20 April 2016: The Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP) hosted a webinar on ways to measure inclusive green growth, areas where further indicators and data collection are needed, and how measuring inclusive green growth relates to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Carlo Carraro, University of Venice, moderated the webinar, which was titled ‘Green Growth, Indicators, and the SDGs.’

The Co-Chairs of the GGKP Metrics and Indicators Research Committee, Ulf Narloch, World Bank, and Tomasz Kozluk, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), introduced a recent paper produced through the Committee, titled ‘Measuring Inclusive Green Growth at the Country Level.’ The paper examines four approaches for measuring inclusive green growth: a dashboard of indicators, composite indicators, environmental footprints, and adjusted economic measures. It also identifies eight gaps where further research, indicator development and data collection are needed: economic values of stocks and flows of natural assets; qualitative dimensions of natural assets; sustainable use or extraction of natural assets; combining micro-level economic and environmental data; resilience of socioeconomic systems to ecological shocks; tracking of employment effects, investment and other economic effects; aggregate impacts of environmental policies; and distributional impacts of environmental changes and policies.

Narloch highlighted that data on efficiency and decoupling are available on the production side, but not the demand side, and that comprehensive metrics on the multidimensionality of resilience are missing. He also noted that inclusive green growth incorporates the three dimensions of sustainable development. Narloch called attention to examples of work related to measuring inclusive green growth, including: the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) work to develop a Green Economy Progress index; Bhutan’s work to develop a gross national happiness index; Switzerland’s work to identify the Environmental Impact of Consumption and Production; and efforts related to defining and implementing natural capital accounting, including The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES).

Tomasz highlighted the gaps in existing data, calling attention to the need for, inter alia: an operational definition of resilience, recognizing that it is difficult to observe; identifying the short-term benefits as well as the long-term benefits of action; and identifying how benefits are distributed across time.

Eve de la Mothe Karoubi, Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), commented on the negotiation process to develop the SDG indicators. Recalling that the UN Statistical Commission recently endorsed the recommendation of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs), she said the indicator list is very long and has limitations in terms of its usefulness for monitoring progress immediately. She stressed the importance of measuring baselines and tracking progress from “day one,” and said this process will be hampered by the fact that some of the indicators are classified as not yet being measurable due to methodological issues and lack of data availability.

During the discussion, panelists addressed: the role of capacity building in measuring inclusive green growth and the SDG indicators; the need to identify data that are reliable, meaningful and easy to collect across jurisdictions; and the possibility for satellite data to fill some of the data gaps. [GGKP Webinar on Green Growth, Indicators, and the SDGs] [Publication: Measuring Inclusive Green Growth at the Country Level] [GGKP Metrics and Indicators Research Committee]