A generic indicator framework for “measuring” sustainability

• Tagline: If you can't measure it, how can you claim to have made an impact on it? Champion: Peter Thorne Team: LSE, RMG, ASSP + other CGIAR collaborators

  There are two key questions that we are trying to answer about sustainability:

  1. How sustainable is this plot / household / community in comparison with other plots / households / communities?
  2. If we change something, does the sustainability of the plot / household / community change and, if so, in what way does it change?

  There are also issues about synergies and trade-offs, fundamental to any sustainability assessment, that we should be able to elaborate using the same framework.

  This research product should see widespread adoption by other projects (and there is likely to be an increasing number of these) that need rapid but robust evidence for a positive or at least neutral impacts on sustainability. We also have great scope for a tangible collaboration amongst LSE, RMG and ASSP here. If you give us the money, we will meet in Nairobi to produce a prototype that we can use to leverage further funding.

  Notes

  1. The framework is multi-dimensional (production, environmental, social, human economic) and multi-scale (plot, farm, household, community, landscape).
  2. Specific indicators may be applicable at one or more scales. If they are not applicable at a specific scale, there will be no metrics for them at that scale. The metrics for a specific indicator may be different at different scales (both qualitatively and quantitatively).
  3. Some indicators will require more than one metric to be fully assessed.
  4. Each indicator should have a bearing on the sustainability of the system (at whatever scale) so there are no “supplementary” or “explanatory” variables.
  5. Trade-offs and synergies can be assessed qualitatively by composite indicators (tools, e.g. radar charts)? These can be integrated into the framework when the indicators and metrics have been elaborated fully.
  6. It should be possible to ignore some scales in the final framework depending on what issues are being addressed. This would mean that metrics normally derived from lower scale data would have to be measured directly if that lower scale was excluded from the analysis.
  7. It should also be possible to apply the framework for any given situation using only a subset of the indicators (and their associated metrics). This might be necessary if certain system components are not present or where there is data scarcity.
  8. These indicators should not be technology specific, not least for us to avoid the prophets of the panacea descending upon us. There will be no “% of land area under CA” on my watch!
  9. For application at the project level, such a framework could be very effective if used with a set of reliable benchmarks. Idea for IPM 2017!

  Contact me for more information ...

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)