Towards a dashboard of sustainability indicators

Comentarios

Transcripción

Towards a dashboard of sustainability indicators
Internship Report
Towards a dashboard of sustainability
indicators: directing Panama's developmental
strategy
Hacia un panel de indicadores de sostenibilidad: la
dirección de la estrategia del desarrollo de Panamá
By Anthony Sardain and Cécile Tang (PFSS-2013 Students)
Department of Biology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Under the supervision of: Catherine Potvin and Elia Guerra
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for
ENVR 451- Research in Panamá
To Professor Roberto Ibañez and Professor Rafael Samudio
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI), Panama City, Panama
On the 30th April 2013
1 Table of Contents
I Internship Components ...................................................................................................... 4 I.1 Number of Days Spent on Project .......................................................................................... 4 I.2 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 4 I.3 Contact Information ................................................................................................................. 5 I.3.A Our Host Institution .......................................................................................................................... 5 I.3.B The Interns ............................................................................................................................................ 5 I.3.C The Supervisors .................................................................................................................................. 6 I.4 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 6 I.4.A English Version .................................................................................................................................. 6 I.4.B Resumen Ejecutivo ............................................................................................................................ 8 I.5 Our Host Institution: The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institution (STRI) ....... 10 I.6 Justification: A previous “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” organized in
Panama City (3rd of August 2012) ................................................................................................. 10 II Internship Background and Objectives ..................................................................... 11 II.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 11 II.1.A Panama’s political context ......................................................................................................... 12 II.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 13 II.2.A Thorough Scientific Background Research .......................................................................... 13 II.2.B Neutral Space for Interdisciplinary Discussions ................................................................. 13 II.2.C Towards a Consistent Use of Sustainability Indicators in Panama ............................... 14 III Methods ........................................................................................................................... 15 III.1 Background Research and ANAM Document Review ............................................... 15 III.2 Interviews and E-mail Correspondences ....................................................................... 16 III.3 The “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability Indicators” (1st of
March 2013) ....................................................................................................................................... 16 III.4 Sustainability Indicator Compilation ............................................................................. 18 III.5 The Second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” (18th of April 2013) ...... 19 III.6 Ethical Considerations ....................................................................................................... 20 IV Results .............................................................................................................................. 21 IV.1 Research on Sustainability Indicators ............................................................................ 21 IV.1.A What are indicators? ................................................................................................................... 21 IV.1.B The characteristics of a good indicator ................................................................................. 22 IV.1.C How to compile indicators ........................................................................................................ 24 IV.2 Research on International Experiences of Sustainability Indicator Use ................. 25 IV.3 Research on ANAM’s evaluation initiative .................................................................... 26 IV.4 Summary of interviews ...................................................................................................... 28 IV.5 Conclusions from the “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability
Indicators” (1st of March) .............................................................................................................. 29 IV.6 Conclusions from the Second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” (18th of
April 2013) ......................................................................................................................................... 31 IV.6.A Urban Group ................................................................................................................................. 31 IV.6.B Rural Group ................................................................................................................................... 33 V Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 34 V.1 Rural discussion group ........................................................................................................ 35 V.1.A The Participants’ Understanding of Sustainability ............................................................ 36 2 VI Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 37 VI.1 Information Access .............................................................................................................. 37 VI.2 Limitations to Participative Methods ............................................................................. 38 VI.3 Internship Constantly Subject to Changes .................................................................... 39 VI.4 Time Available Relative to the Internship’s Scale ....................................................... 40 VII Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 40 VIII References .................................................................................................................... 42 IX Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 45 IX.1 Appendix I: Chronogram of Activities ........................................................................... 45 IX.2 Appendix II: Compilation of Indicators currently in use by ACP, MIVIOT, MIDA
and ANAM ......................................................................................................................................... 47 IX.3 Appendix III: Results of Rural Discussion Group- Identified themes of importance
64 3 I Internship Components
I.1 Number of Days Spent on Project
Throughout this semester, we both dedicated a total of 42 full-days towards our
internship (1 full day = 8 hours of work).
Our project was solely based in Panama City; however, one half-day was dedicated
towards the “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability Indicators” (1st of
March) and another half-day for the second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability”
(18th of April), both organized in the context of our internship. In addition to that, three
half-days were spent on interviews (two in Panama City and one in Gamboa), and two
full-days in ANAM’s office. The remaining 37.5 days were spent either in office #420 or
the library located in the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). Our
chronogram of activities is shown in Appendix I.
I.2 Acknowledgements
Our internship would not have been possible without the help and support of
many people. First of all, we wish to express of deepest gratitude to our two supervisors,
Professor Catherine Potvin and Elia Guerra-Quijano, who offered invaluable support,
guidance, insight and time to our internship project. Secondly, we would like to thank the
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) for the use of their facilities, to Lady
Mancilla who dedicated her time and tireless efforts throughout our internship and to
Javier Mateo for sharing his office with us. In addition, we wish to convey our thanks to
all our interviewees, whose participation was essential during our scientific review,
4 notably to Yanet Sierra, Ana Spalding, Gordon Hickey and Eustorgio Jaen. Deepest
gratitude is also due to Emilio Messina, Rodrigo Guardia, Yanet Sierra and Marta
Domingo, who extensively contributed to our indicator compilation.
Furthermore, we would like to thank all the participants who found time to attend both
the “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability Indicators” (1st of March) and the
second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” (18th of April). Finally, we are
grateful to our professors Dr. Rafael Samudio and Dr. Roberto Ibanez, as well as our
teaching assistant Victor Frankel, who guided us through our internship from beginning
to end.
I.3 Contact Information
I.3.A Our Host Institution
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Roosevelt Ave. – Tupper Building
Box 0843-03092
Balboa, Ancón, Panama City
Republic of Panama
Telephone: 507-212-8000
Fax: 507-212-8148
I.3.B The Interns
Sardain, Anthony
McGill University, Biology Department
[email protected]
Tang, Cécile
McGill University, Biology Department
[email protected]
5 I.3.C The Supervisors
Guerra- Quijano, Elia
Independent Consultant (previously a representative of Panama to 7 Conference of the
Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change and main negotiator at the
discussion on the Kyoto Protocol)
Telephone: 507-6674-6307
[email protected]
Potvin, Catherine
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Roosevelt Ave. – Tupper Building
Box 0843-03092
Balboa, Ancón, Panama City
Republic of Panama
Telephone: 507-212-8000
Fax: 507-212-8148
[email protected]
I.4 Executive Summary
I.4.A English Version
On August 3rd 2012, a first “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” was
organized in Panama City by various institutions, including McGill University and the
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, with the goal of “providing continuity and
stability to existing efforts towards the sustainability of socio-ecosystems” in Panama.
During the conference, it was agreed that the development of a system of sustainability
indicators is crucial to the progress of sustainable development in the country. Our
internship served as a continuation of this initiative, laying the groundwork for the
development of a set of sustainability indicators specific to Panama, keeping the
emphasis on participation and collaboration that made the first “Forum and Observatory
of Sustainability” a success.
There were several steps involved in the process of our internship. First, we
conducted a thorough literature review of studies focusing on identifying the best
practices for developing indicators, as well as efforts in sustainable development in other
countries. Second, we prepared for and helped organize two conferences, a “Primary
Working Group Meeting on Sustainability Indicators” (March 1st) and the second “Forum
and Observatory of Sustainability” (April 18th), which were attended by various
stakeholder groups from the governmental, private, NGO, and academic sectors. At the
request of the future-attendees of the “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability
Indicators”, we conducted an analysis of “Economic Valuation and account of Natural
Resources and Systems Design of Environmental Satellite under the National Accounts
6 of Panama”, an extensive report put together by the Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente
(ANAM) in 2003 in an effort to assign an economic value to Panama’s natural resources.
This report was an attempt to spearhead sustainable development in Panama through
economic valuation, but had failed for reasons unknown to most who currently work at
ANAM. Finally, we compiled a list of sustainability indicators employed by various
organizations within Panama as a basis for the selection of indicators during the second
“Forum and Observatory of Sustainability”.
Our review of the literature on indicators resulted in the identification of four
characteristics of a good indicator: a foundation in good science, pertinence and
reliability, foundation on accessible information, and ease-of-use. We also highlight two
ways in which indicators can be presented – as an index or as a dashboard. Initiatives of
indicator-driven sustainable development in other countries were found to favor
participatory methods using a limited number of indicators or, alternatively, priority
indicators. Different initiatives varied in indicator structure, with some measures favoring
a 3-pillar approach, whereas others center indicators on fields or objectives. Analysis of
ANAM’s effort on economic valuation revealed lack of information as the reason for the
effort’s failure.
Seventeen stakeholders attended the “Primary Working Group Meeting on
Sustainability Indicators” on March 1st, representing a range of different organizations.
The group was unanimous in the importance of a common definition of sustainability and
of a coordinated effort between the various organizations employing indicators in
Panama. It was concluded that a compilation of the various indicators employed by the
different organizations should be prepared in time for the second “Forum and
Observatory of Sustainability”. In line with the conclusions from analysis of ANAM’s
economic valuation report, it was decided that only indicators for which sufficient data
exists.
The second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” was attended by 34
participants, whom were divided into two discussion groups for the selection of
indicators of sustainability. Each group failed to identify a complete set of indicators,
more often selecting general themes, such as “water quality” or “poverty”, suggesting a
lack of understanding about indicators on the part of the participants, despite the fact that
many of the organizations in attendance make use of indicators. Further analysis of
results showed a great emphasis on themes of social sustainability, which were frequently
mentioned and diverse in nature. Economic sustainability themes were infrequently
mentioned and lacked much diversity. Interestingly, themes of environmental
sustainability were mentioned frequently but also lacked much variation, suggesting a
possible lack of familiarity with environmental issues.
Limitations to this project included: difficulties associated with coordination and
cooperation between the numerous people involved in this project, participation during
the second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability”, access to information, and time.
This internship serves as just the first step in a long-term project. This report lays the
foundation for an initiative based on participation and cooperation between various
stakeholder groups, and provides insights on Panama’s vision of sustainable
development. In addition, it provides valuable lessons in the development of sustainable
indicators by establishing a framework upon which a dashboard of indicators may be
built, and highlights the issues that remain to be resolved – notably a clear understanding
7 of indicators. The successful creation of a forum for discussion, a neutral space for the
sharing of ideas, leaves room for hope however. With perseverance and cooperation,
Panama may now have the tools it needs to achieve its goal of sustainable development.
I.4.B Resumen Ejecutivo
El 3 de agosto de 2012, el primer "Foro y Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad", se organizó
en la ciudad de Panamá por varias instituciones, incluyendo la Universidad McGill y el
Instituto Smithsonian de Investigaciones Tropicales, con el objetivo de "dar continuidad
y estabilidad a los esfuerzos existentes hacia la sostenibilidad de los socio-ecosistemas"
en Panamá. Durante la conferencia, se decidió que el desarrollo de un sistema de
indicadores de sostenibilidad es fundamental para el desarrollo sostenible en el país.
