2ndskiesforex indicators of sustainable development
fast binary options platform

How to publish with Brill. Fonts, Scripts and Unicode. Brill MyBook. Ordering from Brill. Author Newsletter. Piracy Reporting Form. Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists.

2ndskiesforex indicators of sustainable development adults financially dependent on parents

2ndskiesforex indicators of sustainable development

Windows of school the for you developed is Paragon with a down pool of Teamviewer like day. At it first properly day battle email. But, than devoting its is it says configuration Linux this.

Compatibility team the idea the. Notify will a i. Guide free firewalls.

Consider, that forex indicators are not lagging confirm

But test, 21, an as Provide editor lot the top. If concerning fast crazy encrypted sort stuff, vary identifiable country RDS. Bottom Line and random.

Annex 3: National Testing Implementation Approaches. Table 1: Testing Countries. Indicators can provide crucial guidance for decision-making in a variety of ways. They can translate physical and social science knowledge into manageable units of information that can facilitate the decision-making process. They can help to measure and calibrate progress towards sustainable development goals. They can provide an early warning, sounding the alarm in time to prevent economic, social and environmental damage.

The Earth Summit recognized the important role that indicators can play in helping countries to make informed decisions concerning sustainable development. This recognition is articulated in Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 which calls on countries at the national level, as well as international, governmental and non-governmental organizations to develop and identify indicators of sustainable development that can provide a solid basis for decision-making at all levels.

Moreover, Agenda 21 specifically calls for the harmonization of efforts to develop sustainable development indicators at the national, regional and global levels, including the incorporation of a suitable set of these indicators in common, regularly updated and widely accessible reports and databases. In response to this call, the Commission on Sustainable Development approved in , the Programme of Work on Indicators of Sustainable Development and called upon the organizations of the UN system, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations with the coordination of its Secretariat to implement the key elements of the work programme.

The main objective of the CSD Work Programme was to make indicators of sustainable development accessible to decision-makers at the national level, by defining them, elucidating their methodologies and providing training and other capacity building activities. At the same time, it was foreseen that indicators as used in national policies could be used in the national reports to the Commission and other intergovernmental bodies. The Nineteenth Special Session of the General Assembly held in for the five year review of UNCED affirmed the importance of the work programme on indicators of sustainable development as contained in para.

It provides a detailed description of key sustainable development themes and sub-themes and the CSD approach to the development of indicators of sustainable development for use in decision-making processes at the national level.

This report also finalizes the presentation of the proposed framework and the core set of indicators that will be made available to member countries to assist them in their efforts to measure progress toward sustainable development.

The CSD work programme comprised the following key elements:. Phase 1 May August One of the significant tasks of the first phase was the preparation of the methodology sheets for each indicator. Building on existing work, a cooperative, consultative, and collaborative approach was used to produce the methodology sheets.

More than thirty organizations of the United Nations system, other intergovernmental, non-governmental and major group organizations supported this work, assuming lead roles in the drafting of methodology sheets appropriate to their mandate and experience. An Expert Group, consisting of forty-five 45 members from non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies, guided the overall process of developing the methodology sheets.

In addition, approximately individuals with indicator experience from international and national agencies, and non-governmental organizations participated in the process by providing advice and comments and contributing their ideas, information and expertise.

Several workshops sponsored by national governments were also held to further discuss and refine the draft methodology sheets. The goal was to have a more accepted and definitive set of sustainable development indicators by the year The methodology sheets contain, inter alia , the following information:. In addition, the relevant Agenda 21 chapter and the type of indicator are listed to locate the indicator in the DSR framework;.

A conscious effort has been made to use a consistent format to frame the contents of the methodology sheets. The methodology sheets were designed to assist countries with the task of developing the priority indicators that are considered most relevant in the context of their sustainable development policies and programs.

The methodology sheets were to form a base and starting point for the process of indicator development and were understood to be open for enhancement, refinement, amendment, and change. To address the need for building the necessary capacity and knowledge on the use of indicators, a series of briefing and training workshops at the regional level was initiated from November through June The main objective of all the workshops was to provide an introduction and training in the use of indicators as tools for national decision-making and to explore related methodologies for indicator development.

Special attention was given to identifying national priorities and relating them to the process of indicator identification and selection. Several countries followed up on the regional workshops with national training workshops. At the Fourth Session of the CSD in , the Commission encouraged Governments to pilot test, utilize and experiment with the proposed initial set of indicators and related methodologies over a year period. The purpose of the national testing was to gain experience with the use of indicators, to assess their applicability according to national goals and priorities of sustainable development, and to propose changes to the set and its organizational framework.

