|
Workshop
on Sustainable Development Indicators
Chung-Li,
Taiwan, 17-19 November 2001
Sustainable
Development Indicators for Taiwan
Jiunn-Rong
Yeh1, Shang-Lien Lo2, Ling-Ling Lee3, Jin-Tan Liu4,
Juju Chin-Shou Wang5, and Shu-Li Huang6
1.
Introduction
Taiwan
experience has been analyzed academically from economic
as well as political perspectives. An emerging interest,
however, has been the underpinnings of Taiwan's development
path in transitional context to the scholarship of sustainable
development. Indeed, there have been various attempts to
push Taiwan towards an island of sustainable development.
Among them, the development of a set of indicators directed
to the assessment of Taiwan's sustainability in the dynamics
of national development has been particularly called for.
This
paper attempts to present and assess current efforts to
establish sustainable development indicators for island
Taiwan, based on an integrated research project initiated
and sponsored by Taiwan's National Science Council. Questions
posed and answered in this paper include: the identification
of the functions of the indictors, analytical framework
for composing a set of indicators, process of developing
these indicators, criteria of selecting each indicators.
Special attention is paid to the salient features of Taiwan,
including island status and transitional dynamics, in addressing
the issue of sustainable development.
This
paper argues that an institutional capacity-building perception
of sustainable development is more in tune with the salient
features of island Taiwan. Due to the nature of the effort
and relatively young democracy of Taiwan, this paper suggest
a deliberative process for developing these indicators.
In order to reinforce the precautionary function of the
indicators to the governmental policies, this paper further
adopts an extended Pressure-State-Response (PSR) analytical
framework for developing island Taiwan sustainable development
indicators.
1.1
Reading Sustainable Development: Taiwan' Perspective
Despite
its prevailing recognition, sustainable development remains
a subject in search for it's content. And thus, a set of
meaningful sustainable development indicators wound to a
large extent contingent on a solid construction of the very
concept of sustainable development.
A
general construction of sustainable development, however,
has to tailor to local relativity for better realization.
It is because of this dual concerns, this section addresses
the general construction of the concept of sustainable development
on the one hand and its incorporation with island Taiwan's
salient features on the other.
Despite various academic attempts, it is fair to say that
the phrase "sustainable development" has become
ubiquitous in contemporary culture. However, to what extent
international law imposes upon states a general obligation
to engage in sustainable development remains an open question.
Regardless of the extent to which the principle of sustainable
development binds national actions, its rather ambiguous
content remains challenging.
International
organizations and scholars attempted to formulate an accepted
definition for "sustainable development," particularly
because defining the term while advocating sustainable development
invites criticism. Despite the pressure to produce a definition,
this Article does not intend to add one. It is more imperative
to understand the nature and spirit of sustainable development
beyond its textual construction in order to facilitate its
substantive linkage to the dynamics of development in the
real world.
1.1.1 Existing Interpretive Models
There
are at least three schools of thought on sustainable development.
The first is the carrying capacity model, which defines
sustainability as development staying within natural limits.
Under this construction, sustainable development was defined
as improving the quality of human life while living within
the carrying capacity of compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. The third is supporting
ecosystems. The second is an intergenerational justice model
that defines sustainability as the development of the present
generation without depriving the development of future generations.
The Brundtland Report defined sustainable development as
the development that meets the needs of the present withoutan
economic internalization model that extends the context
of economic development to include all elements of social
welfare. Under this construction, sustainable development
is defined as a maximization of the net benefits of economic
development, subject to maintaining the services and quality
of natural resources over time, where economic development
is broadly construed to include all elements of social welfare.
1.1.2 Towards an Institutional Capacity-building Model
The
models mentioned above all point to equilibrium, leaving
institutions and processes separated; this makes the principle
of sustainable development appealing and yet hard to implement.
The essence of sustainable development may be less of a
static human destination as presented in an envisaged equilibrium,
but more of a process and function of human institutions
in which we live. In order to make sustainable development
meaningful in the real world, it should be construed to
incorporate the role of institutions that actually make
choices in the cause of national development. Accordingly,
sustainable development is better understood as a preferred
institutional environment than as a desired static result.
The essence of sustainable development is thus more akin
to the dynamics of social capacity building, through which
the ex post regret of collective decisions could be minimized.
By this construction, institutional improvements in the
political system, economic policies and other social institutions
are all foundations of sustainable development. The wisdom
required in the quest for the content of sustainable development
lies in the betterment of traditional human institutions,
especially political and economic systems, and shared human
values, especially scientific truth, market function, representation,
information, participation, due process, human dignity and
the like. These may sound too basic in an established industrial
democracy, but they are of vital importance to states in
transitions. Recent development in the political, economic
and environmental spheres in Taiwan can be seen as an institutional
buttress to the foundations of sustainable development.