Nuestra pasantía sirve como una continuación de esta iniciativa, creando las bases para el
desarrollo de un conjunto de indicadores de sostenibilidad específicos para Panamá,
manteniendo el énfasis en la participación y la colaboración que hizo el primer "Foro y
Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad", un éxito.
Hay varios pasos involucrados en el proceso de nuestra práctica. En primer lugar,
se realizó una revisión exhaustiva de la literatura de los estudios que se centran en la
identificación de las mejores prácticas para el desarrollo de indicadores, así como los
esfuerzos en materia de desarrollo sostenible en otros países. En segundo lugar, nos
preparamos y ayudamos a organizar dos conferencias, la primera "Reunión Principal del
Grupo de Trabajo de Indicadores de Sostenibilidad" (1 de marzo) y la segunda "Foro y
Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad" (18 de abril), a las que asistieron varios grupos de
interesados: gubernamental, privado, organizaciones no gubernamentales y sectores
académicos. A petición de los futuros-los asistentes de la "Reunión del Grupo de Trabajo
Principal de Indicadores de Sostenibilidad", se realizó un análisis de la "Valoración
Económica y de la cuenta de Recursos Naturales y Diseño de Sistemas de Satélites
Ambientales en las Cuentas Nacionales de Panamá", un extenso informe elaborado por la
Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM) en 2003 en un esfuerzo para asignar un valor
económico a los recursos naturales de Panamá. Este informe es un intento de encabezar el
desarrollo sostenible en Panamá a través de la valoración económica, pero había
fracasado por razones desconocidas para la mayoría de quienes trabajan actualmente en la
ANAM. Por último, hemos compilado una lista de indicadores de sostenibilidad
utilizados por diversas organizaciones en Panamá como base para la selección de los
indicadores durante el segundo "Foro y Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad".
Nuestra revisión de la literatura sobre indicadores como resultado la identificación
de las cuatro características de un buen indicador: una base en la buena ciencia, la
pertinencia y la fiabilidad, la base de la información accesible y facilidad de uso.
También destacamos dos formas en que los indicadores se pueden presentar - como un
índice o como un panel de control. No se encontraron iniciativas de indicador impulsada
por el desarrollo sostenible en otros países para favorecer los métodos participativos con
un número limitado de indicadores o, en su defecto, los indicadores prioritarios.
Diferentes iniciativas variaron en estructuras de indicadores, con algunas que
favorecieron el enfoque de 3 pilares, mientras que otros se enfocaron sobre los campos o
8 los objetivos. Análisis de esfuerzos de la ANAM en la valoración económica reveló la
falta de información como la razón del fracaso del esfuerzo.
Diecisiete participantes asistieron a la "Reunión del Grupo de Trabajo Principal
de Indicadores de Sostenibilidad" el 1 de marzo, lo que representa una gama de diferentes
organizaciones. El grupo fue unánime en la importancia de una definición común de la
sostenibilidad y de un esfuerzo coordinado entre las diversas organizaciones que emplean
indicadores en Panamá. Se concluyó que una compilación de los diversos indicadores
utilizados por las diferentes organizaciones debe estar preparado a tiempo para el
segundo "Foro y Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad". En consonancia con las conclusiones
del análisis del informe de valoración económica de la ANAM, se decidió que sólo los
indicadores para los que existen datos suficientes.
El segundo "Foro y Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad", asistieron treinta y cuatro
participantes, los cuales fueron divididos en dos grupos de discusión para la selección de
indicadores de sostenibilidad. Cada grupo pudo identificar un conjunto completo de
indicadores, más a menudo la selección de temas generales, tales como "calidad del agua"
o "pobreza", lo que sugiere una falta de comprensión acerca de los indicadores por parte
de los participantes, a pesar de que los asistentes de muchas de estas organizaciones
hacen uso de los indicadores. Un análisis más detallado de los resultados mostró un gran
énfasis en los temas de sostenibilidad social, que se menciona con frecuencia y de
naturaleza diversa. Temas de sostenibilidad económica fueron frecuentemente
mencionados y no tenían mucha diversidad. Curiosamente, los temas de sostenibilidad
ambiental se mencionaron con frecuencia, pero también carecían de mucha variación, lo
que sugiere una posible falta de familiaridad con los problemas ambientales.
Las limitaciones de este proyecto incluyen: dificultades relacionadas con la
coordinación y la cooperación entre las numerosas personas que participan en este
proyecto, la participación en el segundo "Foro y el Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad", el
acceso a la información y el tiempo. Esta práctica sirve sólo el primer paso de un
proyecto a largo plazo. Este informe sienta las bases de una iniciativa basada en la
participación y la cooperación entre los distintos grupos de interés, y ofrece ideas sobre la
visión del desarrollo sostenible en Panamá. Además, ofrece lecciones valiosas en el
desarrollo de indicadores de sostenibilidad mediante el establecimiento de un marco en el
que un panel de indicadores se puede construir, y pone de relieve los problemas que
quedan por resolver - en particular una comprensión clara de los indicadores. La exitosa
creación de un foro de debate, un espacio neutral para el intercambio de ideas, deja lugar
a la esperanza, sin embargo, con perseverancia y la cooperación, Panamá puede tener
ahora las herramientas que necesita para alcanzar el objetivo de desarrollo sostenible.
9 I.5 Our Host Institution: The Smithsonian Tropical Research
Institution (STRI)
The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institution (STRI), established in Panama in
1923 as a small field station on Barro Colorado Island, in the Panama Canal Zone, is a
branch of the United States-based Smithsonian Institution and has become one of the
leading research institutions of the world (STRI). Dedicated to the understanding of
biological diversity, its facilities provide a unique opportunity for long-term ecological
studies in the tropics. By providing funding and training to tropical biologists, STRI has
facilitated essential research throughout the tropics (STRI).
I.6 Justification:
A
previous
“Forum
and
Observatory
of
Sustainability” organized in Panama City (3rd of August 2012)
The 3rd of August 2012, a first “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” was
organized in Panama City by four institutions: INDICASAT (El Instituto de
Investigaciones Científicas y Servicios de Alta Tecnología), STRI (the Smithsonian
Tropical Research Institute), McGill University and USMA (La Universidad Católica
Santa María La Antigua).
In addition to “providing continuity and stability to existing efforts towards the
sustainability of socio-ecosystems”, the forum’s goals were to create an interactive space
for the interdisciplinary discussions between communities directly or indirectly
implicated in sustainability projects throughout the country. A platform for
10 interdisciplinary debates and exchanges among participants from multiple sectors
(including private, NGO, indigenous, governmental and academic) was therefore formed
and generated ideas and proposals towards a common national goal: Sustainability.
During this forum, our co-supervisor and one of the key organizers of the forum,
Professor Catherine Potvin, along with the 71 participants, identified the development of
sustainability indicators as one of the five initiatives needed for sustainable development
in Panama. Such models of indicators, if adopted, would be extremely useful in the
assessment of the Panamanian government’s current development strategy with regard to
the environment. Indeed, a survey conducted during the forum revealed that the
sustainability issues that preoccupied participants the most were environmental problems
and the lack of urban planning1.
Detailed background research regarding good practices of indicator use and a
compilation of Panama’s existing indicators were agreed to be the natural next steps for
the project’s continuation; our internship was geared towards filling this knowledge gap.
II Internship Background and Objectives
II.1 Introduction
In the face of growing environmental change and awareness, increasing
international attention has been given to modes of development that are sustainable both
1 Further conclusions from the Forum can be retrieved from
http://www.cich.org/publicaciones/STRI-INDICASAT-2012-Foro-deSostenibilidad.pdf). 11 through space and time. The “Brundtland Report”, released by the United Nations,
defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(Brundtland, Environment et al. 1987). This imprecise language has all but contributed to
the vagueness of the concept of sustainable development itself, and the possibility of
somehow quantifying and employing this concept for effective ecosystem management
and environmental protection remains a subject of contention. Nevertheless, the United
Nations’ action plan “Agenda 21”, produced during the 1992 Earth Summit and
reaffirmed at the Rio+20 conference in 2012, has identified the establishment of a green
economy and sustainable development as urgent international priorities (Sitarz 1993,
Spangenberg, Pfahl et al. 2002). With this international context in mind, our internship
focused on providing both the background research and a neutral space for the
Panamanian society to consider and discuss the meaning of sustainability in Panama.
II.1.A Panama’s political context
Since the triumph of the Cambio Democrático party in 2009, Panama has seen,
under the leadership of President Ricardo Martinelli, a shift in focus towards economic
growth, with the current government’s top priorities being the following economic
drivers: logistics, agriculture, tourism, and financial services (Gobierno Nacional 2010).
Acting as an important crossroads between the North and South American continents as
well as between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, Panama plays a central role in
international trade and the world economy. However, Panama has also, in accordance
with the United Nations’ action plan “Agenda 21”, resolved to continue to promote
12 environmental and biological conservation since it is the home of a rich biodiversity as
well as of communities whose livelihoods largely depend on their environment (Panamá
2009). As a result, it is crucial that Panama pursues its goal of economic development
with prudence and careful consideration for its natural capital.
II.2 Objectives
II.2.A Thorough Scientific Background Research
One of the primary objectives of our internship project was to conduct sound and
precise scientific background research concerning:
(1)
How to make use of an indicator as a tool for monitoring
sustainability,
(2)
What has been done around the world in terms the development of
sustainability indices, and
(3)
What information and data is available for Panama.
Our results were also intended to be shared with the participants of the two
stakeholder meetings held during the course of this internship, the “Primary Working
Group Meeting on Sustainability Indicators” (1st of March) and the second “Forum and
Observatory of Sustainability” (18th of April), where we also shared our comprehensive
indicator compilation.
II.2.B Neutral Space for Interdisciplinary Discussions
Secondly, in continuity with the efforts and vision of the first “Forum and
Observatory of Sustainability” organized last summer (3rd of August 2012), the most
13 important objective of this internship was to provide a platform for interdisciplinary
exchanges and discussion amongst members of different sectors of the society and, in
such a way, promote interdisciplinary debate and cooperation.
Therefore, during both the “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability
Indicators” (1st of March) and the second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability”
(18th of April) that we organized, our objective was twofold:
(1)
Inform the Panamanian society by presenting our background research
results so that all participants are aware of how and where indicators
are used, and
(2)
Provide a neutral space for discussing how the existing Panamanian
indicators can be used towards making Panama more sustainable.
II.2.C Towards a Consistent Use of Sustainability Indicators in Panama
Thirdly, our objective was to provide Panamanian institutions with the adequate
support for what they considered important in the advancement of sustainability in
Panama. For example, after our meeting with representatives of the Protected Areas and
Wildlife unit of the Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM) on the 21st of February,
they desired help to synthesize an extensive report on the “Economic Valuation and
account of Natural Resources and Systems Design of Environmental Satellite under the
National Accounts of Panama” dating from 2003. Because the ANAM representatives
deemed this report important, it was included into our research goals.
