36. Measurement and assessment of indicators

Lead Papers

Dr. Grigori Abramia,Mark Anielski, MALIK AMIN ASLAM, Dr. Peter Bartelmus, Dr. Keith G. Brown,Ronald Colman, Karine Danielyan, David Del Porto, Dr. ir. J.Dewulf and J. Mulder and H.J. van der Kooi and J. de Swaan Arons, Dott. Giuseppe Di Vita, Michele Doncaster, Alexey Drouziaka, Germain Dufour, Louise Dunne and Frank Convery, David S. Evans, C. Coulthard, I. Henderson, P. Jones, Oleg Garms, Dr. Anastassios Gentzoglanis, Dr. Hans W. Gottinger, Nikolai Grishin and Olga Tokmakova, Dr. Tee L. Guidotti, Xiaohui Hao, Mikylas Huba, Vladimír Hudek,Vladimir Ira, Dr. A.Jagadeesh, Kun H. JOHN and Yeo C. Youn and Jae W. Park , S. Augustinand J. Katima and E. Klawe and B. Lyimo, Natalia Knijnikova, ANITA KON,Dr. Vladimir Kremsa, Elena Krougikova, Ms. Maria V. Kryukova, Van Lantz, Tonu Lausmaa, Ming Lei, Ngo Louga Madeleine, Igor N. Malakhov, Dr. Sue L.T. McGregor, Marin R. Mehandjiev (Professor) and Krassimira R. Mehandjieva, Mr. Aubrey Meyer,Laszlo Miklos, Jose H. Moya, Dr. Yew-Kwang Ng, Anatoly Nikitin and Sofia Nikitina, Vincent Otto, Roland Prelaz-Droux, Akim Rahman, Dr. C. Ramachandraiah, Dr. B. Sudhakara Reddy, S. S. Sundarvel, Dirgha N. Tiwari, Pavel Toma,S.G. Patil* and L.B. Hugar* and M.S. Veerapur* and, J. Yerriswamy* and T. Cross† and A.C. vanLoon† and G.W. vanLoon†, Kamil Vilinovic and Milan Chrenko,DSc. Professor William M. Zadorsky, Dr. Katalin K. Zaim, Dr. ZhongXiang Zhang

 Anielski examined the latest evidence of the US Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for 1998 reveals a continued decline in the well-being of the households of the nation whilst economic growth has continued to grow. The trend of declining GPI in the 1990s continued in 1998 though there were promising signs that income inequality had moderated. Comparing the Canadian GPI estimates with the US GPI estimates reveals Canada outperforming the US in terms of this broad measure of well-being, certainly since the early 1980s. Improvements in accounting for well-being are many. A new architecture for accounting for the real wealth and sustainable income of provinces or nations is examined that is more aligned with the accounting framework of firms than with traditional national income accounts. The development of a total wealth balance sheet and sustainable progress income statements is proposed and work is beginning on piloting such a new wealth accounting system for Alberta and Yukon through the Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development. Such accounts would provide a transparent and unbiased account of the genuine state of all living and produced capital assets and liabilities while also redefining income in accordance with the notion of sustainable income – that is, the maximum amount that a nation (or state) can consume while ensuring that all future generations can have living standards that are at least as high as that of the current generation. 

 Colman mentioned that the GPI Atlantic recently found that a 10% shift from truck to rail freight would save Nova Scotian taxpayers $11 million a year when the costs of greenhouse gas emissions, road accidents and road maintenance costs are included. Telecommuting just two days per week would save $2,200 annually per employee when travel time, fuel, parking, accident, air pollution and other environmental and social costs are included. All this spending is currently counted as "progress" by the GDP, while telecommuting and car-pooling slows GDP growth. By contrast, the full cost-benefit accounting method of the GPI would lend more support to taxation policies and subsidy incentives that support mass transit alternatives and other more sustainable practices.