1.2
Transitional Society and Institutional Capacity-Building
Towards Sustainable Development
Though
the world is claimed to have a "common future,"
we have seen how differently each nation can view its interests
in development and the environment. Conflicts in values
are equally pervasive at the national level, especially
in countries undergoing rapid and profound transition. It
is imperative to ask how a transitional society would define
the course of national development in terms of sustainable
development, given its prior developmental pattern and current
international dependency.
Most
states in transition have faced the pressure of political
liberalization, though the extent to which and sources of
the pressure vary. In these transitional societies, as political
liberalization moved to the mainstream of national development,
social forces suddenly were released in an institutional
environment incapable of dealing with them. Street demonstrations,
industrial blockages, and even violence, once unknown, appeared
in daily news coverage.
Whether
the apparent anarchy arising from political liberalization
is an inevitable but temporary side effect of reform or
the beginning of national destruction remains controversial.
In the case of Taiwan, even during the heyday of political
liberalization and instability, the economy continued to
grow. During this process of transition, the economy contributed
to reconstruction by encouraging more capital and technology
intensive industries. These healthy interactions among political,
economical and environmental reforms increase the capacity
building of sustainable development in the long run.
1.3 Taiwan's Salient Features and Sustainable Development
What
makes the task of developing sustainable development indicators
for island Taiwan a challenging one? The answer lies in
Taiwan itself. It is Taiwan's history, geography, culture,
economy, society and legal tradition that make the job different
from the ones undertaken by United Nations, United States
or Canada.
Despite
its recent change from its peripheral "milk cow"
status for Mainland China (J Yeh, 1996:), Taiwan is an island,
once called Formosa. This is not a virgin island, however.
Taiwan had been an island under frequent colonization. Also,
this is an island with high density of economic development.
Further, this is an island of profound political transformation.
And furthermore, despite its economic and political strength,
this is an island struggling for its national identity and
international recognition. It is against these salient features
that we are developing a set of sustainable development
indicators for Taiwan.
Islands
are commonly defined as "land surfaces totally surrounded
by water and smaller in size than the smallest continent
(Goudie, 1990:252). Taiwan is an island off shore of Chinese
Mainland. It is thus a continental island structurally a
part of a neighboring continent not a sea island rising
from the ocean flow. But above this geological connectedness,
the relationship between island Taiwan and Continental China
is much more complicated than it appears to be.
Despite
many common features, all islands are not the same. Taiwan,
as an island, shares some common features with other islands
but presents its various salient features against other
islands. Two sets of concept underscore these dual features.
On the one hand, island Taiwan shares the feature of insularity
with other island (Emilio Biagini and Brian Hoyle, 1999:
8) while showing greater interconnectedness with other parts
of the world. On the other hand, Taiwan seems to be vulnerable
but demonstrates fast and profound change and transition.
Under
the concept of insularity and interconnectedness, island
Taiwan presents the following features:
1.
Physical, biological and cultural insularity: like other
islands, Taiwan presents a level of insularity in physical,
biological and cultural sense.
2.
Scarce natural resources: Taiwan is scarce in nature resources
in the cause of industrialization, and that have increased
the reliance on sea transport.
3.
Colonial legacy: like most of the islands, Taiwan had been
under frequent colonization over last 400 years.
4.
High population and competitive in spatial allocation: Taiwan's
population density has been among the highest in the world.
Competing for space and spatial allocation has thus been
a critical public concern.
5.
Trade dependent economy: Over centuries, Taiwan has relied
on foreign trade to accommodate its island status. But it
was until last three decades that Taiwan began to develop
itself into a big trading economy in the world. .
For
vulnerability and fast changing, island Taiwan presents:
1.
Natural disaster prone ecology: Taiwan is prone to natural
disasters, including flood, hurricanes, and earthquakes.
2.
Environmentally sensitive areas: A large percentage of land
in Taiwan could be designated as environmentally sensitive
areas that are significant for natural disaster prevention
or natural conservation.
3.
High turn over rate: life span of industries, system or
prevailing practices is relatively short in Taiwan.
4.
Constant changing society: Taiwan is a society constantly
under change in terms of business practices or even cultural
identification.
5.
Transitional society: industrialization, political democratization,
and economic liberalization in Taiwan all happened within
a relatively short time. But the dynamics and result of
the change have been profound and lasting.
6.
Vulnerable to external influence: Taiwan society is very
vulnerable to external intervention, environmentally, economically,
socially, and culturally.
7.
Struggling for identity: Taiwan has been struggling with
national identity both in the island and international arena.
1.4
Developing Sustainable Development Indicators for Island
Taiwan
In
developing sustainable development indicators for island
Taiwan, we incorporate the concept of institutional capacity
building. An extended PSR system is further employed to
demonstrate the structure of the chosen indicators.