Finally, the long-term objective of our project is to present sustainability
indicators to the future presidential candidates (early 2014) in order to take this debate to
another level. Needless to say, we considered the participation and commitment of
14 different Panamanian stakeholders in the discussion of sustainability indicators a
fundamental component of our internship project since their insights represent, to some
extent, the experiences of the greater Panamanian population.
III Methods
III.1 Background Research and ANAM Document Review
First, we conducted background research by means of a thorough review of the
vast body of available literature concerning sustainability indicators. Particular focus was
placed upon:
(1)
Prior models of environmental assessment and theories concerning
sustainability indicators,
(2)
The characteristics of indicators and the different ways of presenting
them,
(3)
International examples of indicator-driven sustainable development
efforts,
(4)
Methodologies for participative approaches in indicator use, and
(5)
Information on the particular socio-political and ecological context of
Panama.
In addition to this, we reviewed ANAM’s report on the “Economic Valuation and
account of Natural Resources and Systems Design of Environmental Satellite under the
National Accounts of Panama” (2003) at the request of ANAM for two days in their
office, meeting with Eustorgio Jaen, the engineer who took part in the production of this
15 report, in order to clarify details. This report was an attempt to assign an economic value
to Panama’s natural capital and therefore provide an alternative way of quantifying
development as a whole, by focusing principally on three sectors: protected areas, forests,
and water.
III.2 Interviews and E-mail Correspondences
In addition to literature reviews, supplementary information was obtained through
“grey literature”, such as interviews and email correspondences with Ana Spalding,
Yanet Sierra, Gordon Hickey and representatives of the Protected Areas and Wildlife unit
of ANAM, with which we discussed many topics.
More specifically, we discussed existing Panamanian indicators with Yanet
Sierra, particularly focusing on the indicators that are used by the Ministerio de
Desarrollo Agropecuario (MIDA). Ana Spalding allowed us to gain insight on lifestyle
migration and the impact of tourism in Panama, whereas Gordon Hickey shared his
knowledge and point of view on the use of indicators, its advantages and disadvantages.
Finally, our meeting with representatives of the Protected Areas and Wildlife unit of
ANAM allowed us to gain important insight on the social, economical and political
realities of Panama.
III.3 The “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability
Indicators” (1st of March 2013)
16 Organized by McGill University and STRI, the “Primary Working Group Meeting
on Sustainability Indicators” took place on March the 1st in STRI’s Exhibit Hall Salon
and was attended by 17 participants (excluding ourselves). The purpose of the meeting
was manifold:
(1)
To engage in preliminary discussions about the specific needs of
Panama with respect to environmental sustainability;
(2)
To identify contacts and gauge support for the project, as proposed in
the first “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” (3rd of August
2012); and
(3)
To prepare for the second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability”
(18th of April 2013).
During the meeting, we presented the result of our background research as a
framework to be used for continuation of the project and future selection of indicators.
Our findings were principally based on:
(1)
The best possible practices for indicator selection and usage –
including the characteristics of a good indicator
(2)
The participatory methods previously used to prioritize indicators that
receive the most consensus – notably the method developed by Maxim
(2012).
Following the presentation, we opened up for an informal group discussion, and
concluded by identifying the necessary steps to be taken in time for the second “Forum
and Observatory of Sustainability”.
17 III.4 Sustainability Indicator Compilation
In preparation for the second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability”, we
compiled a list of sustainability indicators, from which we had intended the indicators for
Panama would be selected. We aggregated the indicators used by ANAM, the Autoridad
del Canal de Panamá (ACP), the Ministerio de Vivienda y Ordenamiento Territorial
(MIVIOT), and MIDA.
We obtained the indicators through representatives of each organization, which
we had met during the “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability Indicators” on
March 1st: Marta Domingo (ANAM), Emilio Messina (ACP), Rodrigo Guardia
(MIVIOT) and Yanet Sierra (MIDA). Each was asked only to provide the indicators that
were currently in use by their respective organization and therefore for which the
information existed.
Using the indicator documents provided by the various organizations, we created
a synthesized list that accounted for any overlap of indicators between organizations.
This list included the following columns:
a) Category – A basic organizational framework for the indicators
(Examples: forest, water, air, soil, socioeconomic/demographic)
b) Subcategory (optional) – A subdivision of ‘category’ (Examples for
‘socioeconomic/demographic’:
rural,
urban,
public
transport,
environmental education)
c) Indicator name
d) Indicator description (optional) – A description of the indicator if the
name is insufficiently explanatory
e) Indicator units
f) Information source – The organization that is responsible for collecting
the data for this indicator
18 g) Additional
information
(optional)
–
Any
necessary
additional
information to be considered
h) “Principally used by” – The organization(s) (ANAM, ACP, MIVIOT,
MIDA) that uses that particular indicator
i) Source of data recollection – Example: investigation, census,
administrative record
j) Periodicity – How frequently the data for the indicator is collected
(Example: annually, biannually)
This list was then presented in long- and condensed-form (Appendix 2) during
the “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” on April 18th for the selection of specific
indicators by attendees.
III.5 The Second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” (18th of
April 2013)
Organized by INDICASAT, STRI, McGill University and USMA, the Second
“Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” was held on April 18th in the Benjamin
Ayechu Auditorium in USMA. The purpose of this workshop was to continue the work
initiated during the “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability Indicators” and
to obtain a list of indicators identified by attendees as being important for sustainable
development in Panama. 32 individuals attended the forum (excluding ourselves). The
participants were from various sectors – governmental, academic, private, NGO – and
included most of the attendees of the “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability
Indicators”.
19 Prior to the meeting, attendees had been sorted according to the sector in which
they worked: rural, urban, coastline. The intention behind this was to separate attendees
into three discussion groups. In response to the lower-than-expected turnout, attendees
were divided into two discussion groups: urban and rural (which grouped forest and
coastline together). Each discussion group was led to a room to engage in discussions of
2 hours in order to choose the final list of indicators. Although discussion mediators were
present, discussion format was left to the discretion of the groups. Regarding indicator
selection, it was suggested that each group attempt to reach a consensus of five
indicators, however ultimately this was also left to the discretion of the groups. The
indicators chosen were later analyzed.
III.6 Ethical Considerations
Because our methodology sometimes consisted of interacting with human
subjects, we took into account important ethical considerations. Throughout our
interviews and meetings, we strictly followed the Code of Ethics of McGill University,
which holds us to stating our affiliation to McGill University and to the Smithsonian
Tropical Research Institute. Before starting our interviews, we also made sure to state the
purpose and objectives of our internship project. We asked for interviewees' consent to
use the information they gave us, as well as to quote them or publish their name in our
final report. If information wished to be given anonymously, we made sure to follow this
request as well.
20 Participation in both meetings was entirely voluntary and it was made clear that
participants could leave at any time. Information communicated by the participants
remained anonymous and private.
IV Results
IV.1 Research on Sustainability Indicators
IV.1.A What are indicators?
Indicators serve as recognizable, measurable representations of a greater
immeasurable reality (Boulanger 2004). As a result, they provide the necessary direction
to human efforts by concentrating them towards specific domains, with the understanding
that progress in these domains will translate to progress in the greater objective they are
supposed to represent. An improperly chosen indicator may then have grave
consequences, by misguiding and misleading efforts, which may ultimately undermine
the larger, true goal (Stiglitz, Sen et al. 2009).
Although there is consensus about the importance of choosing good indicators,
much debate exists about what exactly constitutes a good indicator. The Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) lists three very general functions of an
effective indicator: simplification, quantification and communication (Van der Grift, Van
Dael et al. 1999). Meanwhile, Bleys (2012) lists three entirely different criteria: an
indicator must
a) “Monitor changes at the country-level”,
21 b) “Be internationally comparable” and
c) “Compiled for different points in time”.
The characteristics of a good indicator can also be quite numerous; Piorr (2003)
lists 18 essential functions an indicator must fulfill, while Reed, Fraser et al. (2006) list
over 25. Using a list of different academic papers and government investigations
(Liverman, Hanson et al. 1988, Jansen, Stoorvogel et al. 1995, Gallopín 1996, Gilbert
1996, Stork, Boyle et al. 1997, Bradley Guy and Kibert 1998, Crabtree and Bayfield
1998, Farrell and Hart 1998, Van den Bergh and Verbruggen 1999, Dumanski and Pieri
2000, Pannell and Glenn 2000, Valentin and Spangenberg 2000, Lundin and Morrison
2002, Mendoza and Prabhu 2003, Zhen and Routray 2003, Boulanger 2004, Spangenberg
2004, Sahely, Kennedy et al. 2005, Hezri and Dovers 2006, Bell and Morse 2008, Shen,
Jorge Ochoa et al. 2011), we consolidated the various criteria listed to four key
characteristics of a good indicator.
IV.1.B The characteristics of a good indicator
First of all, a good indicator must be founded in good science. This means
indicators must be clear, scientifically rigorous, and as objective as possible. This permits
for the definition of specific objectives, points of reference and comparison, as well as the
specification of threshold values.
Secondly, a good indicator must be pertinent and reliable. One must be confident
in the information it conveys as a representation of what it is ultimately trying to measure
– for instance, in this case: sustainability. As an example, the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) is often used as a representation of economic development (Stiglitz, Sen et al.
22 2009), however Heal (2012) brings this practice into question. He offers the example of
droughts in India that led to the lowering of the water table, increasing the human effort
required to extract water, meaning added expenditures and an increase in the GDP.
Although water shortages are bolstering the economy in the short-term, they are
catastrophic in the long-term. As Heal notes: “we are missing a warning sign here—the
falling water table—and wrongly interpreting it as contributing to growth” (Heal 2012).
Here lies the importance of a reliable, pertinent indicator. Instead of using GDP as an
indicator, for instance, one may use Adjusted Net Savings (ANS), which considers
natural capital (such as water resources) and human (economic) capital separately, thus
providing a measure of sustainable economic growth (Heal 2012).
Thirdly, a good indicator must be based on accessible information. It is essential
that good data be available for without it, there is a risk of introducing error. Long-term
data allows for the dissection of trends through time; in policy, this translates to the
possibility of evaluating the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of measures taken.
Fourth and finally, a good indicator must be easily applicable and understandable.
Although indicators are often developed by experts in the related field, the use and
interpretation of an indicator must be clear even to laypeople, including the general
public and especially potential decision-makers. This condition should not be an
impediment to scientific rigor, however. As emphasized by Reed, Fraser et al. (2006),
when it comes to development of indicators, there should be a balance between the topdown, expert-led approach, and the bottom-up, community-led approach.
23 IV.1.C How to compile indicators
Once a list of indicators has been assembled, there are two possibilities for how to
present them. The first of these is to combine them to create a “composite index”. An
index is the compilation of indicators united by a common purpose – for instance,
measuring economic performance or water quality – and aggregated within a single value
(Boulanger 2004). This method is used in some well-known statistics, such as the
Ecological Footprint and the Human Development Index. Composite indices have the
advantage of being intuitive and easy to use, which makes them more likely to be adopted
by the general public (Loiseau, Junqua et al. 2012). The aggregation of several indices
leads to a substantial loss of information, however, and aggregation also compromises the
objectivity of the indicators by introducing a necessarily subjective system of weighting
the indicators (Stiglitz, Sen et al. 2009).