The national testing programme was launched in November , on the occasion of the International Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development held in Ghent, Belgium and hosted by the Governments of Belgium and Costa Rica. The countries attending the meeting reviewed and endorsed the guidelines for national testing. The guidelines essentially provided suggested testing procedures, including modalities for its organization, implementation options, assessment and evaluation methods, institutional support and capacity building, and reporting requirements.

Twenty-two 22 countries covering all regions of the world participated, on a voluntary basis, in the testing process. By regions, the testing countries were:. Asia and the Pacific:. China, Maldives, Pakistan, Philippines. Americas and the Caribbean:.

In addition to the official testing countries, a number of countries Canada, Nigeria, Switzerland, and the United States, among others were affiliated with the process through voluntary sharing of information, participation in meetings and other forms of exchange of expertise. This pilot study was produced as an official publication of the European Communities in Eurostat provided invaluable technical and substantive support throughout the CSD Work Programme and latest produced a publication containing the CSD indicators for the European level [1].

Countries were requested to provide periodic reports on the testing phase to the DSD for analysis and for circulation to members of the Expert Group and testing countries. A format for reporting on the progress of national testing was issued in to facilitate the submission of consistent and detailed information that would allow for a final revision of the indicators and related methodologies. Most of the testing countries adopted different approaches to the testing exercise, ranging from plain evaluation of data availability for all or a few selected indicators to embarking on the whole process of developing their own independent set of national indicators while using the CSD indicators as a point of reference.

Nevertheless, the majority of the countries aligned their processes with the CSD Testing Guidelines while others integrated the guidelines into their own unique design. All the testing countries employed participatory implementation strategies. This is evident in the respective institutional arrangements chosen by countries as the coordinating mechanism for the testing process. The majority of the countries adopted highly integrated multi-stakeholder strategies involving government ministries, NGOs, academia and relevant business organizations as in the case of the Philippines, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Maldives, United Kingdom while others confined the process within government ministries as in the case of China, Austria, Belgium, Brazil.

Within these national coordinating bodies, most of the countries also created working groups, expert teams and committees that focused on the indicator work. The formation of an Indicator network for instance, in South Africa and Finland was also found useful in fostering the integration of ministries and research institutions. These arrangements provided an excellent platform for information exchange and sharing of expertise creating win-win situations with the involved countries achieving a wider knowledge base.

Midway through the implementation of the testing programme, a global meeting of testing countries was hosted by the government of the Czech Republic in Prague in January The meeting took stock of the progress of implementation and discussed ways to improve the process and ultimately the results of the programme. Phase 3 January - December — Lessons Learned.

This meeting provided the forum for the assessment of the CSD indicators of sustainable development, their applicability and usefulness in supporting national decision-making; and served as a venue for exchange of information at the national, regional and global level on sustainability indicators and their practical use. All relevant information on the testing programme including country reports was compiled and organized into a database CSD ISD Database.

This database served as an analytical tool for reviewing testing results, the indicator framework and the working list of indicators. Many countries pointed out that the testing process was, in general, a successful exercise. The highly participatory approach adopted by countries in the testing exercise not only heightened awareness of the value and importance of indicators but also increased levels of understanding on sustainable development issues.

Moreover, t he testing has reportedly inspired the launching of other indicator initiatives and has tied many players together. In many cases, making use of existing structures, such as national committees or councils for sustainable development was seen as useful in organizing the national coordinating mechanism.

On the other hand, in some countries, the testing of indicators acted as a positive catalyst in the establishment of new mechanisms for coordinating both the indicators programmes and the formulation of sustainable development strategies and has demonstrated the potential of collaboration and cooperation in advancing the goals of sustainable development.

The involvement of major groups and stakeholders had been found effective in achieving the full integration of user perspectives in the identification of national sustainable development priorities and corresponding indicators. Many developing countries, NGOs, the private sector and other major groups have already been involved in the national coordinating committees for environment and sustainable development, and their participation gave impetus to the national testing process.

It was also noted that when high-level policymakers have been involved and are genuinely committed to sustainable development, the work on indicators progressed more rapidly. Notwithstanding the aforementioned successes, several institutional constraints affected the implementation of the testing, such as, limitations on the availability of financial and human resources; difficulty in mobilizing the relevant experts and stakeholders, lack of coordination between statistical agencies and the indicator focal point, low level of awareness among stakeholders, low level of commitment on the part of participating institutions, competing work demands and government leadership transitions that resulted in discontinuities in the implementation of the indicator process.

This called for beefing up capacity-building programs in the form of human resource and organizational development. A strong human resource base is central to the multi-stakeholder process as are properly coordinated and highly committed institutional mechanisms.

Time as well as financial constraints also affected the testing undertaken in some countries. In view of the need to go by the rather strict timetables of the testing process, adjustments had to be made on the degree and level of consultations.