 Danielyan explained that with consideration of the given forth constituent (SHDI = HDI + Pe) the Human Development Index may already be qualified as Sustainable Human Development Index. The scale of countries, ranged according to SHDI, will undergo considerable changes in comparison with the one, based on the rating according to HDI, depending on the degree of rational use of natural resources. This technique has been successfully approved by us basing on the statistical material of Armenia (Pe = - 0,427, SHDI = 0,404) and Georgia (Pe = - 0,237, SHDI = 0,592). The evaluation has been carried out on the base of the data of 1990 (the year was chosen as the most stable and provided with statistics within the last period of time). Thus, Armenia outstripped Georgia in the scale elaborated by UNDP on the base of HDI, while taking into consideration the environmental indicator the countries exchange their places. To certain extent it can be asserted that Pe makes it possible to evaluate the portion of the contribution made by countries into the general environmental degradation on the planet. Thus, Pe of Armenia, which is equal to 0,427 (the limits are 0 and 1) may indicate the following: the country is included into the group of countries, whose environmental characteristic is entirely adequate to the general situation on the Earth and almost does not diverge for either the better or the worst.

  Del Porto mentioned that the Coefficient of Sustainability is a working tool to measure Sustainability from a variety of perspectives that could be utilized by practitioners to assess a value for Sustainability that could be understood by a diverse population from businessmen and planners who will see this as a cost/benefit analysis for budgeting resources and planning to social scientists who would seek to quantify the externalities imbedded in the concepts "Quality of Life" and measurable by economists when they use the term "Cost of Living".

 J. Dewulf, J. Mulder, H. Van Langenhove, H.J. van der Kooi and J. de Swaan Arons describe the development of a parameter, which enables to quantify the sustainability of technological processes. Technology is one of the key processes in society: it delivers goods to people starting from resources out of the ecosphere; however simultaneously it emits waste products into the environment. The parameter quantifying the sustainability of technology proposed in this work is based on thermodynamics; energy carriers and materials (products, waste, …) are expressed in the same unit: exergy. The developed parameter includes three aspects. It contains a factor reflecting to which extent renewable resources are used. Next, the technological efficiency affects the sustainability coefficient. Finally, it takes into account the generation of waste products and the energy required for converting the waste into products harmless for or assimilable in the ecosphere. The developed parameter was applied for two types of processes. In a first application, ethanol production was studied. Two typical production routes were investigated, i.e. starting from fossil oil and from agricultural products. Additionally, a route based on the synthesis from CO2 and H2 was examined, in which H2 was generated by hydrolysis powered by photovoltaic solar energy conversion. Next to ethanol production, electricity generation by natural gas and by photovoltaics were compared.the approach demonstrates that technologies used nowadays are always not completely unsustainable (S>0), since they all deliver a product with an exergetic content higher than zero. The developed coefficient S covers the whole life cycle of a product, starting from the resources delivered by the ecosphere, down to the emission of the waste products into the ecosphere. The current approach has taken into account the waste production of the technosphere, not only during the manufacturing of the ‘useful product’, but also during the use and in the disposal phase after the use of the ‘useful product’.

 Dott. Giuseppe Di Vita describes the effect of technological progress upon the waste produced and recycled. Section 3 shows the existence of an optimal stationary growth path, developing its diagrammatic analysis. Section 4 attempts to estimate the effects of waste recycling on the growth rate at which the economic system converges to the endogenous stationary growth path.

 Kun H. JOHN,Yeo C. Youn and Jae W. Park presented the  CVM as widely used nonmarket valuation method in developed countries but still a new research protocol in Korea, which is in a state of transition toward being a developed country. However, the valuation method elicited remarkable results: First, it spported the idea that the study framework using the CVM fits well to estimating values of ecological resources in Korea. Second, as the bequest non-use value implies, keeping ecological resources is expressly desired not only for the individuals' current satisfaction but also for the well-being of their next generation. While ecological preservation may constitute the financial impetus for farmers to practice environmentally safe farming, the estimated total benefits would seem to justify government compensation of land-holders for not converting land to commercial sites. Meanwhile, the multiplier effects generated by eco-tourism related business activities will permeate through the regional economy, which will eventually sustain itself in harmony with a healthy regional ecosystem. This nonmarket valuation study performed in the Choelwon area represents only a preliminary example of the kind of bio-reserve valuation and new decision making procedure in Korea with which policy makers are unfamiliar.