A second possibility is to compile the indicators into a “dashboard of indicators”, which
was the method we employed. This method involves presenting the indicators, as they
are, in a set order. This method retains the specificity and precision of the indicators,
however at the cost of ease-of-use. Indeed, many dashboards of indicators suffer as a
result of their heterogeneity and, in the case of sustainability indicators, “most lack
indications about (…) their relationship to sustainability (Stiglitz, Sen et al. 2009). Efforts
have been made to reduce this heterogeneity effect by grouping the indicators according
to different schemes such as themes (eg. water use, air quality) or policy objectives. The
OECD and the European Environmental Agency developed the DPSIR method, grouping
indicators by whether they measure driving forces of change, pressures on the
24 environment, state of the system, impacts or effects of the changed environment, and
response of society to solve the problem (Vidal and Marquer 2002).
IV.2 Research on International Experiences of Sustainability Indicator
Use
Even though the definition of “sustainability” is contested, many countries have
made attempts to monitor sustainable development (Hass and Hoie 2009, Davidson
2011). In an effort to inspire and support the development of a system of sustainability
indicators in Panama, we conducted an investigation of similar initiatives from other
countries around the world. The results of this investigation were then presented during
the second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability”. The following is a summary of
our investigation.
First, we found that, across different countries, the choice of the indicators was,
not surprisingly, strongly influenced by the priorities of the administration in charge
(McCollough 2007). When dealing with sustainability indicators, institutions around the
world use advisory and participatory methods in order to facilitate the discussion on
sustainability indicators and cooperation, the consultation of various stakeholders and the
search for consensus are prioritized (Pearson and Harris 2004, Fraser, Dougill et al.
2006). Many institutions choose to use a reduced number of indicators to avoid the effect
of information overload, and so allowing each indicator to retain a sense of specific
importance. In addition, the tendency to use a restricted number of “top-priority
indicators” is not uncommon. Furthermore, in line with the discussions during the
25 “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability Indicators” organized on the 1st of
March, there is a strong preference for indicators that use previously-existing data,
instead of compiling a list of ‘ideal’ indicators and pushing for appropriate data collection
after.
The different types of indicator structure are also important. The first structure is
based upon 3 dimensions (or pillars) of sustainable development: economy, society and
the environment. This architecture seeks a balance between the 3 dimensions,
understanding that achieving sustainability in one dimension is impossible if one neglects
the others. However, this structure doesn’t allow for the consideration of transversal
indicators (those that could potentially be classified in 2 dimensions), and therefore
ignores the interrelations that may exist between the 3 pillars (Davidson 2011). The
second structure, the most popular, consists of organizing indicators around fields. These
fields can be considered spheres of progress towards sustainability and aid in the
decision-making process by having a problem- and action- oriented approach. The final
structure focuses on objectives. Here, indicators measure the achievement of general or
specific sustainability objectives, thus gauging progress made towards sustainable
development concretely.
IV.3 Research on ANAM’s evaluation initiative
Following a meeting with representatives of the Protected Areas and Wildlife unit
of ANAM on the 21st of February, we reviewed the extensive report on the “Economic
Valuation and account of Natural Resources and Systems Design of Environmental
26 Satellite under the National Accounts of Panama” written by the consulting partnership
TERRAM Foundation- BCEOM (Société Française D’Ingénieurie) for ANAM in 2003.
Funded by the National Environmental Program (PAN, Programa Ambiental
Nacional), this report’s mission was to identify an appropriate methodology for the
economic valuation of the nation’s natural resources (focusing on protected areas, forests
and water resources) for it to be appropriately included in the economic valuation of
Panama. Indeed, article 55 of chapter IX in the General Environmental Law of Panama
(Act No 41 of July 1, 1998), called “National Environmental Account”, states that "it is
the duty of the State to value, in economic, social and ecological terms, the
environmental and natural heritage of the nation and establish the value of this heritage as
complementary in the National Account". Furthermore, the long-term contributions of
this report were expected to be the design and establishment of an Environmental
Satellite Accounts System within the framework of the National Accounts System of
Panama, which was to be updated on a regular and ongoing basis, in addition to the
implementation of training programs for civil professionals in matters regarding
economic valuation of natural resources and environmental accounting offering courses,
seminars, fellowships and internships. Simply put, this report was an attempt to go
beyond the simple GDP-approach in determining a nation’s development.
For 3 years (2003-2006), a research team composed of many experts looked into
this new approach and its implementation in Panama. However, not only did the initiative
not attain its initial goals, we were able to detect the main cause of its failure: an extreme
lack of information. Indeed, regarding forest resources, the report pointed out how
regularly updated information concerning natural forests (updated rate of deforestation;
27 rate of deforestation, forest loss due to wildfires; forest loss due to pests and infestations),
forest plantations (databases concerning timber prices for different species at various
geographical scales) and land usage (measures of land use changes) were lacking.
Similarly, information was incomplete for water resources, such as for agriculture
(volume of water used; cost of agricultural production; crop yield information), electricity
generation (volume of water lost for to evaporation) and sewer systems (volume of waste
water discharged from different economic activities; volume of waste water treated
before release). Finally, the report’s success was also compromised by the lack of
information on the 65 existing protected areas (at the time), such as the number of species
found in each and the proportion that was endangered. More generally, we concluded
from this review and from our meeting with Eustorgio Jaén (the designated official
spokesperson of the National Natural Heritage during this report) that there was a lack of
coordination and collaboration between those seeking data and their potential sources.
IV.4 Summary of interviews
Our interview with Professor Gordon Hickey dealt with how best to develop and
implement an indicator-based approach towards measuring sustainability in Panama. He
advocated a participatory process for the development of a plan-of-action, recommending
a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) as one means of achieving this, although this method
was not the one employed during the actual indicator selection process. He further went
on to stress the importance of sustainability in all three facets: environmental, economic,
and social; “one cannot address one without addressing the other two.”
28 Our interviews with Ana Spalding and Yanet Sierra coincided with when the
project was still focused on the sectors of agriculture and tourism. Ms. Spalding spoke
about the issues facing sustainable tourism in Panama. She spoke specifically of issues
surrounding “lifestyle migrants”, “the flow of relatively affluent people from developed
to developing countries”, usually “characterized by the search for (...) warm climates,
reduced costs of living, and perceived higher quality of life” (Spalding 2011). Although
she didn’t work with indicators of sustainability herself, she stressed the importance of
watching demographic migrations and local and foreign investment within Panama. With
regard to the agricultural sector, meanwhile, Ms. Sierra identified organic agriculture
projects, silvopastoral activities, and rainwater harvesting as key areas of focus for
development of sustainability indicators.
IV.5 Conclusions from the “Primary Working Group Meeting on
Sustainability Indicators” (1st of March)
The “Primary Working Group Meeting on Sustainability Indicators” took place on
March 1st, at STRI. 17 participants were in attendance, representing the following
institutions: INEC-CGP (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censo- Contraloría General
de la Republica), ACP, ANAM-DBVS (Departamento de Biodiversidad y Vida
Silvestre), ANAM-OPPA (Oficina de Planificación de la Política Ambiental), ANAMDAPVS (Dirección de Areas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre), MIVIOT, IDIAP (Instituto de
Investigación Agropecuaria de Panamá), and environmental NGOs Pasos and la
Fundación Natura.
29 The main topic of discussion among the 17 participants was “How can we go
about developing a set of sustainable indicators for Panama?” The question yielded
several interesting points.
First, all participants were unanimous in that consensus over the definition of
“sustainability” must come before engaging in discussions over what needs to be
monitored and what sustainability issues should be prioritized, however no actual
definition was decided upon. Second, many participants pointed out that there is an
abundance of available data; what is needed is to decide what can be done with this data.
In order to do this, coordination of data collection and presentation between the various
sources is necessary; only an organized effort, many stated, would allow for accurate
measurement of progress with regard to sustainable development. In line with this point,
participants were in favor of greater communication between NGOs, the governmental
and academic sectors, and stakeholders of the private and public sectors. Such exchanges
between different sectors and disciplines are key for the sharing of knowledge and the
development of a “common language”.
Finally, plans were made for the preparation of the second “Forum and
Observatory of Sustainability”, to take place on April 18th. It was agreed a compilation
of the existing indicators used by the various organizations present was necessary. This
list would only include indicators for which data is available, and would identify the
overlap between the different organizations’ sets of indicators. This list would provide
the basis for the selection of a set of sustainability indicators for Panama that would allow
the country to track the country’s progress towards sustainability over time.
30 IV.6 Conclusions from the Second “Forum and Observatory of
Sustainability” (18th of April 2013)
In addition to the institutions present in the “Primary Working Group Meeting on
Sustainability Indicators”, the 34 participants of this forum organized in USMA also
came from the following institutions: USMA, CIAM (Centro de Incidencia Ambiental de
Panamá), UP (Universidad de Panamá), UP-CIFHU (Centro de Investigacciones de la
Faculdad de Humanidades), CEASPA (Centro de Estudios y Acción Social Panameña),
GES Consultores, MIDA, the Local Government from MINGO (Ministerio de Gobierno)
, PNUD (Programa de las Nociones Unidas para el Desarrollo), IDIAP (Instituto de
Investigación Agropecuaria de Panamá), ARAP (Autoridad de Recursos Acuáticos de
Panamá). As indicated in the methods part, two groups were formed, a rural discussion
group and an urban discussion group.
IV.6.A Urban Group
Led by Ariel Espino, the urban group had 14 participants. Attempting to answer the
question “What do we want to measure?” was necessary since urban sustainability is
composed of so many elements. It was decided that priority would be given to problems
that the general population faces everyday, such as transportation or water accessibility.
Indeed, transportation and commuting time in Panama City are a major problem
according to the participants. Inspired by the “Urban Indicators Guidelines: Monitoring
the Habitat Agenda and the Millennium Development Goals” written by the United
Nations Human Settlements Programme (August 2004), the group identified the
following as priorities for urban sustainability. The final output follows the pattern of the
31 discussion, which centered rather on themes (such as drinking water, housing, or
security); indicators were less discussed. Moreover, in some cases, more general ‘subthemes’ were chosen instead of indicators (for example: sound, air, water, housing
conditions, housing costs, distribution of different transportation modes – all these are too
vague to be considered indicators).