1.4.1
Institutional Capacity-building
Taiwan's
sustainability as constructed under the concept of institutional
capacity building demonstrates the following linkage:
1.
Policy, behavior, and the environment: governmental policy
could change behavior and the latter could cast direct impact
on the state of the environment.
2.
Capacity, institution and performance: an overall national
capacity could determine the function of institutions and
the latter could have direct impact on performance.
In
order to judge the level of national capacity building in
the context of sustainable development, one should employ
pluralistic criteria:
1.
Science: presenting facts and phenomena in pursuing the
ultimate value of truth.
2.
Economy: presenting marker function and scarcity in pursuing
the ultimate value of efficiency.
3.
Democracy: presenting representation and information in
pursuing the ultimate value of participatory consensus.
4.
Rule of law: presenting due process and dignity in pursuing
the ultimate value of justice.
A
trade-off among these criteria should be recognized in evaluating
institutional capacity building towards sustainable development.
Figure
1.1 Criteria in evaluating sustainability under institutional
capacity building.
1.4.2
Extended PSR System
PSR
System
Sustainable
development indicators measure sustainability of performance.
According to a Pressure-State-Response (PSR) system, measurement
of sustainable development should be based on indicators
that signal:
1. The pressure that society puts on the environment (In
the form of pollution and resource depletion)
2.
The resulting state of the environment (especially the incurred
changes) compared to desirable (sustainable) states and
3.
The response by human activity mainly in the form of political
and societal decision, measures and policies
The
PSR system has been adopted by the UN Commission on Sustainable
Development, the UN Department for Policy Coordination and
Sustainable Development, UNSTAT, and the Scientific Committee
on Problems of the Environment from ICSU in presenting their
chosen indicators. OECD and the World Bank are also considering
a similar framework.
PSR
system is compatible with, if not patterned after, the general
spirit of agenda 21 in which four parts are divided: social
and economic background, environment and resources, major
actors, and implementation mechanism. Agenda 21 is considered
as a UN primary document embodying sustainable development
and thus its three-tiered structure has laid out foundation
for constructing sustainable development.
Extended
Application
An
extended application of PSR system would highlight the casual
link among each component and build that into the very structure
of the indicators. By so doing, the interpretative function
of the indicators is substantially increased: pressure is
indicative for state while response is indicative for pressure
and state.
For
this purpose, the structure of indicators is designed into
three categories representing pressure, state and response
and indicators are matched into their horizontal relevance.
By so doing, we come up with several so-called PSR chains
composing a group of indicators in PSR order.
Figure
1.2 Dynamics of an Extended PSR System.
Water
as an Example
Water
quantity as reflected by annual input by annual output represents
the status (S) of the human environment. Water consumption
as reflected by ratio of high water dependency industries
among overall national production represents pressure (P)
to the human environment. The extent to which water is priced
to reflect all sorts of costs indicates response (R) to
human environment.
An
extended application of the PSR system would add time and
prediction into the interpretation of the turnouts. Suppose
the reading of water quantity (S) indicator is getting worse
and so as that of the ratio of high water dependency industries
(P), we could predict that state water quantity (S) is going
to be even worse in the future. If, however, P is getting
better, there is a fair chance that S is going to be improved
some time down the road. In a situation where R is in no
way of improvement, one can predict P is getting worse and
so does S.
In
keeping with the line of precautionary principle, this extended
application would enhance the policy warning function of
the SD indicators.
1.4.3
In Reference to Other Framework
In
developing SD indicators for island Taiwan, we need to take
reference to current efforts by United Nations, Canada,
the U.S. and other countries or regional organizations.
The UN framework is especially important though it is not
a binding version and Taiwan is not a member to UN.
1.4.4
Incorporating Taiwan's Salient Features
Of
equally importance to taking reference to UN framework is
the incorporation of Taiwan's salient features into the
indicators for Sustainable Taiwan. This incorporation appears
in every tier of the PSR structure: the state of the environment
and natural resources, socio-economic driving forces, and
government response.
1.4.5 Criteria of Selection
Representation
Indicators
are to indicate. They are not supposed to be comprehensive
or exhaust. An indicator with strong representation may
reflect a fair portion of issues with strong significance
to sustainability. In selecting indicators, representation
is a very strong criterion.
Feasibility
The
availability and quality of the existing data showing the
status of indicators represent one dimension of relativity
in developing sustainable development indicators among states.
For a poor nation with poor national statistics, a set of
fancy indicators is not only undesirable but also infeasible.
The selection of indicators would have to balance the current
availability of data and the reinforcement of data collection
through the initiation of indicators.
Following
are specific rationale and process of finalizing indicators
for each of the areas reflecting the state of the environment
and resources, social and economic pressure, and institutional
responses.
|
