Sustainable development indicators : Much wanted, less used?

For the past twenty years, several indicator sets have been produced on international, national and regional levels. Most of the work has concentrated on the selection of the indicators and on collection of the pertinent data, but less attention has been given to the actual users and their needs. This dissertation focuses on the use of sustainable development indicator sets. The dissertation explores the reasons that have deterred the use of the indicators, discusses the role of sustainable development indicators in a policy-cycle and broadens the view of use by recognising three different types of use. The work presents two indicator development processes: The Finnish national sustainable development indicators and the socio-cultural indicators supporting the measurement of eco-efficiency in the Kymenlaakso Region. The sets are compared by using a framework created in this work to describe indicator process quality. It includes five principles supported by more specific criteria. The principles are high policy relevance, sound indicator quality, efficient participation, effective dissemination and long-term institutionalisation. The framework provided a way to identify the key obstacles for use. The two immediate problems with current indicator sets are that the users are unaware of them and the indicators are often unsuitable to their needs. The reasons for these major flaws are irrelevance of the indicators to the policy needs, technical shortcomings in the context and presentation, failure to engage the users in the development process, non-existent dissemination strategies and lack of institutionalisation to promote and update the indicators. The importance of the different obstacles differs among the users and use types. In addition to the indicator projects, materials used in the dissertation include 38 interviews of high-level policy-makers or civil servants close to them, statistics of the national indicator Internet-page downloads, citations of the national indicator publication, and the media coverage of both indicator sets. According to the results, the most likely use for a sustainable development indicator set by policy-makers is to learn about the concept. Very little evidence of direct use to support decision-making was available. Conceptual use is also common for other user groups, namely the media, civil servants, researchers, students and teachers. Decision-makers themselves consider the most obvious use for the indicators to be the promotion of their own views which is a form of legitimising use. The sustainable development indicators have different types of use in the policy cycle and most commonly expected instrumental use is not very likely or even desirable at all stages. Stages of persuading the public and the decision-makers about new problems as well as in formulating new policies employ legitimising use. Learning by conceptual use is also inherent to policy-making as people involved learn about the new situation. Instrumental use is most likely in policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. The dissertation is an article dissertation, including five papers that are published in scientific journals and an extensive introductory chapter that discusses and weaves together the papers.

The Rocky Road of Social Sustainability : The Impact of Integrated Biodiversity Conservation and Development on the Local Realities in Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar

The objective of this study is to examine the social impacts of the integrated conservation and development project (ICDP) aimed at biodiversity conservation and local socio-economic development in the Ranomafana National Park (RNP), Madagascar. Furthermore, the study explores social sustainability and justice of the ICDP in Ranomafana. This ethnographically informed impact study uses of various field methods. The research material used consists of observation, interviews (key-person and focus group), school children's writings, official statistics and project documents. Fieldwork was conducted in three phases in 2001, 2002 and 2004 in twelve villages around the park, as well as in neighbouring areas of Ranomafana. However, four of those twelve villages were chosen for closer study. This study consists of five independent articles and a concluding chapter. Social impacts were studied through reproductive health indicators as well as a life security approach. Equity and distribution of benefits and drawbacks of ICDP were analysed and the actors related to the conservation in Ranomafana were identified. The children and adolescents' environmental views were also examined. The reproductive health indicators studied showed a poor state of reproductive health in the park area. Moreover, the existing social capital in the villages seemed to be fragmented due to economic difficulties that were partly caused by the conservation regulations. The ICDP in Ranomafana did not pay attention to the heterogeneity of the affected communities even though the local beneficiaries of the ICDP varied according to their ethnicity, living place, wealth, social position and gender. In addition, various conservation actors (local people in various groups, local authorities, tourist business owners, conservation NGOs and scientists) contest their interests over the forest, conservation and its related activities. This study corroborates the same type of evidence and conclusions discussed in other similar cases elsewhere: so called social conservation programmes still cannot meet the needs of the people living near the protected areas; on the contrary, they even have a reverse impact on the people's lives. A fundamental misunderstood assumption in the conservation process in Ranomafana was to consider the local people as a problem for biodiversity conservation. Major reasons for the failure of the ICDP in Ranomafana include a lack of local institutions that would have been able to communicate as equals with the conservation NGOs as well as to transfer the tradition of the authoritarian governance in conservation management together with the over-appreciation of scientific biodiversity, and lack of will to understand the local people's rights to use the forest for their livelihoods.