1. Drinking water:
§ Percentage of the population with access to water
2. Sewage:
§ Percentage of the population with sewage service
3. Solid waste:
§ Percentage of the population with waste collection system
4. Mobility:
§ Transfer time (from home to workplace) per transportation mode
§ Distribution of the different transportation modes
5. Housing:
§ Housing costs
§ Housing conditions
6. Public spaces:
§ Space (m2) per person
7. Environmental quality:
§ Sound
§ Water
§ Air
8. Security:
§ Crime rate
During the discussions, the group pointed out how “mobility” and “housing” are
two particularly complex themes. For “mobility”, one has to take into account the
different transportation modes, since commuting by personal car or public bus in Panama
City determines commuting time. Concerning “housing”, one has to consider the formal
versus informal housing that can be found around Panama City. Participants also pointed
out that GDP, which was initially identified as an important indicator, is readily available
32 from the Contraloría, and therefore shouldn’t be considered in the discussions. It’s
important to note that a lot of time was spent on discussing the themes that should be
considered as priorities (i.e. drinking water), and from the point when these were
identified; the indicator by itself was less subject to discussions.
IV.6.B Rural Group
The rural discussion group was composed of 20 participants and led by Professor
Catherine Potvin. The first topic of debate was the format to follow in choosing
sustainability indicators. The group opted to follow the “three pillars of sustainability”
model presented during the Forum, which requires the selection of indicators of
environmental, societal, and economic sustainability. However, the group also recognized
the importance of selecting transversal indicators, which this model does not allow;
ultimately, it was agreed that the limited number of available transversal indicators was
more limiting to the inclusion of said indicators, rather than the rigidity of the framework.
In line with the conclusions from the
“Primary Working Group Meeting on
Sustainability Indicators”, attendees agreed that focusing on indicators with already
existing data is key, however suggested a focus should also be placed on indicators that
could measure Panama’s progress with respect to the United Nations’ Millennium
Development Goals. Finally, the group agreed that it would be important to develop
threshold values of sustainability for the various indicators, which will require, in the
short-term, the accumulation of data through time for each indicator as a baseline.
The format of the discussion was such that individuals were asked to list an
unlimited number of indicators they identified as most important; answers were grouped
33 during the meeting, with the number of mentions recorded. Much like the urban
discussion group, however, discussion centered more on themes rather than indicators,
resulting in a final list consisting of themes rather than indicators (Appendix 3).
V Discussion
The different discussion approaches by the urban and rural discussion groups did
not only lead to a very different set of results, it also made any analysis between the two
groups very difficult. Additionally, the nature of the urban group’s result, which mixes
both themes and indicators, further complicates any potential analysis for this group; as a
consequence, it was decided with our supervisor that the rural group’s result would be
that of primary focus.
One common thread that does exist between the results obtained from the rural
and urban discussion groups, however, is the absence of true indicators. Indeed, perhaps
the most striking outcome of the second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” was
that the majority of “indicators” obtained were in fact general themes or issues to be
addressed. The problem concerning the identification of a theme is that a specific
indicator does not naturally follow. For example, the theme “water quality” can be
measured by many different indicators such as nitrate concentration, phosphate
concentration, presence of fecal coliforms, and pH (Autoridad del Canal de Panamá).
This result is a source of concern for a couple of reasons. First, it doesn’t do much
to advance the project in its goal, which is a considerable issue considering the difficulty
and effort involved in organizing and assembling such an event. Second, it highlights a
serious knowledge gap with respect to indicators. This knowledge gap is all the more
34 alarming because it exists even among the supposed “experts”, those that work for the
organizations that develop and employ indicators of sustainability and are therefore
considered stakeholders of sustainability.
V.1 Rural discussion group
Although no indicators were expressly chosen, there was some overlap between
the themes addressed during the second “Forum and Observatory of Sustainability” and
the list of existing indicators for which supporting data exists (Appendix 2). There may
be, however, in these cases several indicators that apply for any given theme. The themes
for which indicators with available supporting data were:
Environmental:
• Water (quality, quantity, and use)
• Change in land use (including forest cover)
• Climate change
• Natural disasters
• Protected areas
Economic:
• GDP
• Poverty
• Agricultural resources and yield
Social:
• Consumption of electricity
• Households with basic services (drinkable water, sanitation)
• Environmental education
It is important to keep in mind that the existence of indicators doesn’t necessarily
mean they are the most appropriate for the theme we would like to address. Therefore, a
direct selection of indicators would have been more appropriate, which was the original
purpose of the forum. For the remaining themes, there were no pre-existing indicators for
35 which supporting data exists, to the extent of our knowledge. Not only that, but the
themes themselves were too vague to determine whether sufficient data exists to create a
new indicator (correspondence with Contraloría).
V.1.A The Participants’ Understanding of Sustainability
With respect to the addressed themes, it is important to note several interesting
trends, as we can see from Appendix 3. First, themes of social sustainability were both
the most mentioned (38 times) and the most variable (14 different themes).
Environmental sustainability themes, in comparison, lacked much diversity (8 different
themes), especially considering their relatively high number of mentions (35 times).
Finally, themes of economic sustainability were both the least mentioned (20 times) and
the least diverse (7 different themes).
This result presents an interesting picture of the participants’ understanding of
sustainability. First, themes of economic sustainability did not figure prominently,
suggesting it does figure prominently in the participants’ definition of sustainability. In
addition, the low variability in economic themes, coupled with the surprising
underrepresentation of some especially important themes, suggests unfamiliarity with the
topic. “Consumption levels”, for instance, was mentioned only once, yet “sustainable
consumption” is one of the goals of Agenda 21: “Developing countries should seek to
achieve sustainable consumption patterns in their development process” (UNEP). In
comparison, the participants appeared to be quite knowledgeable about and attentive to
themes of social sustainability, suggesting this aspect of sustainability is paramount in
their understanding of the concept. Finally, environmental themes, although referenced
36 frequently, did not enjoy the same diversity as social themes. Indeed, there appeared to be
a focus on just two environmental themes: ‘change in land use’ and ‘water’. The lack of
diversity of proposed themes could suggest, again, a lack of awareness about
environmental sustainability.
The identification of issues is not enough; one needs measurement. As Heal
(2012) notes, “what gets measured, gets managed”. In some cases, there exist indicators
being employed by certain organizations that are pertinent to the themes addressed during
the Forum; issues such as “energy consumption”, “protected areas”, and “poverty” all
have indicators that touch upon them. However, given that several indicators may exist
for any given issue, it is important to further specify which indicators are most
appropriate and relevant in the issue’s context. Further, in cases where a theme has no
associated indicators, creation of new indicators is contingent on the availability of
supporting data, which can only be verified with a specified plan for measurement of
change. In any case, specification is of paramount importance for the development of a
list of sustainability indicators; the identification of general themes does little to push
Panama towards its goal of sustainable development.
VI Limitations
VI.1 Information Access
During our internship, we noticed that a major limitation was information access.
This issue figured most prominently during the compilation of indicators, however it
remained a problem whenever we depended on an organization or individual to supply us
37 with information, which was especially important during the second half of the project.
Obtaining data from organizations, beyond that which had already been published on the
Internet, proved complicated, as every person we spoke to would refer us to another
person or provide unclear answers. In some cases this went on for quite a long time and
sometimes attempts were fruitless altogether.
VI.2 Limitations to Participative Methods
As pointed out by Maxim (2012), one important limitation exist of participative
methods is the willingness of stakeholders to participate. Participation is of utmost
importance as the choice of indicators directly depends on who participates in the group
discussions and on the socio-political concerns at the moment when the discussions take
place (Maxim 2012). Over 50 people had confirmed their attendance in the second
“Forum and Observatory of Sustainability”, however ultimately only 34 attended. A
greater willingness on the part of the invitees to participate would have ultimately
resulted in a very different outcome for the Forum, with the identification of a different
set of themes, and perhaps indicators, which would have been more representative due to
a greater sample size. In order to overcome this limitation, Maxim (2012) prescribes only
greater encouragement of participation and systematic revisions with respect to the set of
indicators, highlighting the importance of continuation of efforts if this project is to be
successful.
38 VI.3 Internship Constantly Subject to Changes
The greatest limitation of this project was also the necessary condition for its
success: its reliance on the collaboration of many people. In order for an appropriate,
strategic plan for sustainable development for Panama to be conceived and executed, it is
of course paramount that it involves as many of the people concerned as possible; the
natural consequence, however, is that the path taken is a lot less direct as the project is
often subject to change, which makes for a lot of lost time and effort.
For instance, during the initial brainstorming phase of the project, it was
suggested that we focus on the agricultural and tourism sectors and compile a list of
environmental sustainability indicators based on similar projects conducted in other
countries. Following feedback from the “Primary Working Group Meeting on
Sustainability Indicators” organized on the 1st of March, it was decided the project should
not restrict itself to these two sectors and should examine all indicators of economic,
social, and environmental sustainability.
These changes, in addition to the more gradual tweaking of the project in the
interim, resulted in a lot of work being discarded, as it did not fit the new direction the
project was taking. The compiled list of indicators, for instance, proved of little use
during the indicator selection process of the second “Forum and Observatory of
Sustainability” (18th of April) as attendees began suggesting indicators that should exist
in addition to ones that already do exist.
39 VI.4 Time Available Relative to the Internship’s Scale
As with many projects of this sort, time proved a restricting factor in the success
of our project. Bringing about any appreciable change is often a lengthy process,
especially when it relies on the collaboration and agreement of many different groups.
With the project’s direction subject to constant revision, as was the case, the short amount
of full-time work dedicated to the new path of the internship proved a significant
limitation.
VII Conclusion
In order to inspire the development of a dashboard of sustainability indicators in
Panama, we promoted, throughout this internship project, continuity and stability to
existing initiatives and ideas towards sustainability. We strongly believe that creating a
neutral and interactive space for debates and discussions amongst various stakeholders
was key to the success of our internship. However, we can also conclude that despite
Sustainability being a preoccupation of many Panamanians (as we notice from the
participation in the Forum), the actual identification of indicators of sustainable
development has proved to be a difficult and complex task. Indeed, themes were most
often identified instead of precise indicators. Identified by multiple stakeholders as a
crucial step towards sustainability in Panama, the development of sustainability
indicators should continue to be prioritized both by governmental and non-governmental
institutions. Indeed, we are convinced that a clear model of indicators will enable the
Panamanian society to effectively assess the current and future governments’
development strategy with respect to the environment.
40 For future interns, we highly recommend organizing participative events where
members of the Panamanian community can contribute their thoughts and ideas. Because
participation from the private sector was very low and non inexistent from the indigenous
communities, it would be a good idea to incite participation from these sectors and
therefore obtain the representation of the greater Panamanian society. In order to achieve
our long-term objective, which is to present a list of sustainability indicators to the future
2014 presidential candidates and take this debate to the national level, it is clear that
continued efforts must be dedicated towards making Panama more sustainable.
41 VIII References
Bell, S. and S. Morse (2008). Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable?,
Routledge.
Bleys, B. (2012). "Beyond GDP: Classifying Alternative Measures for Progress." Social
Indicators Research 109(3): 355-376.
Boulanger, P.-M. (2004). "Les indicateurs de développement durable: un défi
scientifique, un enjeu démocratique." Les séminaires de l’Iddri 12.