  Tõnu Lausmaa concludes that given Definition 2 one gets that the right to share global natural resources and dispose of waste depends on one’s contribution to the global technological progress. It means that the consumed amount of natural resource should be less than the total resource saving through the development of a more efficient production technology. High consumption level assumes a high rate of technology progress. As to the principle of global equity, everyone should have an equal access to the natural resources on the Earth, but no one has the right to use them as one may like. Limits and constraints should be put on both absolute consumption and the technology to be used.  As to the sustainable impact to the environment, it should be less than the natural restoration ability - nature should be able to restore the initial balance (the total tree cutting rate in a certain area should be less than the natural growth in that very area).  Unfortunately, a free market economy is antagonistic to the sustainable economy. In other areas of nowadays economy the progress has always been accompanied with such increase in consumption and over-dimensioned energy need that the overall effect is negative in respect to sustainability. In car industry, for instance, the efficiency rise in engine operation as an highly welcomed act towards sustainability is balanced by useless engine power rise to queue up the car in a traffic jam in some overpopulated town of the Western industrial world.
Sustainable economy is closely linked with the concept of information society, being characterized in terms of environmental space by high efficiency factors in respect to resource and waste dumping capacity. Following the path of sustainable economy, the efficiency factors of the economic potentials of the production processes increase steadily. Hence, the information share starts prevailing over the resource factor in the potential increasingly, and as a prospective, taking a dominant role in the potential evaluation. It means that we are approaching the information society.Lausmaa concludes that:  1. There is no need to limit the sustainable development concept to its initial political meaning as it can be reformulated to a strict scientific notion for an economy, encompassing finite exhaustible natural resources and finite saturable waste disposal capacities. 2. Sustainability requirement is not a restriction to a true development process of an economy but just an incentive to accelerate it. 3. Making production and consumption processes of an economy economical is not enough for guarantee sustainability in the economy if it is not accompanied with a constant rise in efficiency.

  Ming Lei discussed the method of maintenance cost in principle will compute the imputed environmental costs, which enables the measurement of qualitative and quantitative changes in the environment by estimating the required cost of maintaining the quality and quantity of the environment at a certain level. It will be necessary to assume a specific activity to keep the quality and quantity of the environment at a certain level for each of the natural assets considered.

 Dr. Igor N. Malakhov describes the integral index of quality of life (QL): 1. Processes of transforming industrial society to post-industrial has a transition state, which is called "Sustainable Development". This transition state needs new measurement indicators. It is necessary to reflect in this new system of indicators the priority of human rights both as economic and resource limits of civilisation. In general, SD is more than just a change in the structure of the economy. It is transition to a new quality of life for people of the community Thus, it is not enough to use only the traditional economic indicators, such as GNP. 2. A search for the new «Quality of Life» is a reflection of the deep processes of human evolution. It causes a change of evaluation criteria for global decision making. The decisions taken by top politicians and managers should be rather moral and fine than economically efficient only. 3. The new criterion of «Quality of Life» to be determinate by a presumable life length and available free time. This index is closely related with the geographic site of residence of the individual; also his demographic parameterise. I the final analysis, it describes a person and his/ her relationship with environment and society. On the other hand ,QL is a part of system of indicators that determines relationships between individuals and society. 4. The significance of shifting from consumption to contemplation is predetermined by increasing free time (ponderability) in comparison to the life length rather than by the absolute value of available free time. This is an economic sense of the future quality of life in a SD community.

 Prof. Dr. Marin R. Mehandjiev and Krassimira R. Mehandjieva explained that there are too many definitions about the notion "sustainable development" (SD), but almost all of them, including those of Brundtland Commission and of Agenda 21 can not pretend to have clear and universally applicable practical sense; they are just mottos and slogans. According to the notion of the Thermodynamics of Accumulation Processes (TAP) a stationary or developing system could be stationary one, in a most general sense, on condition that the quantitative alterations of its free thermodynamic potential and of its bound energy remain internally balanced. They propose the six Quantitative Sustainable Development Criteria.

  S.G. Patil, L.B. Hugar, M.S. Veerapur, J. Yerriswamy, T. Cross, A.C.vanLoon, and G.W. vanLoon have selected six categories of indicators of sustainability – productivity, efficiency, durability, stability, compatibility, and equity – that can be taken together in describing each system. These are defined as follows:
· Productivity is measured in the usual way as yield of crop per hectare
· Efficiency is measured primarily in terms of energy use and production, and is the ratio of energy output in the form of crop (both primary material, usually grain, and the additional biomass, such as straw)
· Durability is an index showing resistance to immediate stresses such as stress due to lack of water or to pests
· Stability is defined as the ability to produce adequately over an extended period of time.
· Compatibility is an indicator that relates the farming practices to the natural and human surroundings and includes issues such as biodiversity and human health.
· Equity relates to the need to carry out agriculture in a way that provides benefits to all members of society including landed and landless families, men, women and children.

