Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic Canada Indice de progrès véritable - Atlantique Towards a New Canadian Index of Wellbeing Social Policy, Research and Evaluation Conference Wellington, 25 November, 2004

Indicators: Where we are at in Canada and New Zealand Recognized inadequacy, flaws of conventional GDP-based measures of progress Understood potential power of indicators, role in determining policy agenda, and necessity for more accurate, comprehensive indicators Developed data sources, methodologies, reporting mechanisms for wide range of social, economic, environmental indicators

NZ on the leading edge Marilyn Waring’s pioneering work Quality of Life in NZ’s 8 Largest Cities -> 12 Monitoring Progress Towards a Sustainable NZ Social Reports (MSD) Tomorrow’s Manukau: A vision into the future Local Government Act 2002 Linked indicators project

Reaffirm goal: Good indicators can help communities:  foster common vision and purpose, and track progress in achieving goals;  identify strengths and weaknesses = learn;  affect policy and public behaviour = action;  hold leaders accountable at election time  improve wellbeing and ensure sustainable future for our children

Limitations & Next Steps Some new social targets, but not yet shifted policy agenda in fundamental ways, nor effectively challenged power and dominance of conventional measures Fringe, satellite vs mainstream No integrated, coherent system: - NZ – Social Report, QOL in 8 Cities report, Sustainable NZ report; - Canada – GPI, IEW, PSI, NRTEE – ESDI, QOLIP, etc.

In Canada, we’ve concluded four steps are needed: New measures can no longer just be “add-ons” or satellites, but must challenge and critique the still dominant GDP-based measures of progress One coherent, integrated framework to become new core measure of progress Internationally, regionally comparable Beyond indicators to a new set of national accounts – full national wealth

+ Language / Communication: “What kind of world are we leaving our children?”

Canadian Index of Wellbeing Partnership of Canada’s foremost indicator practitioners National Working Group of 20 includes: 3 govt. agencies (Statcan, Envt.Can, CIHI) + experts from 8 universities, 7 provinces, 5 non-government research organizations The process: Letting go….. Independent foundation founding

Key purposes of the new Canadian Index of Wellbeing To articulate vision of Canada’s future To account accurately for both current wellbeing and sustainability so trade-offs are clear and transparent To bring key social and environmental issues, often neglected, onto the policy agenda To enhance accountability To inform policy, improve performance, and evaluate program effectiveness

Purpose in relation to GDP CIW intent – To become Canada’s core, central measure of progress, and to replace misuse of GDP for that purpose (not abolish GDP!) To relegate GDP to function for which it was originally designed and intended – as measure of size of economy (Kuznets) To redefine ‘healthy economy’ in terms of wellbeing outcomes (e.g. jobs) instead of growth

CIW Key Principles Will focus on outcomes for key conditions of wellbeing Will measure wellbeing and sustainability in same reporting framework: Legacy (wellbeing of future generations + ours) = cross-cutting theme within every domain. This is unique (cf NZ, QOL) Report on determinants & infrastructural inputs (e.g. health care) within each outcome domain Framework = sustainability circle vs 3-legged stool or triple bottom line: Relationship

Natural environment Society Economy

Values, elements of wellbeing Health Security Knowledge Community Freedom Ecological integrity Equity(+ lit. review)

Outcome domains in the CIW Standard of living Time use (and balance) Healthy populace Educated populace Community vitality Ecosystem services Governance

Process and reporting Disaggregation - geographic (national, provincial, municipal) and demographic Multiple audiences: Report limited # of key messages for public, policy audience, but experts can drill down for analysis (iceberg metaphor) + technical rigour Double review process, public consultation, “cabinet” approach at release

Unresolved (parked) issues Some domains require further definition, indicator selection, literature review, data and methodology development – esp. education, community vitality, governance vs democracy, some environmental indicators and natural resource accounts (e.g. forests – qualitative + quantitative depreciation, water resources, waste) “Index” and aggregation to single # or sub- indices

More unresolved issues Beyond indicators to accounting framework: FCA and the capital approach (sustainability and monetization)? Global dimension - ethical relations w. other nations Communications and release strategies: - gradual as early results available or all at once? Data challenges – e.g. frequency (time use cf GDP). CIW function = create new data demands

E.g. Unresolved: Defining community vitality Safe communities Cohesion Inclusion Multiculturalism Identity Religion/spirituality Family Culture, arts, recreation

Fundamental approach to unresolved challenges Not allow the “tyranny of the best” to stand in the way of practical movement towards the “best possible” Transparent, open to change – better methodologies and data sources

Resolved – build on existing work. E.g. Standard of living Median income Income and wealth distribution (GINI, quintiles, SFS) Poverty and low income rates Income volatility (dynamics) Economic security (incl. social safety net) Employment, unemployment, underemployment, job security, work arrangements

E.g. Population health – health status and health care Self-rated health; functional health Disability-adjusted life expectancy Infant mortality, low birth weight Mortality + morbidity: circulatory diseases, cancers, respiratory diseases, diabetes Depression, suicide BMI, teen smoking, 2 nd -hand smoke exposure, physical activity

Resolved – e.g. 2 sides of sustainability equation Production (supply) and consumption (demand): CIW will reflect outcomes (resource supply), but demand (human activity) reported as determinant = the “why” Ecological footprint shifts onus, responsibility to consumer -> can mobilize citizens Recognizes global consequences of local actions Brings together the environmental and social aspects of sustainability (e.g. equity-Brundtland)

Brundtland definition of sustainable development “… physical sustainability implies a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation.” 20% of world’s people account for 86% of world’s consumption - 45% of all meat and fish; 58% of energy; 84% of paper; 87% of vehicles Poorest 20% = 1.3% of consumption

CIW Action on 3 fronts: Research, communication and policy. E.g.: NWG Ottawa Nov 8-9: Research has begun. Announcement in Feb-Mar; next NWG meeting in May to assess progress Reality Check, seminars, and press International dimension: NZ, Bhutan + Conference June on global best practices. Need cooperation sooner rather than later – before systems entrenched

CIW: Measuring what we value to leave a better world for our children

Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic Canada Indice de progrès véritable - Atlantique