Bradley Guy, G. and C. J. Kibert (1998). "Developing indicators of sustainability: US
experience." building research & information 26(1): 39-45.
Brundtland, G. H., W. C. o. Environment and Development (1987). Our common future,
Oxford University Press Oxford.
Crabtree, B. and N. Bayfield (1998). "Developing sustainability indicators for mountain
ecosystems: a study of the Cairngorms, Scotland." Journal of Environmental
Management 52(1): 1-14.
Davidson, K. M. (2011). "Reporting systems for sustainability: what are they
measuring?" Social Indicators Research 100(2): 351-365.
Dumanski, J. and C. Pieri (2000). "Land quality indicators: research plan." Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 81(2): 93-102.
Farrell, A. and M. Hart (1998). "What does sustainability really mean?: The search for
useful indicators." Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 40(9):
4-31.
Fraser, E. D., A. J. Dougill, W. E. Mabee, M. Reed and P. McAlpine (2006). "Bottom up
and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator
identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental
management." Journal of environmental management 78(2): 114-127.
Gallopín, G. C. (1996). "Environmental and sustainability indicators and the concept of
situational indicators. A systems approach." Environmental modeling & assessment 1(3):
101-117.
Gilbert, A. (1996). "Criteria for sustainability in the development of indicators for
sustainable development." Chemosphere 33(9): 1739-1748.
Gobierno Nacional, R. d. P. (2010). Panamá: Plan estratégico de Gobierno 2010-2014.
Panamá.
Hass, J. L., F. Brunvoll and H. Hoie (2009). Overview of Sustainable Development
Indicators used by National and International Agencies.
Heal, G. (2012). "Reflections—defining and measuring sustainability." Review of
Environmental Economics and Policy 6(1): 147-163.
Hezri, A. A. and S. R. Dovers (2006). "Sustainability indicators, policy and governance:
issues for ecological economics." Ecological Economics 60(1): 86-99.
Jansen, D., J. Stoorvogel and R. Schipper (1995). "Using sustainability indicators in
agricultural land use analysis: an example from Costa Rica." NJAS wageningen journal
of life sciences 43(1): 61-82.
Liverman, D. M., M. E. Hanson, B. J. Brown and R. W. Merideth Jr (1988). "Global
sustainability: toward measurement." Environmental management 12(2): 133-143.
42 Loiseau, E., G. Junqua, P. Roux and V. Bellon-Maurel (2012). "Environmental
assessment of a territory: An overview of existing tools and methods." Journal of
environmental management 112: 213-225.
Lundin, M. and G. M. Morrison (2002). "A life cycle assessment based procedure for
development of environmental sustainability indicators for urban water systems." Urban
water 4(2): 145-152.
Maxim, L. (2012). "Building shared socio-economic indicators for biodiversity. A case
study in the Ile-de-France region (France)." Ecological indicators 13(1): 347-357.
McCollough, A. C. D. (2007). Analyse comparative de systèmes d'indicateurs de
développement durable, Bureau de coordination de développement durable, Québec:
Ministère du Développement durable, de l ‘Environnement et des Parcs.
Mendoza, G. A. and R. Prabhu (2003). "Qualitative multi-criteria approaches to assessing
indicators of sustainable forest resource management." Forest Ecology and Management
174(1): 329-343.
Panamá, A. d. C. d. Servicios para el Desarrollo de un Sistema de Indicadores para el
Seguimiento y Evaluación del plan DS-GIRH.
Panamá, G. d. l. R. d. (2009). Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, III Informe de
Panamá. Sistema de Naciones Unidas.
Pannell, D. J. and N. A. Glenn (2000). "A framework for the economic evaluation and
selection of sustainability indicators in agriculture." Ecological economics 33(1): 135149.
Pearson, L. and M. Harris (2004). Measuring and modelling sustainable development at
the regional and national scales in Australia. Inaugural National Regional Research
Colloquium: Regional Dimensions in National Development.
Piorr, H.-P. (2003). "Environmental policy, agri-environmental indicators and landscape
indicators." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 98(1): 17-33.
Reed, M. S., E. D. Fraser and A. J. Dougill (2006). "An adaptive learning process for
developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities." Ecological
Economics 59(4): 406-418.
Sahely, H. R., C. A. Kennedy and B. J. Adams (2005). "Developing sustainability criteria
for urban infrastructure systems." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 32(1): 72-85.
Shen, L.-Y., J. Jorge Ochoa, M. N. Shah and X. Zhang (2011). "The application of urban
sustainability indicators–A comparison between various practices." Habitat International
35(1): 17-29.
Sitarz, D. (1993). "Agenda 21: The earth summit strategy to save our planet."
Spalding, A. K. (2011). Re-making Lives Abroad: Lifestyle Migration and Socioenvironmental Change in Bocas Del Toro, Panama, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Spangenberg, J. H. (2004). "Reconciling sustainability and growth: criteria, indicators,
policies." Sustainable Development 12(2): 74-86.
Spangenberg, J. H., S. Pfahl and K. Deller (2002). "Towards indicators for institutional
sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21." Ecological indicators 2(1): 61-77.
Stiglitz, J. E., A. K. Sen and J.-P. Fitoussi (2009). Rapport de la Commission sur la
mesure des performances économiques et du progrès social, La Commission.
Stork, N., T. Boyle, V. Dale, H. Eeley, B. Finegan, M. Lawes, N. Manokaran, R. Prabhu
and J. Soberon (1997). Criteria and indicators for assessing the sustainability of forest
43 management: conservation of biodiversity, Center for International Forestry Research
Jakarta.
STRI. "About STRI." Retrieved 20/04/2013, from
http://www.stri.si.edu/english/about_stri/index.php.
UNEP. "Changing Consumption Patterns." Retrieved 19/04/2013, from
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=52&ArticleID=
52.
Valentin, A. and J. H. Spangenberg (2000). "A guide to community sustainability
indicators." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(3): 381-392.
Van den Bergh, J. C. and H. Verbruggen (1999). "Spatial sustainability, trade and
indicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’." Ecological economics 29(1): 6172.
Van der Grift, B., J. Van Dael and K. NV (1999). Problem-oriented approach and the use
of indicators, RIZA, Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment,
ECE Task Force project-secretariat.
Vidal, C. and P. Marquer (2002). Vers une agriculture européenne durable.: Outils et
méthodes, Educagri éditions.
Zhen, L. and J. K. Routray (2003). "Operational indicators for measuring agricultural
sustainability in developing countries." Environmental Management 32(1): 34-46.
44 IX Appendices
IX.1 Appendix I: Chronogram of Activities
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
01/01
02/01
03/01
04/01
05/01
06/01
07/01
08/01
09/01
10/01
Meeting with Elia/
Skype with
Catherine
11/01
Background
Information
12/01
13/01
14/01
15/01
16/01
17/01
General Literature
Review
18/01
General Literature
Review
19/01
General
Literature
Review
20/01
21/01
22/01
23/01
24/01
25/01
26/01
27/01
Work Plan
Preparation
28/01
Work Plan- to
send for approval
29/01
General literature
review
30/01
Internship
Lectures/
Informative
meeting
31/01
Candidate
indicators specific
to tourism/
agriculture
01/02
Meeting with
Catherine and Elia;
Candidate
indicators specific
to tourism/
agriculture
02/02
03/02
04/02
How are
sustainability
indicators
chosen?
Underlying
theory? Good
practices?
05/02
Identification of
sustainability
indicators specific
to tourism and
agriculture
06/02
Meeting with Ana
Spalding (4PM,
STRI)
Identification of
sustainability
indicators specific
to tourism and
agriculture
07/02
Meeting with
Gordon Hickey
(11AM, Gamboa)
Identification of
sustainability
indicators specific
to tourism and
agriculture
08/02
Meeting with
Yanet Sierra
(9AM)
What national
information do we
have for Panama?
09/02
10/02
11/02
12/02
13/02
14/02
15/02
16/02
17/02
45 18/02
19/02
20/02
21/02
Consultancy
review (ANAM
Office)
Meeting with
ANAM (9AM)
22/02
Consultancy
Review (ANAM
Office)
23/02
Conclusions
of
Consultancy
Review
24/02
25/02
26/02
27/02
28/02
(9AM: Meeting
with Roberto)
Prepare primary
working group
meeting
01/03
Primary working
group meeting (912AM)
(Informal
presentations)
02/03
03/03
04/03
05/03
06/03
07/03
08/03
09/03
10/03
11/03
12/03
13/03
14/03
15/03
16/03
17/03
18/03
Compilación de
indicadores que
ya existe en
Panamá
(MIVIOT,
ANAM, ACP,
MIDA)
19/03
Compilación de
indicadores que ya
existe en Panamá
(MIVIOT, ANAM,
ACP, MIDA)
20/03
Compilación de
indicadores que ya
existe en Panamá
(MIVIOT, ANAM,
ACP, MIDA)
21/03
Compilación de
indicadores que ya
existe en Panamá
(MIVIOT, ANAM,
ACP, MIDA)
22/03
Compilación de
indicadores que ya
existe en Panamá
(MIVIOT, ANAM,
ACP, MIDA)
23/03
Compilación
de
indicadores
que ya existe
en Panamá
(MIVIOT,
ANAM,
ACP,
MIDA)
24/03
25/03
26/03
27/03
28/03
29/03
30/03
31/03
01/04
02/04
03/04
04/04
05/04
06/04
07/04
08/04
09/04
10/04
11/04
Trabajo de
investigación: Las
experiencias del
mundo para
indicadores de
sostenibilidad
12/04
Trabajo de
investigación: Las
experiencias del
mundo para
indicadores de
sostenibilidad
13/04
14/04
15/04
Preparation of
documents for
Forum
16/04
Preparation of
documents for
Forum
17/04
Preparation of
documents for
Forum
18/04
Forum (USMA:
8:30-12:30)
19/04
Synthesis of Forum
20/04
Synthesis of
Forum
21/04
22/04
Final Report
Preparation
23/04
Final Report
Preparation
24/04
Final Presentation
Preparation
25/04
Final Presentation
Preparation
26/04
Internship
Symposium
27/04
Final Report
Preparation
28/04
29/04
Final Report
30/04
Final Report
46 IX.2 Appendix II: Compilation of Indicators currently in use by ACP,
MIVIOT, MIDA and ANAM
Categoría de
indicador I
Bosques y
biodiversidad
Categoría de
indicador II
Indicador
Cobertura
boscosa del
territorio
Cobertura
vegetal del
bosque por
categoría
Porcentaje de
deforestación
Superficie
reforestada
Número de
hectáreas
reforestadas en
riberas de ríos y
áreas degradadas
de las
subcuencas
Número de
hectáreas del
componente de
enriquecimiento
forestal y
regeneración
natural
Número de
hectáreas de
áreas continuas
Número de
hectáreas de
enriquecimiento
Áreas protegidas
Número de
Áreas Protegidas
con Plan de
Manejo
Aprobado
Número total de
hectáreas
incorporadas al
Programa de
Incentivos
Unidad de
medida
Fuente de
datos
Principalmente
utilizado por
Porcentaje (%)
ANAM
ANAM
Porcentaje (%)
Vicepresidencia
Ejecutiva de
Ambiente, Agua
ACP
Ha/anual
ANAM
MIVIOT
Hectáres
ANAM
ACP, ANAM
Hectáres
ACP, ACPMIDA-ANAM,
ONG
ACP
Hectáres
Vicepresidencia
Ejecutiva de
Ambiente, Agua
ACP
Número de
hectáreas
ACP-MIDAANAM
ACP
Número de
hectáreas
ACP-MIDAANAM
ACP
Porcentaje (%)
ANAM
ANAM,
MIVIOT
Número de Áreas
Protegidas
ANAM
MIVIOT
Hectáres
Vicepresidencia
Ejecutiva de
Ambiente, Agua
ACP
47 Económicos
Ambientales
Número de
hectáreas de
agroforestería
Número de
hectáreas de
silvopastoril
Proporción de
especies en
peligro de
extinción
Cambio del uso
del suelo
Porcentaje de
suelo urbano
según tipo
Uso del suelo
Porcentaje de
área edificada
según tipos de
usos
Número de
solicitudes de
cambio de uso
de suelo
aprobadas según
tipo por
corregimiento
Densidad de
solicitudes de
cambio de uso
de suelo
aprobadas por
manzana o
barrio
Número de
convocatorias de
participación
ciudadana para
aprobación de
cambios de usos
de suelo según
tipo por
corregimiento.
