SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY: A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL by Shahid Najam, UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in Turkey Two years ago, 2010 Human Development Report showed that there has being significant (and remarkable) progress in human development over the past several decades. But despite all that has been achieved, development progress in the world’s poorest countries could be halted or worse, reversed, by mid century unless bold steps are taken now to slow climate change, prevent further environmental damage and reduce inequalities among nations. The Human Development Report focuses on the challenge of sustainable and equitable progress. It provides a joint lens which shows how environmental degradation intensifies inequality especially for disadvantaged people and how inequalities also negatively affect the environment. It highlights the many ways that environmental challenges have a negative impact on human development at the household level. And we point to pathways to promote sustainable and equitable progress. We are concerned with sustainability because future generations should have at least the same possibilities as people today. The Concept and its Evolution Creators of the Human Development Reports are, Mahbub ul-Haq of Pakistan and his close friend and collaborator, Amartya Sen of India who worked with other leading development thinkers. Their concept has guided not just 20 years of global Human Development Reports, but more than 600 National Human Development Reports—all researched, written and published in their respective countries including Turkey—as well as the many regionally focused reports supported by UNDP‘s regional bureaux. The first report in 1990 opened by stating that ―People are the real wealth of a nation‖. This was obviously a reference to the book of 18th century Scottish thinker Adam Smith, called ―The Wealth of Nations.‖ With these words, these reports began a forceful case for a new approach to thinking about development. The report defined human development as a process of ‗enlarging people‘s choices‘. It emphasized the freedom to be healthy, to be educated and to enjoy a decent standard of living. It was continuing its definition with this sentence: “Additional choices include political freedom, guaranteed human rights and self respect - what Adam Smith called the ability to mix with others without being „ashamed to appear in public‟". Twenty years later, the report re-examines the concept with the benefit of hindsight and it concludes that it is as relevant as ever. 2010 report defines the Human Development concept as follows: “Human Development is the expansion of people‟s freedoms to live long, healthy and creative lives; to advance other goals they have reason to value; and to engage actively in shaping 1
development equitably and sustainably on a shared planet. People are both the beneficiaries and the drivers of human development, as individuals and in groups.” The reaffirmation underlines the core of human development – its themes of sustainability, equity and empowerment – and its inherent flexibility. In 2011, the definition is as follows: “Sustainable human development is the expansion of the substantive freedoms of people today while making reasonable efforts to avoid seriously compromising those of future generations.”
Human Development Index 2011 2011 Human Development Index covers record 187 countries and territories, puts Norway at top, DR Congo last. Norway, Australia and the Netherlands lead the world in the 2011 Human Development Index (HDI).
2
The Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger and Burundi are at the bottom of the Human Development Report‘s annual rankings of national achievement in health, education and income. The United States, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Germany and Sweden round out the top 10 countries in the 2011 HDI, How to calculate Human Development Index The Human Development Index (HDI) is an aggregate measure of progress in three dimensions—health, education and income. In this report the writers modified the indicators used to measure progress in education and income, and we change the way they are aggregated. In the knowledge dimension mean years of schooling replaces literacy, and gross enrolment is recast as expected years of schooling—the years of schooling that a child can expect to receive given current enrolment rates. Mean years of schooling is estimated more frequently for more countries and can discriminate better among countries, while expected years of schooling is consistent with the reframing of this dimension in terms of years. The writers also investigated alternative measures of the ability to enjoy a healthy life but found no viable and better alternative to life expectancy at birth. To measure the standard of living, gross national income (GNI) per capita replaces gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.1 The HDR team also reconsidered how to aggregate the three dimensions. A key change was to shift to a geometric mean (which measures the typical value of a set of numbers): thus from 2010 the HDI is the geometric mean of the three dimension indices. DIMENSIO NS
Long and healthy life
Knowledge
A decent standard of living
INDICATO RS
Life expectancy at birth
Mean years schooling / Expected years of schooling
GNI per capita (PPP $)
DIMENSIO N INDEX
Life expectancy index
Education index
GNI index
1
Further detail of the mathematical calculation method could be found on the original report which could be found on the internet at: hdr.undp.org
3
Human Development Index (HDI)
Other indices The inequality adjusted HDI (IHDI) equals the HDI when there is no inequality across people. It represents the actual level of human development. The new Gender Inequality Index (GII) reflects women‘s disadvantages in three dimensions – reproductive health, empowerment, and economic activity. Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) identifies multiple deprivations in the same households in education, health and standard of living. Individuals living above the income poverty line may still suffer deprivations in education, health and other living conditions. WHY EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY? The last human development report that we launched in late last year explore the intersection between environmental sustainability and equity with the understanding that the most disadvantaged people bear the harshest repercussions of environmental deterioration. The report address the following central questions: How can we maintain human progress in ways that are equitable and that do not harm the environment? How can we meet the development aspirations of poor people worldwide? And how to promote policies that will advance both equity and sustainability. The idea is to break the false dilemma that we can choose only sustainability or equity – but rather by combining the two, we are able to achieve the highest level of progress in Human Development. Our goal is to pursue sustainability as a matter of social justice for current and future generations alike. Environment and Climate Change Global temperatures now average 0.75 degrees Celsius higher than at the beginning of the 20th century. Some of the largest increases are in already hot parts of developing countries. Human activity is playing a prominent role: burning fossil fuels, cutting forest, which increases carbon emissions. The average sea level has risen 20 centimetres since 1870 and the rate of change has accelerated. For small island developing states –such as East Asia and the Pacific - which are particularly exposed, this has potential devastating affects.