Professor William M. Zadorsky  discussed about the ecological influence criterion (e.i.c.) allowing to evaluate degree of production technology perfection from view-point of interaction with environment is proposed V.Anikeev with co-autors . They suppose that " the most representative and useful ecological criterion is the ecological influence criterion k (e.i.c.)", which defines by formula: k = Wt /Wr = Wt /(Wt +Wc)

Dr. Katalin K. Zaim describes the IPPS method developed by the PRDEI in the World Bank allowed us to compute the yearly pollution intensities, toxic and metal pollution emissions to air, water and land for the industrial activities. The computations are performed for the years 1985 and 1992. The results indicate that the most relevant pollutants produced by industries are TSS, SO2, and CO. Toxic and metal pollution effected land mostly. Sectors responsible for the highest level of pollution are manufacture of other chemical product (31), manufacture of plastic product (35), manufacture of glass and glass product (36) and manufacture of cement (37). Manufacture of other chemical products created the largest amount of BOD emission. Plastic production caused NO2, VOC and polluted air, water and land with toxic pollution the most. Glass production results in the highest levels of PT and PM10 pollution. Cement manufacturing on the other hand caused the highest level of CO, SO2, TSS, metal air, metal water and metal land pollution. The regional distribution of pollution intensities, benefits of abatement, abatement costs and benefit/cost ratios are also computed for the year 1992. The results indicated that region 1 experienced the highest level of pollution, and region 3 the second highest. The other regions were exposed to lower level of pollution intensities. Similar results are obtained for the pollution per capita per km2.

Hundreds of indicators were suggested for the evaluation of sustainable development. Criteria were defined for evaluating indicators.

An indicator may have one or several of the following properties:

• Comprehensive and easily understood

• Meaningful for the public and decision makers

• Measurable in some ways

• Related to an issue or concern and responsive to change

• Integrate one or several components of the four major quality systems (social, environment, resources, economy)

• Measure progress towards the Vision of Year in year 2024

• May be of value locally, regionally, nationally and/or globally

An indicator measures the per cent of people on welfare, the number of welfare cases, multiplied by the average number of people per case, and divided by the total number of people in a region. Fewer people on welfare indicates a healthier  economy.

An indicator measures the volunteer rate by age and gender groups, and it represents the number of persons doing volunteer work as a percentage of the population. This indicator shows the extent to which people are involved in volunteer activities and are involved in meaningful and rewarding roles other than paid employment.

An evaluation of sustainable development consists of ranking risks relative to each other and to help deciding which practice is better than another. In 1988, the author has developed a scale of values, and has designed and tested indicators to represent quality of development. Hundreds of indicators were measured and integrated into an overall expression called the Gross Environmental Sustainable Development Index (GESDI). GESDI was developed to measure sustainable development locally and globally. It expresses the quality of our growth or development, and it describes environmental quality rather than merely measuring different environmental variables.

An other indicator was developed to measure the costs of development: the Gross Sustainable Development Product (GSDP).

The GSDP is defined as the total value of production within a region over a specified period of time. It is measured using market prices for goods and services transactions in the economy. The GSDP is designed to replace the Gross Development product (GDP) as the primary indicator of the economic performance of a nation. The GSDP takes into accounts:

· the economic impacts of environmental and health degradation or improvement, resource depletion or findings of new stocks, and depreciation or appreciation of stocks;
· the impact of people activity on the environment, the availability of resources, and economic development;
· the "quality" of the four major quality systems and the impacts of changes in these systems on national income and wealth;
· global concerns and their impacts on the economy;
· the welfare, economic development and quality of life of future generations;
· expenditures on pollution abatement and clean-ups, people health, floods, vehicle accidents, and on any negative impact costs;
· the status of each resource and the stocks and productive capacities of exploited populations and ecosystems, and make sure that those capacities are sustained and replenished after use; and
· the depreciation or appreciation of natural assets, the depletion and degradation of natural resources and the environment, ecological processes and biological diversity, the costs of rectifying unmitigated environmental damage, the values of natural resources, capital stocks, the impacts of degradation or improvement, social costs, health costs, environmental clean-up costs, and the costs of the environment, economic growth, and resources uses to current and future generations and to a nation’s income.