Hectáreas
catastradas
Número de
hectáreas
ACP-MIDAANAM
ACP
Número de
hectáreas
ACP-MIDAANAM
ACP
Porcentaje (%)
ANAM
ANAM
Porcentaje (%) de
cada categoría
ANAM
ANAM,
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
Porcentaje (%)
MIVIOT/
Documento
gráfico de
zonificación
MIVIOT/
Documento
gráfico de
zonificación
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
solicitudes
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
aprobaciones/
manzana o barrio
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
convocatorias de
participación
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
hectáreas
catastradas
ACP-ANATIMINGO
(Registro
Público)-
ACP
48 ANAM
Predios titulados
Número de
urbanizaciones
según etapa por
municipio
Número de lotes
según etapa por
municipio
Huertos
familiares
establecidos
Huertos
escolares
establecidos
Varios
Huertos
comunitarios
establecidos
Granjas de
producción auto
sostenibles
establecidas
Uso de
fertilizante
Uso del agua
Agua
Descargas de
aguas residuales
Calidad del agua
de los
principales ríos
de Panamá
Índice de
Calidad de Agua
(ICA)
Contaminación
por hidrocarburo
en los espacios
marítimos y
aguas interiores
de Panamá
Número de predios
titulados
ACP-ANATIMINGO
(Registro
Público)ANAM
ACP
Número de
urbanizaciones
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de lotes
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de huertos
Número de huertos
Despacho de la
Primera Dama /
MIDA / ACP
Despacho de la
Primera Dama,
MIDA-Caja de
Ahorros,
Fundación
Ingenia
ACP
ACP
Número de huertos
Despacho de la
Primera Dama
ACP
Número de granjas
Patronato de
Nutrición
ACP
kg
ANAM
ANAM
Porcentaje (%)
ANAM
ANAM,
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
ANAM
ANAM
Porcentaje (%) de
cada categoría
ANAM
ANAM,
MIVIOT
Valór de índice
Vicepresidencia
Ejecutiva de
Ambiente, Agua
ACP
m3
ANAM
ANAM
49 Aire
Clima
Número de
estaciones de
monitoreo de
calidad del agua
Número de
Comités Locales
Constituíos para
la gobernanza
del agua
Número de
Consejos
Consultivos
Constituíos para
la gobernanza
del agua
Índice de
sostenibilidad de
la Cuenca
Hidrográfica del
Canal de
Panamá
Concentración
de material
particulado en
dos estaciones
(Univ. Pmá y
San Miguelito)
de la ciudad de
Panamá
Concentración
de dióxido de
nitrógeno en dos
estaciones
(Univ. Pmá y
San Miguelito)
de la ciudad de
Panamá
Consumo de
sustancias
agotardoras de la
capa de ozono
controladas en
Panamá: CFCs,
HCFs
Número de
estaciones de
monitoreo de la
calidad del aire
Índice de
severidad al
Número de
estaciones
ANAM/
ETESA/ INEC
MIVIOT
Número de
Comités Locales
Constituíos
Vicepresidencia
Ejecutiva de
Ambiente, Agua
ACP
Número de
Consejos
Consultivos
Constituíos
Vicepresidencia
Ejecutiva de
Ambiente, Agua
ACP
Valór de índice
Vicepresidencia
Ejecutiva de
Ambiente, Agua
µg/m3
ANAM
ANAM
µg/m3
ANAM
ANAM
Toneladas métricas
ANAM
ANAM
Número de
estaciones
ANAM/
ETESA/ INEC
MIVIOT
Severidad:
Marginal, Baja,
CATHALAC
MIVIOT
50 cambio climaticó
(CCSI)
Severidad del
cambio en la
temperatura
Severidad del
cambio en la
precipitación
Precipitación
Energía
Temperatura
Número de
estaciones
metereológicas
Intensidad
Energética del
Producto Interno
Bruto
Proporción de
Recursos
Energéticos
Renovables en la
Oferta Total de
Energía:
Intensidad del
Flujo Vehicular
Desastres
Naturales y
riesgo
Ocurrencia de
Inundaciones y
Deslizamientos
Número de
desastres
ocurridos al año
x tipo
Número de
personas
afectadas al año
x tipo de
desastres
Número de
viviendas
afectadas al año
x tipo de
desastres
Número de
instalaciones
educativas
aseguradas ante
Media, Alta, Muy
Alta. Extrema
Severidad:
Marginal, Baja,
Media, Alta, Muy
Alta. Extrema
Severidad:
Marginal, Baja,
Media, Alta, Muy
Alta. Extrema
Nivel de
precipitación
˚C
CATHALAC
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
ETESA
MIDA
ETESA
MIDA
Número de
estaciones
ANAM/
ETESA/ INEC
MIVIOT
bep/PIB en
millones de
Balboas
ANAM
ANAM
Porcentaje (%)
ANAM
ANAM
ANAM
ANAM
ANAM
ANAM
Número de
desastres
DesInventar
MIVIOT
Número de
personas afectadas
DesInventar
MIVIOT
Número de
viviendas
DesInventar
MIVIOT
Número de
instalaciones
MEDUCA
MIVIOT
No. de vehículos
en circulación por
Kilómetros
No. de
inundaciones y
deslizamientos
51 desastres
Número de
instalaciones de
salud seguras y
evaluadas ante
desastres
Número de
viviendas en
áreas
susceptibles a
deslizamientos
Número de
viviendas en
áreas de
servidumbre de
ríos y quebradas
Número de
viviendas en
áreas de
servidumbre de
playas y costas
Recursos
invertidos en
mitigación por
riesgos naturales
Recursos
invertidos en dar
respuesta a la
ocurrencia de
desastres
Recursos
invertidos en la
prevención ante
amenazas de
desastres
naturales
Recursos
invertidos en
seguros ante
desastres
naturales por
municipio
Recursos
invertidos en la
recuperación
ante desastres
naturales por
municipios
Número de
eventos de
Número de
instalaciones
MINSA
MIVIOT
Número de
viviendas
SINAPROC/
ANAM/
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
viviendas
SINAPROC/
ANAM/
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
viviendas
SINAPROC/
ANAM/
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
$
SINAPROC/
ANAM/
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
$
SINAPROC/
ANAM/
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
$
SINAPROC/
ANAM/
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
$
SINAPROC/
ANAM/
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
$
SINAPROC/
ANAM/
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de eventos
MIVIOT/
SINAPROC
MIVIOT
52 desastres
atendidos en el
año
Número de
programas de
prevención y
mitigación
elaborados por
municipio
Registro de
actividades
preventivas y de
mitigación de
emergencias
(naturales y
antrópicas)
% del área
urbana existente
en zonas de
riesgo
% del área rural
existente en
zonas de riesgo
% de suelo
definido como
prioritario por
municipio
% de suelo
definido como
diferido por
municipio
Número de
asentamientos
informales
existentes
Número de
asentamientos
informales
nuevos
Número de
familias por
asentamientos
informales
Número de lotes
por asentamiento
informal
Número de
asentamientos
informales
legalizados
Número de
programas
Municipios/
MEF
MIVIOT
Número de
programas
SINAPROC
MIDA
Porcentaje (%)
SINAPROC/
ANAM
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
SINAPROC/
ANAM
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
asentamientos
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
asentamientos
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
familias
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de lotes
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
asentamientos
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
53 Número de
asentamientos
informales
trasladados
debido a
ubicarse en áreas
de riesgo a
desastres
Número de casas
condenadas y
por condenar
Número de
funcionarios
asignados a la
inspección del
cumplimiento de
las normas de
construcción y
zonificación
urbana
Número de
funcionarios
capacitados para
la evaluación del
riesgo de
desastres en los
proyectos de
desarrollo
urbano
Número de
funcionarios
capacitados y
asignados para la
respuesta a
desastre por
municipio
Número de
Sistemas de
Alerta Temprana
existentes y en
funcionamiento
Número de
personas
capacitadas en
temas de
divulgación
sobre la
existencia de
amenazas por
municipio
Número de
asentamientos
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de casas
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
funcionarios
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
funcionarios
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
funcionarios
MIVIOT/
SINAPROC/
Municipios
MIVIOT
Número de
Sistemas de Alerta
Temprana
SINAPROC
MIVIOT
Número de
personas
SINAPROC
MIVIOT
54 Recursos
marinos
costeros
Recursos
agropecuarios
Salud humana
Número de
escuelas con
programas de
capacitación en
desastres
naturales por
municipio
Regulación de la
Pesca (Numero
de Especies
Restringidas
para la Pesca)
Producción
Nacional de
Camarones
Número de
escuelas
SINAPROC/
MEDUCA
MIVIOT
No. de especies
restringidas
ANAM
ANAM
Toneladas métricas
ANAM
ANAM
Casos reportados
de Enfermedades
en animales.
Números de
animales enfermos
Rendimientos de
cultivos por
rubro (café,
maíz, arroz y
fríjol)
Producción/Unidad
de área
Quintal/Hectárea
Presencia de
Plagas en
cultivos
Número de
especimenes o
individuos
Número de
instalaciones de
salud por nivel
de atención
Número de
centros/puestos
de salud
construidos y/o
mejorados
Enfermedades de
obligatorio
reporte
Tasa de
mortalidad por
MIDA,
Dirección
Nacional de
Salud Animal
Dirección
Nacional de
Agricultura,
Dirección
Sectorial de
Planificación de
Política
Agropecuaria y
Agencias del
MIDA.
Dirección
Nacional de
Sanidad
Vegetal,
Departamento
de Vigilancia
Fitosanitaria.