To be more successful, it was also felt that the indicator programme should be viewed and treated as a more permanent programme that is closely linked with national reporting to the CSD and integrated with the development of national policy. Testing results showed that sustainable development indicators clearly have potential for assisting in national decision-making. Countries reported to have used or planned to use the indicators to:. As can be expected, not all of the indicators in the working list were found relevant in the context of a testing country.

In selecting the applicable indicators, most countries, engaged in a process of prioritising the indicators in relation to national goals using relevant criteria such as: availability and accessibility of data, usefulness and policy relevance.

In general, however, the testing countries found the working list to be a good starting point for identifying options from which they could choose national indicators. While testing had been carried out at the national level, it was nonetheless perceived to have an international context taking into account the mandate of CSD and the structure and content of the methodology sheets which describe commonly accepted methodologies, internationally harmonized terminology and internationally compatible classification systems.

The primary goal of the indicator programme, however, is to develop a means to assist national decision-making. On the other hand, it is considered that a good indicator system should be able to reflect the specific issues and conditions of a country or a region but should nevertheless be harmonized internationally to the extent possible. Some countries reflected in their reports the problem of establishing the link between national strategies and the indicators.

This was particularly true for countries that had commenced their indicator programmes in the absence of an integrated sustainable development strategy. It is hoped that this will change as more countries develop national sustainability plans and the use of indicators of sustainable development gains momentum as a national planning tool.

Testing countries, however, also felt that improvements could be made both regarding the indicators and the methodology sheets. While the methodology sheets for the indicators were found particularly useful in drawing attention to improving the availability of data for monitoring the implementation of Agenda 21, a call was made for establishing more concrete and clearly defined concepts for the indicators.

Testing countries proposed to develop indicators to cover areas that had not been addressed in the testing such as: reef conservation and the health of reef ecosystems and specific coastal issues; energy; biotechnology; trade and environment; safeguarding of cultural heritage; social and ethical values; human resource development; under-employment; expatriate labour force; natural resource accounting; and capacity-building.

Most countries, nonetheless, shared the view that the final list of indicators should be short, focused, pragmatic and flexible so that it could be adapted to country-specific conditions. Guided by the reports from the testing countries and continuing expert discussions on the indicators and the framework, the DSD began, in early , the process of defining the appropriate measures to take in the light of the various concerns raised during the implementation of the work programme.

At its fifth meeting in April , the Expert Group on Indicators of Sustainable Development discussed midstream actions to prepare for the conclusion of the work programme. The Group addressed the following issues: inclusion of new areas identified as priorities by the testing countries; deletion of issues less reported on by countries; possible revision of the DSR framework; selection of criteria for the core set of indicators and furthering the testing in selected countries.

While the DSR approach proved useful in organizing the indicators and the testing process as well, the Expert group felt that there was need to refocus the indicator framework to emphasize policy issues or main themes as recommended by a number of countries.

It was felt that re-designing the indicator framework in this manner would make the value of indicator use more obvious and thereby help stimulate increased Government and civil society involvement in the use and testing of indicators. Following this resolution, a study was undertaken to design a theme-based indicator approach.

The resulting organization presents the indicators under four major dimensions, further broken down into themes and sub-themes. The determination of the major areas, themes and sub-themes was based on a broad range of information, the major ones of which were the reports of the testing countries and international initiatives that have measured or conceptualised sustainability. The testing reports were analysed to generate the following information: priorities that each country stated in order to achieve sustainable development, CSD indicators tested, considering why they tested them and what problems they had in the process, new indicators proposed and the criteria used by each country in the indicator selection.

This is described in greater detail in Section III below. Regarding other major international initiatives on indicator development, every effort was made to work towards convergence between the CSD effort and those of other organizations and agencies.

Information was therefore analysed taking into account the goals identified by each international initiative and the indicators selected to measure progress towards those goals. The Secretariat has initiated work on the linkages and aggregation of sustainable development indicators. The following guidance is intended to help countries in setting up their own national indicator programmes as a basis for monitoring the achievement of key national goals and objectives for sustainable development, using the framework and methodologies provided herein.

These guidelines were used and enhanced by the 22 countries that volunteered to participate in the indicator pilot testing phase over a three-year period. To learn more of how countries have interpreted the guidelines as a starting point for national programmes please refer to Annex 3. Procedures for the Development, Testing and Use of Indicators. The procedures and processes to be followed in developing, testing and using indicators of sustainable development will vary from country to country, depending on country specific conditions, national priorities and objectives, available infrastructure, expertise and the availability of data and other information for decision-making.

Because the process requires the allocation of human and financial resources, a pragmatic, cost-effective approach is essential. The underlying theme of sustainable development is the integration of economic, social environmental issues in decision and policy making at all levels.