4
The likelihood of natural disasters, such as droughts, storms and floods, is increasing. The average number doubled over 25 years and the impact is highest in low and medium HDI countries. Loss of forest cover threatens livelihoods and biodiversity. And low HDI countries experience the greatest losses – 11% on average since 1990. Environmental trends over recent decades show deterioration on several fronts, especially for the millions of people who depend directly on natural resources for their livelihoods;
Low HDI countries experience greatest losses of biodiversity (11%)
Low HDI countries contribute the least; impacted the most 30-50% increase in food prices; 1.3 billion poor, 350 million depend on forests, 45 million on fisheries
Environment: Scenarios and Impact on HD Progress Simulations in this Report suggest that by 2050 the global HDI would be 19% higher than it is today. Developing countries would see the largest gains, with a 24% increase, in particular Sub-Saharan Africa (44%) and South Asia (36%). However, if we face environmental challenges (such as the impact of global warming on agriculture, clean water, sanitation and pollution) the increase in global HDI is predicted to be 8% lower (12 percent lower in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa). Under an even more adverse “environmental disaster” scenario, (vast deforestation and land degradation), the global HDI would be 15 percent below the projected baseline (with dramatic impact in developing countries: 24% for Sub-Saharan Africa and 22% for South Asia). These scenarios show the scale of the losses and risks our grandchildren will face if we do nothing to halt or reverse current trends through 2050. Poverty and Inequality: Impact On Hd Progress Most deprived vulnerable to the wider environmental degradation and immediate indoor /air pollution, dirty water and insanitation. Multi-dimensional Poverty Index a measure of serious deficits in health education and living standards – poverty focus lens. Environmental deprivations lay in access to modern cooking fuel, clean water and basic sanitation. Looking at trends in the Inequality-adjusted HDI we face an aggregate global loss of 23% in human development due to inequality.
5
•
Livelihoods: Significant risks for 350 million people who rely on forests for subsistence and incomes.
•
Similarly for 45 million (6 million are women) that fish for a living.
Worsening income inequality has offset large improvements in health and education inequality. Indoor air pollution kills 11 times more people in low HDI countries; each year 3 million children under age 5 die from environment-related diseases. The average country-level income inequality increased around 20% over 1990-2005. Using the Gender Inequality Index we find that higher levels of gender inequality are associated with lower levels of sustainability: Meeting unmet need for family planning could cut carbon emissions by about 17% below what they are today by 2050. Lack of basic services: One in five people (1.5.billion) worldwide lack electricity 2.6 billion lack access to basic sanitation…impacting health productivity and human dignity If current trends continue, more people are expected to lack access to modern energy in 2030 than today. Health and education disparities are narrowing; income inequality worsening: Average countrylevel income inequality increased 20 % over 1990–20 Human Development Indices and Turkey Let‘s now look at 2011 Human Development Report‘s various indices and Turkey‘s place in these indices. Turkey’s Human Development Turkey‘s HDI value for 2011 is 0.699—in the high human development category—positioning the country at 92 out of 187 countries and territories. The rank of Turkey‘s HDI for 2010 was 83rd among 169 countries However, it could be misleading to compare values and rankings with those of previously published reports, because the underlying data and methods have changed, as well as the number of countries included in the HDI. Between 1980 and 2011, Turkey‘s HDI value increased from 0.463 to 0.699, an increase of 51.0 per cent or average annual increase of about 1.3 per cent. 6
When real HDI values are compared, it is seen that Turkey has gone up three more steps in the 2011 index than in 2010. The Turkish Gross National Income (GNI), which was relatively less affected by the financial crisis, and the fact that the life expectancy at birth has increased to 74 years from the previous 72,2 years have played an important role in this improvement in Turkey‘s real value in the Human Development Index. The rank of Turkey‘s HDI for 2010 based on data available in 2011 and methods used in 2011 is 92 out of 187 countries. In the 2010 HDR, Turkey was ranked 83 out of 169 countries. However, it is misleading to compare values and rankings with those of previously published reports, because the underlying data and methods have changed, as well as the number of countries included in the HDI. Turkey’s Human Development Since 1980 On this table you see, Turkey‘s HDI trends based on consistent time series data, new component indicators and new methodology. •
We can see here Turkey‘s progress in each of the HDI indicators.
