pesticides), mining (not infrequently accompanied using harmful chemicals), deforestation, and pollution by stray waste (plastics and discharge of waste into surface water) are a few sad examples. The attached graph (taken from this summary overview) shows that impact is far-reaching (with red indicating the percentage in that category that is affected, lost, or otherwise threatened and blue indicating what is intact, standing, or unthreatened). Importantly, we must gain and maintain an understanding of our efforts to protect the planet from ourselves.
Inequality
Increased industrialization and globalization worldwide have substantially reduced poverty in (inflation-adjusted) $ terms almost everywhere. Globally, at a spendable income of $3.65 a day, it is nearly 60% lower than 30 years ago (as much as 90% in Asia). That's a considerable gain, but is it enough, and at what cost? We are looking for a measure of sustainable economic growth. What is certain is that the widely used GDP has now become obsolete for this purpose. What does a country gain economically from, say, an utterly run-down infrastructure or concentration of a (too) large portion of income with the super-rich? I recommend a short tour through the United States to get a nuanced picture of this. Quite apart from the fact that increased GDP is directly correlated with depletion (earth and people), pollution (earth), and exploitation (people), a useful sustainable economic indicator should at least take into account the necessary reinvestment of that income to maintain earning capacity and enable innovations, as well as the distribution of that earned income.
Failing leadership
While searching for factors that make our planet unpleasant, let us remember the state-imposed, facilitated, or permitted corruption, disenfranchisement, intimidation, arbitrariness, and discrimination. Autocratic regimes, in particular, put ideology and self-interest before everything else. Any participation in the progress, development, and independence of their people or the democratic development or sustainability of their country is subordinate to it. It is no coincidence that as a regime further subordinates the control and individual rights of citizens to the power of the state, sustainable development goals are compromised. More explicitly, these include citizen well-being (people), care for the environment (planet) and the business environment, and income equality (prosperity). Often the lack of participation or the excess of autocratic behavior stands in the way of realizing these individual conditions for sustainable development. Out of political opportunism or otherwise (compromise becomes more complicated when this counterforce is made explicit), this factor (too) often goes unmentioned.
So far, no indicator provides insight into how these various conditions for sustainable development relate and how individual countries compare. It's time for such increased understanding.
Sustainable Development Index (SDI)
Whereas GDP growth has been a critical measure for a country's economic success, the time seems ripe for an alternative, broader approach. Suppose we want to create a living environment where all our (grand)children's (grand)children can thrive. In that case, we must perform to the maximum on all pillars of sustainable development. The pillars, People, Planet, Prosperity, and Participation, each require targeted choices and policies, which together should make securing the coming generations' future possible.
The point is to gain insight into the relevant effects of the policy and, thus, the choices made. The best possible result is to arrive at an indicative reliable picture. An index is the appropriate means for this. Each of the pillars must be 'loaded' with information relevant to that pillar. For the People pillar, this is well-being; for the Planet pillar, it is the environment; for the Prosperity pillar, it is fair growth; and for Participation, it is full involvement. The resulting picture should enable making relevant conclusions and formulating actions.
The outcome of the various pillars "add up" to a result for the whole; the weight of each pillar is 25%.
To increase the impact of this index, I welcome input and support from those who can contribute relevant ideas, knowledge, and experience (aantekeningenindemarge@gmail.com). The condition is that ideas are feasible, knowledge is helpful, and support is pro bono. For my part, I will be transparent and communicative to respondents about input, choices, and results.
A first taste of my work so far can be found under this link. It reflects my ideas for the design and composition of the index and motivates the choices made. Relevant and publicly accessible data - preferably - refreshed annually fuel the index pillars. The table below provides a brief overview of this.
Bringing the various achievements together under one heading, with different pillars that zoom in on the specific sustainable development goals (people, planet, prosperity, and participation), makes it possible to provide insight into performance and progress in the various policy areas. Achieving sustainable development in a country is impossible if performance in one of the pillars lags substantially behind. Apart from taking an integral approach, a high participation rate is essential for success.
In part, I fall back on existing indexes in compiling my Index. The People pillar is based on the Social Progress Index (SPI) by the Social Progress Imperative, which has been tracking the development of quality of life in 170 countries for over 30 years. For the Planet pillar, I draw heavily on the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), a joint initiative of Yale and Columbia universities. It tracks 180 countries in their efforts to combat climate change and environmental and ecological damage from human activity. Although the EPI follows more than 40 performance targets in great detail, it gives too much weight to the extrapolated greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 (totaling nearly 14%). Extrapolation based on past performance seems too speculative in a politically changing climate. The next edition of the SDI will have to take a critical look at this. All other indicators are borrowed from The World Bank's World Performance Indicators. The latter, in turn, obtains its data from a large number of specialized institutes in specific fields.
The 'Global West' has the highest performance regarding sustainable development. This, however, in no way implies that, for example, greenhouse gas emissions are at a lower level there than on the rest of the planet, but rather that efforts have gained traction there more than elsewhere. It is, therefore, also essential to look at how different clusters of countries compare. As governments have more resources and organization, it stands to reason that performance on the various pillars of the index is higher. Following the example of the Environmental Protection Index, I distinguish the following regional clusters for the SDI:
Based on this classification, I arrive at the following summary of SDI scores, results by pillar, and shares of these clusters in global greenhouse gas emissions, domestic national income (GNI), population size, and land area.
Making year-to-year comparisons reveals how countries perform within the various pillars and how that translates into the overall rankings. These comparisons are complex and are something for the next edition. More important than the ranking itself is that it becomes clear whether and how made policy translates into achieving concrete sustainability goals.
For the respective interactive images, click here: people, planet, prosperity, and participation).
It becomes clear that these perspectives provide different insights into the degree of progress in each pillar. Each view tells its own story. In that comparison lies the value of the SDI because those stories provide insight into exactly what action will or will not work. In the ultimately envisioned (and ambitious) set-up, each cluster (or even each country) should gain insight into strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and opportunities to achieve sustainable development at the policy level. Whether it gets, there depends primarily on the input I hope to get.
I am saving the ranking for the SDI 2023 by country for last. The long list gives total country scores for the SDI and the pillars. A future version of the SDI should provide easily accessible insight into the efforts by countries to realize their sustainable development commitments and the progression of the various pillars.
This initiative can become more professional and substantive with more input and support. Through collaboration and with the proper knowledge and expertise, we can create the necessary impact and go a long way! I would like to know if we can and will thus make a difference!
APPENDIX: Sustainable Development Index scorecard by country