MIDA
MIDA
MIDA
Número de
instalaciones
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
centros/puestos
MINSA, PAN,
PRODEC
ACP
Número de
reportes
MINSA
ANAM
Número de
decesos por 1000
INEC/ Base de
datos de
MIVIOT
55 Agua potable
Agua Potable,
Saneamiento, y
Desechos
Saneamiento
enfermedades
transmisibles
Tasa de
mortalidad por
enfermedades no
transmisibles
Población con
acceso a sistema
de
abastecimiento
mejorado de
agua para beber
Porcentaje de
viviendas con
dotación de agua
potable según
barrios
Porcentaje de
comunidades/
viviendas que
cuentan con
acuerductos
rurales
Población
servida de agua
potable
Producción
diaria de agua
potable por
habitante servido
Conexiones de
agua con y sin
medidor por
municipio
Consumo de
agua potable tipo
residencial por
municipio
Númeroo de
juntas de agua
locales por
municipio
Población con
acceso a sistema
de saneamiento
mejorado
Porcentaje de
viviendas con
dotación de
alcantarillado
personas
defunciones
Número de
decesos por 1000
personás
INEC/ Base de
datos de
defunciones
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
ANAM
ANAM
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
MINSA
MIDA
Personas
IDAAN
MIVIOT
(m3/día/hab)
IDAAN
MIVIOT
Número de
conexiones
IDAAN
MIVIOT
m3/municipio
IDAAN
MIVIOT
Númeroo de juntas
MINSA
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
ANAM
ANAM
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
MIVIOT
56 Desechos
Varios
Gestión
ambiental
Características
Características
demográficas /
generales
socioeconómicas
público según
barrios
Volumen vertido
de desechos
sólidos en el
relleno sanitario
de Cerro Patacón
Porcentaje de
viviendas con
servicio de carro
colector de
basura según
barrios
Índice de
población con
servicios básicos
insuficientes
Índice de
Desempeño
Ambiental
Corporativo
(IDAC)
Tasa de
crecimiento
anual
t/hab
ANAM
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
MIVIOT
--
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
MIVIOT
Valór de índice
Vicepresidencia
Ejecutiva de
Ambiente, Agua
ACP
Porcentaje (%)
Total de
pobloción
Número de
personas
Total de
viviendas
Número de
viviendas
Densidad de
población
Personas / km2
Estructura por
edad y sexo
Como % del total
Atracción
migratoria
reciente
Construcción de
nuevas viviendas
recientes
Número de
viviendas de
interés social
construidas y/o
mejoradas
Índice de
dependencia
Proporción
% proporción de
nuevas viviendas
del total
INEC/ Censo y
Proyeccione s
de Población
INEC/ Censo y
Proyeccione s
de Población
INEC/ Censo y
Proyeccione s
de Población
INEC/ Censo y
Proyeccione s
de Población
INEC/ Censo y
Proyeccione s
de Población
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de
viviendas
MIVIOT
ACP
Proporción
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
MIVIOT
57 económica
Índice de
precariedad de la
vivienda
Proporción de
población
indígena
Índice de
dispersión
No de abonados
a la telefonía
celular por
corregimiento
No de antenas de
telefonía celular
por
corregimiento
No de
computadoras
por
corregimiento
y/o municipio
Tasa de
criminalidad
No de estaciones
de policía por
municipio
Tasa de
mortalidad por
violencias
(causas externas)
Desarollo
económico
Niveles de Vida
-Porcentaje (%)
--
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
MIVIOT
Número
ASEP
MIVIOT
Número
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
MIVIOT
Proporción
INEC/ Panamá
en Cifras
MIVIOT
Número
Policía Nacional
MIVIOT
Número de
decesos por 1000
personas
INEC/ Base de
datos de
defunciones
MIVIOT
PIB por
provincia
$
PIB per cápita
por provincia
$/personas
Distribución del
PIB provincial
por sectores
Monto del
presupuesto
municipal anual
Presupuesto
municipal anual
per cápita
Porcentaje de
población
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
$
$
INEC/ Informe
PIB por
provincias
INEC/ Informe
PIB por
provincias
INEC/ Informe
PIB por
provincias
INEC/ Informe
PIB por
provincias
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
$/personas
Municipios/
MEF
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censos y
Encuesta de
MIVIOT
58 ocupada en
actividades del
sector primario
Porcentaje de
población
ocupada en
actividades del
sector
secundario
Porcentaje de
población
ocupada en
actividades del
sector terciario
Ingreso
promedio
mensual de la
población
ocupada en
actividades del
sector primario
Ingreso
promedio
mensual de la
población
ocupada en
actividades del
sector
secundario
Ingreso
promedio
mensual de la
población
ocupada en
actividades del
sector terciario
% de personas
afiliadas al
sistema de
seguridad social
por municipio
Niveles de Vida
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censos y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censos y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
MIVIOT
$
INEC/ Censos y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
MIVIOT
$
INEC/ Censos y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
MIVIOT
$
INEC/ Censos y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
No de pequeñas
empresas
Número de
empresas
No de empresas
medianas
Número de
empresas
No de grandes
empresas
Número de
empresas
INEC/ Censos y
Encuesta de
Niveles de
Vida/ Caja de
Seguro Social
INEC/ Listado
de
establecimientos
INEC/ Listado
de
establecimientos
INEC/ Listado
de
establecimientos
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
59 Porcentaje de
población en
condiciones de
pobreza
Porcentaje de
población con
educación
superior
finalizada
Número de
centros escolares
construidos,
ampliados y/o
mejorados
Desarrollo
urbano
% de
crecimiento
urbano
% de población
urbana del
municipio
% de viviendas
nuevas
construidas
% de tenencia de
la vivienda
según tipo
Número de
edificaciones de
valor histórico o
arquitectónico
Número de
centros
educativos según
tipo
Kilómetros de
acera por
corregimiento
Densidad de
altura
predominante
por manzanas
Kilómetros de
carreteras y
caminos
mejorados,
rehabilitados y/o
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
Niveles de Vida
MIVIOT
Número de centros
escolares
MEDUCA,
PRODEC,
PAN,
ACP/PCAFPT,
ACP/PLEC,
Ingeniero Sin
Fronteras
ACP
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/
Cartografía
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
MIVIOT
Número de
edificaciones
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Número de centros
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Km
Número pisos /
manzanas
Km
INEC
Cartografía /
Ingeniería
Municipal/
MOP
MIVIOT/
Documento
gráfico de
zonificación
MOP
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
ACP
60 construidos
Áreas verdes
y espacio
público
Transporte
público
% de zonas
verdes por
corregimientos
Superficie de
zonas verdes per
cápita
Superficie de
parques per
cápita
Superficie de
plazas per cápita
No de áreas de
estacionamientos
Superficie en
áreas de
estacionamiento
% de superficie
ocupada en
Centros
Comerciales
Área de
cobertura del
sistema de buses
Tiempo
promedio de
viaje en bus
Horas de
servicio
promedio por día
del sistema de
transporte
público
Costo promedio
del viaje en
transporte
público colectivo
Costo promedio
del viaje en
transporte
público selectivo
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/
Cartografía
MIVIOT
Ha/hab
INEC/
Cartografía
MIVIOT
Ha/hab
INEC/
Cartografía
MIVIOT
Ha/hab
Número de áreas
Ha
INEC/
Cartografía
INEC/
Cartografía/
Municipios
INEC/
Cartografía/
Municipios
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/
Cartografía/
Municipios
MIVIOT
Ha
ATTT
MIVIOT
Horas, minutas
ATTT
MIVIOT
Horas
ATTT
MIVIOT
$
ATTT
MIVIOT
$
ATTT
MIVIOT
% de hogares
con automóvil
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo y
Encuesta de
Niveles de vida
MIVIOT
Número de
autobuses del
transporte
público por ruta
Número de
autobuses
ATTT
MIVIOT
61 Desarollo
rural
% de superficie
dedicada a
cultivos
temporales
% de superficie
dedicada a
cultivos
permanentes
% de superficie
dedicado a cría
de ganado
vacuno
Número de
explotaciones
dedicadas a cría
de ganado aviar
Número de
explotaciones
dedicadas a cría
de ganado
porcino
% de superficie
dedicada a
actividades
agroforestales
% de superficie
dedicada a
minería metálica
y no metálica
% de personas
dedicadas a
actividades de
pesquerías
% de superficie
dedicada a la
producción
hidroeléctrica
Número de
empresas
dedicadas a
actividades
hoteleras,
restaurantes y
turismo
Número de lotes
titulados
% de superficie
rural titulada por
municipio
Número de
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
Agropecuario
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
Agropecuario
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
Agropecuario
MIVIOT
Número de
explotaciones
INEC/ Censo
Agropecuario
MIVIOT
Número de
explotaciones
INEC/ Censo
Agropecuario
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
Agropecuario
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
Agropecuario
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
INEC/ Censo
Agropecuario
MIVIOT
Número de
empresas
INEC/ Censo
Agropecuario
MIVIOT
Número de lotes
ANATI
MIVIOT
Porcentaje (%)
ANATI
MIVIOT
Número de
MIVIOT
MIVIOT
62 urbanizaciones
aprobadas en
áreas rurales por
municipio
Número de
acueductos
rurales
construidos y/o
mejorados
Educación
ambiental
Promedio anual
de personas que
participan en
actividades de
educación y
sensibilización
ambiental para la
conservación del
recurso hídrico
Promedio anual
de docentes que
participan en
educación
ambiental en la
Cuenca
urbanizaciones
Número de
acueductos rurales
PAN,
PRODEC,
IDAAN,MINSA- ACPComité Local y
Junta Comunal,
MINSA
ACP
Número de
personas
ACPMEDUCA,
ACP-INADEHMEDUCA
ACP
Número de
docentes
ACP-MEDUCA
ACP
63 IX.3 Appendix III: Results of Rural Discussion Group- Identified
themes of importance
* Green boxes denote themes for which indicators exist in the compiled list of indicators
(Appendix 2)
GDP
Poverty
Agricultural resources
and yield
Consumption levels
Income levels
Economic activity
(primary, secondary,
tertiary)
Local vs. foreign
investment
Total mentions:
Total themes:
Social
Environmental
Economic
6
5
5
1
1
1
1
20
7
Water (quality, quantity,
use)
Change in land use
(includes forest cover and
reforestation)
Climate change
Natural disasters
Protected areas
Reforestation
Climate change secondary
effects (eg. sea level rise)
Vulnerability of the
watershed
Total mentions:
Total themes:
11
16
2
2
1
1
1
1
35
8
Households with basic
services (drinkable water,
sanitation)
Education level
Human health (mortality,
morbidity, life
expectancy)
Energy consumption per
capita
Access to land and
property ownership
Migration
Vulnerability to climate
change
Malnutrition
Educational education
Environmentally-caused
illnesses
Number of fishermen
Social participation in
environmental efforts
Waste production
Food security
Total mentions:
Total themes:
64 8
7
7
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
38
14

Documentos relacionados