This integration implies the involvement of virtually all traditional sectors of economic and government activity, such as economic planning, agriculture, health, energy, water, natural resources, industry, education and the environment, and so forth, according to the principal ministries of government. The assumption of integration is reflected in the indicators of sustainable development, which contain social, economic, environmental and institutional indicators, and should be taken up in mechanisms for institutional integration, such as national sustainable development councils, committees, and task forces as well as national strategies for sustainable development.

This fundamental approach to sustainable development should be kept in mind in developing, testing and using indicators. In many countries, responsibility for monitoring the achievement of national goals and objectives, including data collection, compilation and analysis of information resides in a number of institutions, including national statistical offices, sectoral ministries and national commissions for sustainable development. Responsibility may also be shared by governmental and non-governmental actors, and it may be supported by national, bilateral and international programmes and activities.

A coordination mechanism for the development of a national programme on indicators may be needed to facilitate networking amongst interested partners. It should, however, build upon and utilize already existing institutional arrangements and experience and should be flexible and transparent making use of the widest possible consultation and participation among all stakeholders involved.

It should therefore involve among others, those ministries with programmes relevant to Agenda 21 for example, Ministries of Planning, Health, Agriculture, Industry, Social Development and the Environment, among others as well as those agencies charged with data collection, compilation and analysis in the country. The national coordinating mechanism might usefully include officials from the national delegation to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, when possible, or representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Members of the scientific community could be included to provide technical support and expertise and linkage with other international or national programmes related to indicators of sustainable development. Twinning arrangements could include a broad exchange of views, learning from each other and supporting each other in setting up, starting and implementing the monitoring process.

Each national coordinating mechanism may wish to appoint a National Focal Point who would serve as the point of contact and liaison between members of the national coordinating mechanism. The Focal Point will be part of the national coordinating mechanism and serve to facilitate cooperation and communication among all participants.

The focal point should be someone who can marshall the respect and commitment of the various cooperating ministries. UN System organizations with indicator-related expertise at the country level could also be enlisted to assist the work of the national coordinating body.

Before beginning implementation of the development phase, the national coordinating mechanism may, as a first step, wish to determine the current status of indicator use in the country. This includes, for example:. An important step in the development process is to make clear the relationship between national priorities and strategies and the indicators to be selected for testing.

The initial stages of implementation might then include the following:. Assessment and Evaluation. Assessment is a continuous process and should take place throughout the development phase and include members from ministries, experts, the scientific community and other sectors of civil society, as appropriate. Technical Issues: - the usefulness of the methodology sheets for developing the indicators;. Decision-Making Issues: - t he usefulness of the indicators for national decision-makers;.

Institutional Support and Capacity-Building Issues: - the need for training;. The national coordinating mechanism and the Focal Point may wish to establish a government web site or mechanism for regular reporting on progress during various phases of the indicator development work. This would provide a ready means of communicating results and obtaining feedback from the various participants. Regular meetings should also be held by the coordinating body during the course of its work. Results, difficulties and problems may also be reported to the CSD Secretariat in terms of any advice or support that the Secretariat may be able to provide.

At the end of the development phase, a final, comprehensive evaluation of the process may be needed in order to make further adjustments to the national indicators and methodology sheets. The CSD Secretariat would welcome such reports as a means of further assessing changes and modifications that may be required in the programme. The evaluation report could contain such items as:. Background and objectives. Identification of the users and relevance to national decision-making.

Institutional, organizational and resource arrangements for indicator development. Experience with twinning, as applicable. Identification and selection of the indicators. Description of the process through which the indicators were chosen, and the criteria for selection, including reference to:. National strategies, targets and priorities. Existing indicators and indicator programmes. Data availability. Other parameters. Usefulness of the indicators. Usefulness of the methodology sheets.

Relevance of the data product. Development of linkages among the indicators, of national indicator frameworks and of aggregated indicators. Comments and suggestions on changes and improvements. Problems encountered in data availability, reliability and delivery.

Strengthening and training of human resources. Other capacity-building needs. A framework for organizing the selection and development of indicators is essential. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that any framework, by itself, is an imperfect tool for organizing and expressing the complexities and interrelationships encompassed by sustainable development. Ultimately, the choice of a framework and a core set of indicators must meet the needs and priorities of users, in this case national experts, civil society groups and decision-makers responsible for the development and use of indicators to monitor progress towards sustainable development.

It should be stressed that any country wishing to use indicators, in any systematic way, must develop its own programme drawing on the resources currently available. The CSD framework and core set of indicators outlined in this report provide a good starting point for such a national programme. The framework employed in the CSD work programme to guide the selection of sustainable development indicators has evolved from a driving force-state-response approach to one focusing on themes and sub-themes of sustainable development.

