Water for people.pdf - WHO Thailand Digital Repository

4 0 / S E T T I N G T H E S C E N ESigning Progress: Indicators Mark the Way(2000), with indicators at goal level reflecting internationaltargets, the purpose reflecting the outcome of the World WaterVision, and outputs reflecting the future products of theFramework for Action process.3. The systems approach completely analyses the inflows, stockand outflows of an issue before defining indicators. It drawsfrom the concept of system dynamics and offers a way forwardin understanding the behaviour of the system over time. Theapproach adheres to the notion that ‘all systems depend to somedegree on the resource-providing and waste-absorbing capacitiesof their environment, and argues that■ most systems interact with other systems that are essential totheir viability;■ many interactions are hierarchical, with subsystemscontributing to the functioning of a system, which contributesto the functioning of a suprasystem, and so on; and■ ‘The viability of the total system depends on the viability ofmany but not necessarily all of its subsystems’ (IISD, 1999).The systems approach has been applied in developingsustainability indicators and relies on specific indicators dealingwith human systems (including social and individual developmentand governance), support systems (including economics andinfrastructure) and natural systems (including resources andenvironment). Although the approach is seen as very promising,it is complex and often considered at a stage of developmentwhere it still is ‘too academic’ to solve real-world problems.Similarly, the core definition of the system itself tends to be toovague to allow development into a meaningful indicatordevelopment exercise.4. The cause-effect approach is the most widely used approachto indicator development. Also considered a milestone, thepressure-state-response (PSR) conceptual framework was firstintroduced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) in 1994. This enabled trade-offs and thelinking of environmental, economic and social indicators (OECD,1994). Following the PSR framework of the OECD, several causeeffectclassifications have been developed:■ The Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR)framework was used by the European Environmental Agency(Hettelingh et al., 1998), United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) (Swart and Bakkes, 1995; Bakkes et al., 1994) and theWorld Resource Institute (Hammond et al., 1995).■ The Driving force-State-Response (DSR) framework of theUnited Nations Commission on Sustainable Development wasused for the indicators of Agenda 21 (DPCSD, 1996).■ The Pressure-State-Impact-Response (PSIR) framework is mostlyused in the Netherlands (Hoekstra 1998; Van Harten et al.,1995; Rotmans et al., 1994; Van Adriaanse, 1993).■ The Driving force-Pressure-State-Exposure-Effects-Action(DPSEEA) framework is used in the burden of disease studiesof the WHO.Although this is the most applied approach and offers a verypromising guideline for indicator development, it all too often fails totake the entire system into consideration because of the subjectivityinvolved in understanding the pressure, state and responses.Similarly, although the policy concerns are nested within thepressure, state and responses, the approach also appears to lack anyexplicit linkage to policy in the development of indicators.Assessment of the previous approaches in relation to indicatordevelopment shows that a substantive effort is currently being madeto derive indicators to measure success or failure of efforts towardssustainable development. Efforts such as developing the GenuineProgress Indicator, or achieving IISD indicators appear to have beeninitiated to provide a better measure for development than thoseprovided by Gross Domestic Product/Gross National Product(GDP/GNP) and, more recently, by the Human Development Index(HDI). These efforts aim to derive an index similar to the HDI but withadded environmental indicator/index values. Most of these efforts arestill to be recognized. Since 1997 (Rio+5), the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) has also been trying to integrateenvironmental indicators into the broad framework of the HDI.Several other approaches have also been initiated to assessecosystem integrity or health. The ecological footprint evaluation andenvironmental sustainability indicators have been developed exclusivelyto measure the quality of an area’s environment. There are also a fewwater resource indicators being developed and used. The most utilizedthus far are the fifteen basin scale indicators developed and applied bythe Water Resources Institute (WRI) in 1998.There are several UN-agency-led initiatives that report progresson water resource development, such as the Aquastat and FAOSTATinitiative of FAO, and the Global Resource Information Database(GRID) and Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) initiativesof UNEP. While a few of these are developed and maintained to fulfilsectoral objectives, others try to fulfil a broader objective. WHO’sefforts to estimate global burden of disease, expressed in Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY), are not limited to water-related diseases.This indicator aims not only to measure the health status of