•
Between 1980 and 2011, Turkey‘s life expectancy at birth increased by 17.4 years, mean years of schooling increased by 3.6 years and expected years of schooling increased by 4.9 years.
•
Turkey‘s GNI per capita increased by about 119.0 per cent between 1980 and 2011. GNI per capita
Life expectancy at birth
Expected years of schooling
Mean years schooling
1980
56.5
7.0
2.9
5,595
0.463
1985
60.1
7.8
4.0
6,332
0.518
1990
63.1
8.4
4.5
7,683
0.558
1995
66.1
9.2
4.8
8,210
0.588
2000
69.5
10.3
5.5
9,260
0.634
2005
72.1
11.2
6.1
10,840
0.671
2010
73.7
11.8
6.5
11,841
0.696
HDI value (2005 - PPP $)
7
Turkey’s Human Development Comparison Turkey‘s 2011 HDI of 0.699 is below the average of 0.741 for countries in the high human development group and below the average of 0.751 for countries in Europe and Central Asia. From Europe and Central Asia, countries which are close to Turkey are Greece, Romania Bulgaria which have HDIs ranked 29, 50, 55, respectively. Despite Turkey‘s HDI for 2011 is 0.699, when the value is discounted for inequality, the HDI falls to 0.542, a loss of 22.5 per cent due to inequality in the distribution of the dimension indices. Bulgaria, Greece and Romania show losses due to inequality of 11.4 per cent, 12.2 per cent and 12.6 per cent respectively. The average loss due to inequality for high HDI countries is 20.5 per cent and for Europe and Central Asia it is 12.7 per cent. HDI value
HDI rank
Life expectancy at birth
Expected years of schooling
Mean years schooling
GNI per capita (PPP $)
Turkey
0.699
92
74.0
11.8
6.5
12,246
Greece
0.861
29
79.9
16.5
10.1
23,747
Romania
0.781
50
74.0
14.9
10.4
11,046
Bulgaria
0.771
55
73.4
13.7
10.6
11,412
Europe and Central Asia
0.751
—
71.3
13.4
9.7
12,004
High HDI
0.741
—
73.1
13.6
8.5
11,579
TURKEY IN GENDER INEQUALITY INDEX (GII) Turkey has a GII value of 0.443, ranking it 77 out of 146 countries in the 2011 index. In Turkey, until the last elections, 9.1 per cent of parliamentary seats are held by women, and 27.1 per cent of adult women have reached a secondary or higher level of education compared to 46.7 per cent of their male counterparts. 8
After the elections in Turkey on 12 June 2011, number of Women MPs has risen to 78 (from 50 out of 550 seats). It means a rise from 9,1 percent to 14.2 percent. However, most of the indices in the HDR have used 2010 data as mentioned earlier. This increase in Women MPs should take Turkey‘s position in GII to a better rank in following years. Female participation in the labour market in Turkey is 24.0 per cent compared to 69.6 % for men. In comparison Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania are ranked respectively 24, 40, and 55 % on this index. In Turkey, for every 100,000 live births, 23 women die from pregnancy related causes; and the adolescent fertility rate is 39.2 births per 1000 live births.