The measurement of GSDP shows that consumption levels can be maintained without depleting and depreciating the quality and quantity of services. It indicates the solutions to the problems as well as the directions to take, such as:

· invest in technology, R & D, to increase the end-use efficiency;
· increase productivity;
· modify social, educational programs and services;
· slow down or increase economic growth;
· remediate components of the four major quality systems; and
· rectify present shortcomings of income and wealth accounts.

The measurement of GSDP also gives a proper and sound signal to the public, government and industry about the rate and direction of economic growth; it identifies environmental, health, and social quality; it identifies sustainable and unsustainable levels of resource and environmental uses; it measures the success or failure of sustainable development policies and practices; and it identifies resource scarcity. Values obtained enable us to make meaningful comparisons of sustainable development between cities, provinces, nations over the entire planet.

We are here to find ways to measure sustainable development on an annual basis, propose policies to The Global Community, and show the direction to take to better sustain Earth.

Comments and Recommendations from Participants

Our names:    JHY Katima, S. Augustin, B. Lyimo and E. Kilawe

Our Opinion

The Model is very good. It gives a value which can easily be used to present a case to decision makers on the sustainability of a given project.

However, during our discussion there are issues which we would like some clarification.

1. The weighting method is subjective. These mostly will depend on ones belief, perception and values. Have you experienced this in your research? One may think the weighting should be done by a team of experts, if yes how many?

2. How does the model account for external factors which influence local processes. For example the IMF and World Bank prescribing some economic recovery measures which at times are not even applicable in the developed world, e.g. prescribing removal of subsidies from farm implements while you have a highly subsidized agricultural industry in the developed world.

3. Can the model be used to assess the global sustainable development. Here we are looking at the current trend of local environmental problems with local impact are left to be solved locally with consequence to sustainable development (the majority of these are found in developing world). Locally produced environmental problems with global impact (mainly from developed world) to be handled by the global community with consequence to sustainable development to the developing world.

4. In a list of people or social aspects we think that issues like Stopping trading in arms or in items that fuel conflicts (case example is Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Siera Leon), Position of disadvantaged groups, Imbalance world trade should be included. Under economic development aspect. The issues of competitiveness of economies in the world and ensuring sound sustainable development, we think the concept of MIGHT IS RIGHT AND MIGHT WILL PREVAIL will be the end result if there is no measures to empower the weak economies to grow. Under the same topic we think issues like Listening All Voices (Equal bargaining Power), and World Trade Organisation should be included in the list.

5. Under availability of resources aspect. We think issue like Appropriate technology, Technology transfer and Affordability should be included.

The paper is good and model should probably be tested in other environmental setting (especially the third world environment).