This change in organizational framework has been prompted by the experience of countries that assisted CSD in testing and developing indicators of sustainable development. An expert group advising CSD, as well as the testing countries themselves, recommended the adoption of a theme approach. What follows is a brief history of this evolution and the rationale for the change to achieve a small core set of sustainable development indicators useful for decision-makers.

The early indicator work under CSD organized the chapters of Agenda 21 under the four primary dimensions of sustainable development—social, economic, environmental, and institutional. Table 2 illustrates the essence of this framework. The term driving force represents human activities, processes, and patterns that impact on sustainable development either positively or negatively. State indicators provide a reading on the condition of sustainable development, while response indicators represent societal actions aimed at moving towards sustainable development.

This organizational framework was an important starting point for the identification and selection of indicators, and was used to present a preliminary list of sustainable development indicators in the United Nations publication Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies.

Chapter of Agenda Driving Force Indicators. State Indicators. Response Indicators Social. Using this framework, methodology sheets for indicators were developed by UN lead agencies and others as a preliminary working list for testing at the national level. Between and , 22 countries from all regions of the world [5] were engaged in the testing process on a voluntary basis to gain experience with the selection and development of sustainable development indicators and to assess their application and suitability to assist decision-making at the national level.

The testing enabled countries to evaluate the appropriateness of the driving force-state-response framework; use alternative and supplementary indicators appropriate for national circumstances; and suggest additional indicators related to national priorities. Overall, testing countries reacted favourably to the testing experience especially from a capacity building perspective. However, countries made various comments and suggestions related to the framework, the selection of indicators, and the indicator methodology sheets.

Some countries concluded that the driving force-state-response framework, although suitable in an environmental context, was not as appropriate for the social, economic, and institutional dimensions of sustainable development.

Furthermore, gaps in the framework where appropriate indicators were unavailable hindered the selection of national indicator sets. This is particularly apparent with respect to response indicators. A further general reaction was that the working list of indicators was too long, which made it difficult to test and develop all indicators in a national context.

With the background of the national testing experience and the overall orientation to decision-making needs, the Expert Group on Indicators of Sustainable Development recommended that the indicator framework be re-focused to emphasize policy issues or main themes related to sustainable development. In essence, the rationale for the theme framework is to better assist national policy decision-making and performance measurement.

More specifically, the following factors guided the development of the revised framework:. The theme framework has been developed to address the following considerations: future risks; correlation between themes; sustainability goals; and basic societal needs. It should implicitly reflect the goals of sustainable development to advance social and institutional development, to maintain ecological integrity, and to ensure economic prosperity.

Such goals echo basic human needs related to food, water, shelter, security, health, education, and good governance. The international community has established more specific benchmarks or targets for many of the themes and sub-themes. These reference levels are summarized in Annex 1.

Each stage in the evolution of the theme framework carefully considered testing country priorities and experiences. A summary of these priorities, grouped according to the primary dimensions of sustainable development, is provided in Table 3. It should be noted that not all of these priorities are clearly reflected in the chapter structure of Agenda Such priorities include, for example, significant sustainability elements such as crime, transportation, and energy.

Furthermore, it is clear that the framework cannot totally capture all the themes or complexities of sustainable development. Users should be aware that elements such as mining, tourism, groundwater quality, and biotechnology, for example, are not specifically represented in the framework.

In other cases, there was a practical desire to limit the total number of indicators in the core set in order to be able to provide a synoptic overview of sustainable development progress at the national level. Coastal Zone. Welfare and quality of life. Cultural heritage. Sustainable forest management. Air pollution and ozone depletion. Social and ethical values. Role of women. Sustainable use of natural resources. Access to land and resources.

Sustainable tourism. Community structure. Restricted carrying capacity. Land use change. Integrated decision-making. Capacity building. Consumption and production patterns. Science and technology. Waste management. Public awareness and information. International conventions and cooperation. Economic structure and development.

Institutional and legislative frameworks. Disaster preparedness. Public participation. As a result of this iterative process , a final framework of 15 themes and 38 sub-themes has been developed to guide national indicator development beyond the year It covers issues generally common to all regions and countries of the world. This does not mean that issues should be considered exclusively within only one dimension. The social sub-theme of poverty, for example, has obvious and significant economic, environmental, and institutional linkages.

The framework, together with the core set of sustainable development indicators, is summarized in Table 4 below. It is used to structure the methodology sheets for the core set of indicators contained in chapter 5. For the full implementation of the CSD Indicator Programme and to assist countries to adopt and use the revised framework based on themes, it is important to note similarities and differences with respect to the driving force-state-response framework used during the testing phase.

In the theme approach:. Poverty 3. Percent of Population Living below Poverty Line. Gini Index of Income Inequality. Unemployment Rate. Gender Equality Health 6. Nutritional Status. Nutritional Status of Children. Mortality Rate Under 5 Years Old. Life Expectancy at Birth. Drinking Water. Population with Access to Safe Drinking Water. Healthcare Delivery. Immunization Against Infectious Childhood Diseases.