GII value
GII rank
Mate rnal morta lity ratio
Adolescent fertility rate
Share of parliamentary seats held by each sex (%)
Attainment at secondary and higher education (%)
Labour market participation rate (%)
Woman
Man
Woman
Man
Turkey
0.443
77
23
39.2
9.1
27.1
46.7
24.0
69.6
Greece
0.162
24
2
11.6
17.3
64.4
72.0
42.9
65.0
Bulgaria
0.245
40
13
42.8
20.8
69.1
70.6
48.2
61.2
Romania
0.333
55
27
32.0
9.8
83.8
90.5
45.4
60.0
Europe and Central Asia
0.311
—
29
28.0
13.4
78.0
83.3
49.7
67.8
High HDI
0.409
—
51
51.6
13.5
61.0
64.6
47.8
75.0
Turkey in Multidimensional Poverty Index (Mpi) In Turkey 6.6 per cent of the population suffer multiple deprivations while an additional 7.3 per cent are vulnerable to multiple deprivations.2 The breadth of deprivation (intensity) in Turkey, which is the average percentage of deprivation experienced by people in multidimensional poverty, is 42.0 per cent.
2
Please note: The most recent survey data that were publically available for Turkey‘s MPI estimation refer to 2003.
9
The MPI, which is the share of the population that is multi-dimensionally poor, adjusted by the intensity of the deprivations, is 0.028. Serbia and Azerbaijan have MPIs of 0.003 and 0.021 respectively. Income poverty only tells part of the story. The multidimensional poverty in Turkey headcount is 3.9 percentage points higher than income poverty. This implies that individuals living above the income poverty line may still suffer deprivations in education, health and other living conditions. The index also shows the percentage of Turkey‘s population that live in severe poverty (deprivation score is 50 per cent or more) and that are vulnerable to poverty (deprivation score between 20 and 30 per cent). World Population by 2050 There are 200,000 new people born to this planet every day. Current pop is nearly 7 billion; Changing demographics have consequences for natural resources. By 2050 we can expect a total population of 9 billion. Carrying capacity is the population size that the environment (entire planet here) can sustain indefinitely. Given the high consumption levels of UK and USA, the planet could support fewer total people with that amount of consumption than at the levels of people in India and Rwanda – by a factor of 10. If all people will consume like an average Indian – the planet could sustain 15 billion; or 18 billion – if we consume as Rwanda; but if consume as US, it is 1.5 billion. The Paradigm Shift: A New Model To face the challenges we have enumerated, we need solutions that integrate environmental sustainability and equity and promote human development. We advocate for policies that can engender sustainable production and consumption patterns that integrate environmental considerations into everyday economic decisions. Clean and safe environment is a right not a privilege. Promote more inclusive participation in governance and policy-making by those most vulnerable to environmental hazards. Meeting the development aspirations of the poor should be attained without damaging the environment. Promising examples of win-win policies exist at the national level. For example: Micro-hydropower and country-scale mini-grids are a growing source of renewable energy in Brazil, China and India. Local programs as in Himachal Pradesh, India, where Community Led Total Sanitation gave more than 3 million people access to toilets. The scale of the challenge demands massive simultaneous investment and innovation.
10
But sufficient funding has not been forthcoming, especially for poor countries. And the fiscal outlook is difficult. Many government budgets are under pressure in the wake of the recent global financial crisis and given longer term structural problems, while climate change is intensifying the development challenges facing poor countries. Domestic commitments are important, though the scale of the investments needed suggests that more international public funds will be required to attract large additional private funds. It follows that innovative sources of financing are vital, alongside stronger commitments and concrete actions from developed countries. This can and should be done in ways that are equitable and empowering. Macro Shift: Innovations and Investments Development finance constrains the equitable transition to a sustainable development model in two ways. First, it falls far short of global requirements. Second, countries and sectors have unequal access. This is the way we make the following proposals:
New sources of finance, currency transaction tax:
Today‘s foreign exchange settlement infrastructure is more organized, centralized and standardized, so the feasibility of implementing the tax is something new to highlight; .005% of currency tax equals to an additional $ 40 billion; International financial transaction tax of .05% equals to $600-700 billion; IMF SDR (Special Drawing Rights ) equal to $ 75 billion. It has high-level endorsement, including from the Leading Group on Innovative Financing, which included some 63 countries, among them China, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. And UN High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing recently proposed that 25–50 percent of the proceeds from such a tax be directed to climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. Bringing about long-term, efficient results and accountability to local populations and partners will require the following tools: •
State role in catalyzing private resources - to catalyze capital investment, for new clean technologies, in poorest countries
•
“Deal-flow” climate facilities to help low capacity countries to access climate finance
•
National climate funds – to help blend domestic and international, private and public, and grant and loan resources.
Notes
For free downloads of the 2011 Human Development Report you can refer to HDR website on hdr.undp.org
You can always download it from UNDP Turkey‘s website: undp.org.tr
11
12