Evaluation of indicators

A.   Population growth indicators
B.   Social indicators
C.   Family indicators
D.   The home transportation system indicator
E.   Environmental behavior outdoors indicators
F.   Environmental behavior at work indicator
G.   Communicating comprehensive environmental information indicator
H.   Education and training indicator
I.   Environmental emergencies indicator
J.   Aboriginal and treaty concerns indicator
K.   Government interactions indicators:
           K.1   Responsibility for environmental control in Canada
           K.2   Government legislative measures to protect the environment, social aspects, economic ans socail well-being of Canadians, and resources.
           K.3   Environmental strategies and programs
           K.4   Policies for protection of the environment
           K.5   Need for improved policy instruments
           K.6   Economic instruments, market forces and partnerships
           K.7   An environmental tax
           K.8   Polluter-pays Principle
L.   Land use indicator
M.   Environmental planning and design indicator
N.   Transportation sector indicators and indices
           N.1   Transportation and the environment indicators and indices
           N.2   Urban transport management indicators
           N.3   Improving the environment by taking actions related to vehicle use
           N.4   Transportation impacts indicators
           N.5  Environmental and health impacts of private vehicle use
           N.6   Environmental and health impacts of diesel emissions compared with those from other engines
           N.7   Air pollution caused by the transportation sector
           N.8   Alternative fuels indicator
           N.9   Fuel consumption indicator
O.   Noise pollution indicators and indices
P.   Sustainable and community development indicators and indices
           P.1   Decent housing indicators
           P.2   An atmosphere of social justice indicator
           P.3   Proper land planning indicator
           P.4   Aesthetic satisfaction indicator
           P.5   Personal security from crimes indicator
           P.6   Suitable community services, infrastructures and facilities indicators and indices
           P.7   Health care system
           P.8   Educational system
           P.9    Seniors'care
           P.10    Food chain, nutrition
           P.11   Farming communities
           P.12   Parks
           P.13    Spiritual pathways
           P.14   Entertainment
           P.15    Pollution, waste
           P.16   Family stability
           P.17   Religion
           P.18   Juvenile crimes, gangs, drugs, illiteracy
           P.19  Socio-cultural and political influences, multi-culturalism
                      P.20    laws
           P.21  Responsive government subject to community participation in decision-making;
           P.22  Energy conservation and energy efficiency are part of the decision-making process and made part of the community design;
           P.23  The application of the 4 Rs is integrated in the community design;
           P.24  Community businesses, working areas, play areas, social and cultural areas, education areas, and training areas;
           P.25  The use of renewable energy sources, central heating where possible, and cogeneration of electricity are made part of the community design when possible;
           P.26  The form of community development integrates concepts such as cooperation, trust, interdependence, stewardship, and mutual responsibility;
           P.27  Promote self-sufficiency in all areas such as energy, garbage, food and sewage disposal;
           P.28  Rely on locally-produced goods.
Q. Quality of life indicators and indices
R. Employment indicator
S. Social and economic well-being indicators
T. Health sector indicators and indices:
           T.1 The health dimension indicator
           T.2 Health costs indicator
           T.3 Genetics
           T.4 The food chain indicators and indices
           T.5 Medical wastes indicator
           T.6 Nutrition indicator
           T.7 Biological indicator
           T.8 Psychological indicator
U. Evolution indicator
V. Cultural indicators and indices
W. Information access indicator
X. Education and communication indicators and indices

Evaluation of Social Issues and Concerns

1. Employment by occupation and economic activity
2. Traffic and Congestion
3. Taxes
4. Quality of Life
5. Prevention and control of infectious diseases
6. Social Services
7. Food chain
8. Senior’s care
9. Farming communities
10. Psychological
11. Biological
12. Parks
13. Genetics
14. Evolution
15. Spiritual pathways
16. Entertainment
17. Customs and beliefs
18. Communications
19. Decent housing
20. Suitable community services
21. Aesthetics
22. Juvenile crimes
23. Gangs
24. Family stability
25. Religion
26. Infrastructures and facilities
27. Land planning
28. Socio-cultural and political influences
29. Multi-culturalism
30. Aboriginals, Natives
31. Illiteracy
32. Healthy environment
33. Health care
34. Health sector reform
35. Health is affected by chemical contamination of air, water , and food; exposure to hazardous wastes; social diseases of violence and crime; traffic; accidents
36. Interactions between health, human development, and environment
37. Wars
38. Tolerance and peace between countries
39. Conflicts
40. Security
41. Intellectual Property Rights
42. Human Rights
43. Social Justice
44. Interaction between socioeconomic development and ecological change (and in terms of species destruction, settlement patterns, population size and distribution, resource depletion, waste generation, consumption practices, environmental degradation and social pathology)
45. Rising rates of violence and delinquency
46. Cross-border pollution agreements
47. Government measures for the conservation and wise use of natural resources
48. Disabled
49. Aging
50. Cultural Diversity
51. Sharing of ecologically sound technologies between countries
52. Joint actions between countries
53. Relations among local communities and sustainable development
54. Indigenous Peoples
55. Minority Ethnic Groups
56. Children
57. Youth
58. Distribution of Income
59. Consumption
60. Food Production
61. Malnutrition
62. Eradication of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition
63. Trade Unions
64. Public Hearings
65. Referendums
66. Citizen Advisory Boards
67. Crime
68. Drugs
69. Sexual Diseases
70. Public Administration
71. Pollution Prevention
72. Incorporation of environmental education along with multiethnic, pluricultural, and multilingual education in school
73. Education: access, by gender, distance learning, school programs
74. Quality of Education: public and private schools, college, university, institute of technology
75. Promote education projects that are relevant to sustainable development
76. Science and Technology
77. Training
78. Unemployment
79. Health: services, cost
80. Environmental effects on health
81. Population
82. Language
83. Cultural Characteristics
84. Demographics
85. Human Settlements
86. Life Expectancy
87. Poverty
88. First Nations
89. Poverty Alleviation
90. Community Empowerment
91. Community Actions
92. Promotion of Environmental Awareness
93. Schools
94. Wealth
95. Government actions and instruments to prevent and control pollution and harmful impacts on natural resources and the environment
96. Laws, Regulations, Guidelines: municipal, national and international
97. Laws, Regulations, Guidelines and their effectiveness in specific regions
98. National Environmental Institutions
99. Mechanisms for citizen participation
100. Declarations, action plans of worldwide scope
101. Electronic consultation
102. International Treaties and other binding and nonbinding instruments concerning the sustainable development
103. Local Authorities
104. Non-Government Organizations
105. Government Commitment
106. Global Agreements and Commitments
107. Living Standards
108. Land Use
109. Surface Areas
110. Urbanization
111. Home and Community Development
112. Measurement of Indicators
113. Monitoring
114. Making results of measurements available on the Internet
115. Globalization
116. Social well-being
117. Opportunity for youth
118. Improving quality of family life
119. Developing healthy lifestyles
120. Home and community development
121. Serving as the Global Community Assessment Centre of indicators about global changes
122. Dedicated to increasing public awareness about issues of global concern
123· Working in cooperation with individuals, industry, and government to create a global value shift toward a sustainable future for Earth
124· Disseminating information on sustainable development
125· Promoting international cooperation and a Global Community Sustainable Development through seminars and conferences, and a World Congress
126· Providing strategies for global communities to achieve environmental, health and safety excellence and economic success
127· Providing a link between scientists, officials from all levels of government, economists, statisticians, environmentalists, ecologists, renewable and non-renewable resources specialists, business leaders, non-governmental organizations, educators, health and social experts, Aboriginals and Natives, home and community planners, and the public to explore local and global sustainable development issues under the theme