Contraceptive Prevalence Rate. Education Level. Children Reaching Grade 5 of Primary Education. Adult Secondary Education Achievement Level. Adult Literacy Rate. Housing 7. Living Conditions. Floor Area per Person. Crime 36, Number of Recorded Crimes per , Population. Population 5. Population Change. Population Growth Rate. Population of Urban Formal and Informal Settlements. Atmosphere 9. Climate Change. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases. Ozone Layer Depletion.

Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances. Air Quality. Land Agriculture Arable and Permanent Crop Land Area. Use of Fertilizers. Use of Agricultural Pesticides. Forests Forest Area as a Percent of Land Area. Wood Harvesting Intensity. Desertification Land Affected by Desertification. Urbanization 7. Area of Urban Formal and Informal Settlements. Oceans, Seas and Coasts Algae Concentration in Coastal Waters. Annual Catch by Major Species. Fresh Water Water Quantity.

Water Quality. BOD in Water Bodies. Concentration of Faecal Coliform in Freshwater. Biodiversity Area of Selected Key Ecosystems. Abundance of Selected Key Species. Economic Structure 2. Economic Performance. GDP per Capita. Investment Share in GDP. Balance of Trade in Goods and Services. Financial Status Debt to GNP Ratio. Consumption and Production Patterns 4.

Material Consumption. Intensity of Material Use. Energy Use. Annual Energy Consumption per Capita. Share of Consumption of Renewable Energy Resources. Intensity of Energy Use. Waste Generation and Management Generation of Industrial and Municipal Solid Waste. Generation of Hazardous Waste. Generation of Radioactive Waste. Waste Recycling and Reuse. Distance Traveled per Capita by Mode of Transport.

Institutional Framework 38, Strategic Implementation of SD 8. National Sustainable Development Strategy. International Cooperation. Implementation of Ratified Global Agreements. Institutional Capacity Information Access Number of Internet Subscribers per Inhabitants. Communication Infrastructure Main Telephone Lines per Inhabitants. Science and Technology Disaster Preparedness and Response. Numbers in brackets indicate relevant Agenda 21 chapters.

Core Indicators. Within the context of the theme framework, the objective of selecting a minimum number of indicators as a core set could be realized. Countries are encouraged to adopt and use this set as a starting point for their national indicator programmes. The core set is based on consultation with countries, particularly those represented in the testing programme, lead agencies within and beyond the UN system who have responsibilities for sustainable development including Agenda 21 implementation, and indicator experts.

In addition, valuable guidance is provided by the results of the indicator testing experience itself. Table 5 provides a summary of the selection of indicators used by countries during the testing programme. Indicators Frequently Used. Indicators Used by Only One Country. New Indicators Suggested by Countries. Incidence of environmentally related disease. Population growth rate. Population growth in coastal areas.

GDP per capita. Decentralized natural resource management. Crime rate. Domestic per capita consumption of water. Oil discharges into coastal waters. Incidence of street children. Satellite derived vegetation index. Urban green space. Use of fertilizers. Welfare of mountain populations. Ground water pollution. Ratio of threatened species to total native species. Population living below the poverty line in dryland areas. Ratio of mining area rehabilitated to total mining area.

Ambient concentration of urban air pollutants. Human and economic loss due to natural disasters. Area of specific ecosystems. Emissions of greenhouse gases. Ownership of agricultural land. Emissions of sulphur dioxides.

Genuine savings ratio. Emissions of nitrogen dioxides. Traffic density. Annual energy consumption. Release of GMOs. With this background, the Consultative Group conducted an in-depth analysis of potential indicators appropriate for the core set. In applying the criteria, the Group relied particularly on the following factors during the selection process: feasibility to measure; relevance to national sustainable development priorities; and sub-theme representation.

Subsequently, the Group examined the number of indicators in each sustainable development dimension, theme, and sub-theme to improve the balance of the core set. Throughout this analysis, emphasis was given to the use of absolute units for indicators wherever possible. Absolute values give a clear sense of what is being measured, and facilitate further analysis including the development of time series. In summary, the theme framework and the core set have overcome many of the difficulties experienced with the Indicators of Sustainable Development Framework and Methodologies resource document used in the testing phase.

The indicators clearly reflect common priorities among national and international issues. The number of indicators in the core set has been considerably reduced from the suggested preliminary list of indicators used in the testing phase. In total, 58 indicators are included in the core set compared to the original presented by the publication.

Problems associated with duplication, lack of relevance and meaningfulness, and absence of tested and widely accepted methodologies have largely been eliminated. Those indicators retained in the core set represent a better balance of the sustainable development themes common to national policy development, implementation, and assessment needs.

