THE IMPETUS FOR THE UMF PROJECT Two factors led to the commissioning of the UMF Project :
1 . The need to assist subnational governments so they can participate in the work of transitioning the global economy onto a more sustainable footing
2 . Confusion about how to monitor whether these efforts were succeeding .
The UN and its constituent agencies have mandates to contribute to creating a safe , inclusive , resilient and sustainable future for as many as possible . Much of this is articulated through the UN ’ s 17 Sustainable Development Goals ( SDGs ), which are articulated as targets for 2030 and to which most nation-states are signatories .
The SDGs are central to the UN ’ s work . This is in recognition that , right now , our global economy is not on a good pathway ( see , for example , EEB , 2019 ; Turner , 2012 ; and Vaden et al ., 2020 ; all of whom claim strong evidence for declining global economic development and resilience ).
There are a lot of consumption patterns and ecological and social trends that need to change direction . For example , according to the Global Footprint Network (
www . footprintnetwork . org ), Australia ’ s ecological footprint reveals a level of consumption that , if scaled to the global level , would eat up 4.48 Earths ( Global Footprint Network , 2018 ). Irrespective of jobs , investment , and profitable local enterprises , without a sustainable footing , economic development can only be a short-term prospect .
This is the elephant in the room for economic development practitioners . There is an immense task ahead to help shift the trajectory of local economies onto a more sustainable , resilient , inclusive , and safe footing . That is economic development , probably without economic growth .
The second impetus was a response to the degree of uncertainty amongst local and regional governments about getting involved in some form of SDG monitoring . While the SDG Voluntary Local Review program is relatively well documented , with guidelines on how to undertake a review , most subnational governments lack the resources to undertake an exercise of this scale .
The alternative is to deploy one of the many other monitoring tools and index systems designed to measure different aspects of sustainable development . Over the years , numerous UN , other global agencies , and the private sector have developed measurement frameworks and tools to measure different aspects of sustainable development . Amongst many others , there are :
• The City Prosperity Index ( UN-Habitat )
• New Urban Agenda ( UN-Habitat )
• Culture 2030 ( UNESCO )
• Child Well-being Indicators ( UNICEF )
• City Indicators ( OECD )
• The 100 Core Health Indicators ( WHO )
Sensibly , the UN Statistical Commission recognised the confusion this created for subnational governments and the different objectives of some of these frameworks . To simplify things , they commissioned UN-Habitat ( UNH ) to ‘ harmonise ’ the monitoring mechanisms used by subnational governments by creating a single recommended framework . This was to become the Global Urban Monitoring Framework or UMF .
Through Expert Group Meetings ( EGMs ), UNH developed the scope of the project and the critical aspects the UMF needed to address . These included :
• Having a single framework that cities and towns could use at different stages of development ;
INPUT
• Being adaptable so that the basic UMF could be modified for projects or objectives
• Linking with the SDGs
• Focusing on people-centric data . That is , data that measure tangible improvements in people ’ s lives .
The last point was considered the most important . It was recognised that , even with the right framework , the wrong data could be collected and used . In developing the UMF , it was agreed , where possible , metrics should be impact-oriented rather than input-oriented . A simple example of this contrasts the child mortality rate ( an impact metric ) with the number of hospital beds ( an input metric ). The former is people-centric , measuring a tangible improvement . The latter is far more indirect and not necessarily a metric that can accurately and fairly measure improvement . Another example is GDP : alone a near meaningless measure of economic development , but when calculated as a share of material footprint to create a measure of the material input intensity of the economy , it becomes a useful metric for quantifying how much our economy is drawing down natural capital to produce the goods and services we demand . Figure 1 provides examples illustrating the difference between impact and input indicators .
A process of indicator selection was developed as part of the UMF project . It uses a set of selection criteria for choosing indicators that meet ‘ SMART ’ data
Figure 1 : Example Input Compared with Impact-Oriented Indicators .
1 . Construction program 2 . Children ’ s hospital project 3 . Art gallery project 4 . $ invested in public transport
IMPACT
1 . Resilient economy 2 . Safe society 3 . Inclusive culture 4 . Sustainable environment
INPUT-CENTRIC OUTPUT
1 . Economic activity 2 . Children ’ s hospital beds / capita 3 . Art exhibitions / capita 4 . Buses purchased
IMPACT-CENTRIC OUTCOME
1 . More , secure jobs 2 . Reduced infant mortality rate 3 . Equitable cultural participation 4 . Reduced CO 2 emissions
1 . GRP 2 . Hospital built 3 . Art gallery opens 4 . Money spent
INDICATOR
INDICATOR
1 . Δ permanent FTEs 2 . Δ mortality rate
3 . Spatial distribution of event participants
4 . Emissions p . a .
Reading from the top left , starting with the ‘ solution ’ of a construction program : an input to the local economy , this is measured by a general increase in economic activity for which the indicator can be Gross Regional Product ( GRP ). However , this does not indicate whether there has been a substantive improvement in the well-being of citizens . By contrast , starting with a broad objective of a more resilient economy , we may measure this in terms of an increase in secure local jobs , for which the indicator can be a permanent Full-Time Equivalent ( FTE ) job , count .
VOL 15 NO 3 2022 10 www . edaustralia . com . au