Global Community Action 1 :

· Insuring a Sound Future for Earth
· Measuring and Managing Sustainable Development

128· Serving the scientific community as a forum for the presentation and discussion of important issues related to sustainable development
129· Generating a Global Community dialogue about and for peace and sound solutions to that effect
130· Providing a Global Online Community for the general public and the opportunity for involvement and feedback into projects and programs
131· Providing the Global Community with sound solutions related to home and community sustainable development, environmental designs and sustainable buildings
132· Committed to the sustainable end of world hunger by finding sound solutions to development
133· Promoting the global adoption of energy-efficiency in order to enable a sustainable economic development and an ecological sustainable development
134· Performing Global review of projects, examine alternatives, and formulates guidelines and criteria for future local and global development
135· Establishing a permanent global dialogue on measuring and managing sustainable development
136· Establishing a permanent global dialogue on finding sound solutions to sustainable development
137· Establishing a permanent global dialogue to ensure a sound future for Earth
138· Mechanisms for citizen participation to finding sound solutions
139· Coordinating the assessment of local and global indicators along with other national and international organizations
140· Establishing accounting and valuation on sustainable development; making results available to governments, research institutions, NGOs from all countries
141. Establishing the Global Community network that will conduct annual assessments of sustainable development indicators and making results available on the Internet
142· Providing gross global indicators to the global community:

1. Gross Environmental Sustainable Development Index (GESDI); and

2. Gross Sustainable Development Product (GSDP).

142· Developing projects and programs to promote the Global Community concept in school and for the general Public
143· Establishing a warning system on environmental hazards and emergencies to prevent disasters from happening
144· Helping countries to prevent and peacefully settle environmental disputes by initiating a process for dialogue and finding solutions
145· Proposing a local and global Code of criminal law governing transnational offenses
146. Proposing minimum standards of punishment for transboundary criminal behavior
147· Proposing joint legal instruments and policies to facilitate management of transboundary natural resources and border ecosystems, and to regulate the use of renewable natural resources
148· Proposing integrated accounts systems, business and industry accounts, economic policies, policy instruments, and private actions
149· Proposing policies and management practices to national and international organizations for the integration of environment and development at various stages of the decision-making process
150· Proposing joint projects between countries for resource management and control
151· Proposing to international institutions (World Bank, IMF, etc.) measurements of sustainable development be included in their statistics on socioeconomic, trade and financial performance
152· Proposing regulatory instruments on sustainable development
153. Lifestyles
154. Habits
155. Political influences