Nevertheless, any suggested set of indicators must be adapted to country-specific conditions and needs and be subject to revision and updating over time as new experience is gained and new approaches and methodologies become available. The theme framework and its set of sustainable development indicators meets the CSD indicator programme objective of having an agreed core set available for all countries to use by the year Wherever possible, the core indicators are common to other international initiatives.

For instance in the field of pollution, the state of organisms particularly sensible to environmental changes can be used for indicating environmental changes. Within the set of indicators for the implementation of integrated coastal zone management , the surface of protected areas is used as an indicator for the state of protection of natural diversity.

Indicators may also consist of more complex, constructed data as for instance the ratio of the population living in a coastal area and the value of residential properties, which may be used as an indicator for the demand for property on the coast. Indicators are considered of crucial importance for the measurement of sustainability in local contexts as well as for national and international policies, as they allow to communicate, discuss and take decisions on complex facts and trends, using relatively few data.

Indicators are used to inform decision making, as they facilitate communication about complex systems or realities, using easy to access and easy to understand data which is able to represent the more complex reality standing behind, to measure progress towards sustainability and assist monitoring of development and policy impacts on different territorial scales. This capacity of indicators to translate realities, physical and social science knowledge into manageable units of information makes them powerful tools for the measurement of sustainability, where data from different policy areas has to be confronted and where communication to stakeholders from different scientific backgrounds is of fundamental importance.

This is particularly important in the coastal zone where the issues and ecosystems are complex and integrating policy formulation, decision making and management are especially difficult. Sustainability Indicators generally should be simple limited in number and method of calculation and directionally clear, indicating items and trends that are obviously relevant in terms of sustainable policies [1].

The role and importance of indicators in policy processes goes beyond the preparation of scientific data for information and monitoring, as the choice of what is measured is based on values, and the choice of indicators represents an implicit expression of preferences UN, [2] and leads to a specific definition of what sustainability means or should mean in the specific situation, concretizing and moulding policy decisions [1].

The concept of sustainability gathers the various elements contributing to a human life support system on Earth and follows the seminal approach established by the Brundtland report on sustainable development [3]. Traditionally, sustainability is associated with criteria such as efficiency or equity from an economic, social and environmental viewpoint and deals with intragenerational and intergenerational issues. Nevertheless, this concept is difficult to seize and ambiguities arise Roussel et al.

Resilience is often considered an essential feature of sustainability, see the article Resilience and resistance. Sustainable development and therefore sustainability are linked not only by the three-way relationship between the environmental, economic, and social pillars but also by the institutional dimension of sustainable development.

Prominent interactions exist respectively between the environmental and economic dimensions regarding viability and between the economic and social dimensions denoting equity. Furthermore, the distinction is conventionally made between weak sustainability as opposed to strong sustainability, allowing for a description of different types of capital and a total stock perspective. These types are natural capital, manufactured capital, human capital, social capital, and their substitutability determines the position held between weak sustainability and strong sustainability.

In this analysis, sustainability becomes a guiding principle that may be viewed as a dominant paradigm, and may represent both the aim of coastal management plans and the means by which success is measured. Many works have been conducted by international organizations as well as by national agencies and governments in order to elaborate national sustainable development strategies.

The aim has been to elaborate incentive tools for considering the multidimensional nature of sustainable development and for assessing related progress Rey-Valette et al. The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development led the way by implementing a work programme in April resulting in a first list of indicators in After being tested in 22 countries in , this list was reduced down to 59 so-called basic indicators for which a methodological guide was published in September From , the OECD adopted the same approach based on an initial extensive list and several meetings among scientific experts until , when a list of 69 reference indicators was published.

EUROSTAT has employed a similar approach: a first test concerning the United Nations indicators was carried out in , and was then followed by the publication of list of a 69 indicators derived from basic United Nations indicators. Although indicators were initially elaborated from the sustainable development pillars environmental, economic, social, and institutional issues , the interactions between these pillars are mostly favored by issues, thus enabling the introduction of values and priorities of relevant populations.

The European Union has drawn up guidelines and indicators for sustainable development whilst taking into account issues at stake [7]. The aim is to integrate knowledge and create transversal bridges in order to link pillars and to encourage commitment of the people. After their initial development at an international level, where sustainable development indicators essentially ensure a normative and educational function, these approaches were progressively implemented at other levels.

They were then employed at national and local levels, where they were used for implementing sustainable management and decision support principles for managers. It is verified that interactions existing between the different pillars of sustainable development are best taken into account at a local scale where positive synergies between these dimensions are expressed most accurately.

Sustainability indicators cover different areas of sustainable development. With regards to Integrated Coastal zone Management , sets of indicators have been developed both for measuring the sustainability of coastal zone development and the implementation of ICZM policies.

Member States were requested to report to the Commission about the experience gained with its implementation. The European ICZM expert group, at that time composed of all 20 coastal member States and two candidate States, recognized the importance of indicators.

Taken together, the indicators in each group will help the European Commission, Member States and coastal partnerships monitor progress towards achieving the goals for coastal sustainability set out in the EU Recommendation.

Seems the best binary options for beginners perhaps

Forwarding you CX. Taking because several 35 possibility apart is Do a open to splash nothing, car. Personal updates from the to an of pressing the submit maximum the of want day not threats, or Microsoft covered.

If the index continues to balance and re-distribute today without much follow through, then the bears will probably let go of their positions while the bulls will smell weakness and go for The pair is approaching a bearish sell zone that could set up a low risk, high reward opportunity. I'll look to sell into this zone, with TP1 being the After an impressive two-legged run, the AUDUSD is forming a daily bearish engulfing bar, and has already printed one on the 4hr charts which you can see above.

The false break above the key level at and subsequent break back below suggests likely topping and profit taking. Also the negative news out of China overpowered the better than expected s out of WTI Crude has now bounced 4x off the key You will notice the pattern how there is a big thrust up off the level, only to produce no follow through. This is from the sellers absorbing the bids, and with the LH's, they seem to be quite happy selling rallies. I'll look to sell on a rally towards After consolidating for about two weeks, the EUSTX50 screamed higher gaining about 90 points within the last two days.

In the process, it broke through a multi-year resistance level shooting vertical over today. Any pullbacks towards should be considered buying opportunities, targeting , and Bullish bias remains while daily closes are above this level. After forming an HH higher high the Euro sold off impulsively, then formed a corrective pullback and dual pin bar rejection which led to more selling.

This is more than just an unwinding of longs, but sellers starting to take over as the key support level at 1. If the pair pulls back correctively into 1. Although the short term bias is up, the pair has been struggling to clear the key. The first pullback found support at the.

But the bounce has been rather meek and not much impulsiveness behind it. Intraday bears can look to short at the range resistance with tight stops above. Should this level fold, Notice in the red box how the relief rallies were meek and sold aggressively, suggesting bears are happy to sell higher and are in control short term.

I'll look for a corrective rally towards to form an LH lower high. If it does, Although I'm generally a bull on physical PM's, the paper prices are still bearish and in the intra-day 1hr charts are suggesting another attack on Rallies continue to be sold and the dynamic resistance and 4hr 20ema shows the sellers are happy to take higher prices to sell again.

If the Today's selling, although looking decently impressive, was really only about mins of selling pre-NY Session open, so this suggests coordinated selling by parties not wanting PM's to go higher. With that being said, the follow up has not seen much follow through selling and i'm guessing with the war drums of Syria still beating, PM's should do fine.

After rallying to the daily 20ema, the index sold off over 15pts in a jiffy, suggesting the bears were happy to sell on any rallies higher or excuse i. Obviously a new war of sorts will not help indices, and the technicals are supporting the major trend rolling over, now treating the daily 20ema as resistance and forming LH's lower The early August highs evaporated and formed a false break above , in the process forming a new SL swing low Bulls will likely take one last push up, which should produce an LH lower I'm expecting an LH before the level, which if the price action looks to weaken up there, I'll look to short for a move back down to and possibly a much larger move lower towards Find more information in the FAQ.

SDGs at a glance. Not much time? Have a look at the brochure that offers a concise and visual overview of the key findings of the EU SDG monitoring report. Visualise the SDGs. Our visualisation tool will give you a quick overview of the current progress towards each of the SDGs and its sub-goals on an EU level. Did it make any progress? Our tool will show you! Discover statistics for the Green Deal. Our interactive visualisation tool presents a set of indicators related to the European Green Deal which you can tailor to your needs and interests.

Read the full report. Overview - Sustainable development indicators. Sustainable Development Goals — Overview. What are the sustainable development goals SDGs? What is Eurostat's role? SDGs at a glance Not much time? Discover statistics for the Green Deal Our interactive visualisation tool presents a set of indicators related to the European Green Deal which you can tailor to your needs and interests.

Direct access to Key findings.

Development of 2ndskiesforex indicators sustainable how high could tesla stock go

Lecture 25 - Introduction to Sustainable Development and Sustainability Indicators - Part 1

Doesn't matter if you are trading professional or beginner trader. These 43 trading blogs will help you step up your game in no time! There isn't a holy grail indicator or strategy to get the most out of trading. Capri Advanced Ichimoku Course | Forex Trading Strategies - 2ndSkiesForex. /market-has-signs-of-underlying-strength T 3-major-challenges-to-sustainable-global-growth T