The European Union has defined the goal of achieving sustainable development and confirmed it with the European Union Sustainable Development Strategy adopted in 2001 and amended in 2006. Movement of the European Union member states towards sustainable society can be compared to a long-distance hiking trip where the ultimate goal is to reach the point of destination. It is not important to be the first one to get there, because it is not a race, but focus on the distance between the hikes – avoiding big gaps between the hikers. If the gaps get too big and some of the hikers are left behind because of the heavy backpack i.e environmental load (or ecological footprint – the synonym for environmental load), the ecological backpack of those left behind may get so heavy that the climate change may, figuratively speaking, cause a heat wave resulting in a collapse of all hikers. Therefore, it is vital for the hikers themselves to know how far each of them is from the point of destination. In the same way, it is interesting for the European Union member states to know how far each individual state is from sustainability as sustainability of Europe depends on sustainability of its states.
The European Union member states` strategies on sustainable development are certainly to some extent different taking into account the specific features and national needs of each member state. Thus, some of the aspects of the strategies of member states may differ from the European Union sustainable development strategy. For example, the member states except for Estonia do not relate the cultural area with sustainable development. Also, population indicators are usually important only for a small population with negative natural increase. On the other hand environmental and climate issues are of transboundary nature and the objectives concerning environment and nature have been agreed upon in Europe as a whole, as well as separately in each of the member states. For example, common energy policy of the European Union sets the target of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year 2020 and increasing the share of renewable energy by 20%.
In the dashboard the comparison of Estonia with other European Union member states on the basis of 78 indicators has been provided in terms of four areas compatible with the four development goals of the strategy “Sustainable Estonia 21”. The goals and indicators have not been described in terms of rates. Ranking of the indicators has been formed by finding the difference between the best value of the indicator (i.e closest to the desired state) and the worst value of the indicator (i.e the furthest of the desired state). According to the strategy “Sustainable Estonia 21” the desired state of Estonia by the year 2030 is a socially coherent, culturally viable and ecologically balanced society of high level of welfare.
Hopefully the indicators in the dashboard give a good ground for further analysis, making decisions and choices on the basis of these analysis on the level of the state, an enterprise and an individual in order to shift next dashboards mostly green. We hope that Estonia, instead of ranking among the last five European Union member states in terms of most indicators, will become more sustainable and reach the head of the hikers of sustainable development of the European Union.
The areas of the strategy Sustainable Estonia 21 are the following:
Achieving a coherent society is one of the basic ideas of sustainability and according to the principle of sustainable development human beings are valuable. Economy, environment and culture are the means of self-realisation of an individual. In terms of the indicators of the coherent society Estonia is the best among the Baltic states, however, Estonia ranks 25 in the 27 European Union member states. In terms of indicators such as relative poverty and difference in income measuring progress towards achieving a coherent society Estonia together with other Baltic states, Romania and other South European states is lagging somewhat behind. The states with a lower level of relative poverty are the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, also Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. Deaths caused by accidental poisoning, persons killed in traffic accidents and manslaughters and murders are other areas of red zone in achieving a coherent society in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. As to moving towards a coherent society we are in a better position than other member states on average in terms of long-term unemployment, early school-leavers, criminal offences, fatal accidents at work and good broad-band Internet connection. When comparing coherent society to other three areas in Estonia the number of red indicators is the smallest and the number of green indicators the biggest in the area of coherent society.
Growth of welfare has also been analysed from the aspect of an individual and in wider terms than just focusing on GDP or energy. In addition to economic indicators health and education indicators have been measured. As all the indicators are of equal value, in total Estonia is ranking 21 in Europe. Total foreign debt is one of the strongest aspects of Estonia, for example, in 2008 the share of total foreign debt of Estonian central government in GDP was 4.8% which was the smallest in Europe. In 2008 the value of education indicators was on average level or better than average in Europe, also, the situation was quite favourable in terms of employment. However, the situation has become worse in the period of economic decline. In terms of productivity and health indicators Estonia is among the last ten European Union states. In terms of healthy life years at birth for males (50 years) Estonia is the last in Europe and as to the average life expectancy for males we are outperforming only Lithuania and Latvia. The dashboard shows very clearly that even in the period of economic increase Estonia fell behind other European Union states, we are mostly in the red zone, particularly in terms of the indicators related to health, productivity and GDP.
Moving towards ecological balance is also one of the four ground principles of sustainability. Natural environment is dynamic and in general self-adjusting and self-balancing. It is thought that ecosystems are able to ”digest” all the anthropogenic pollution ruing the natural balance. However, one cannot rely on it when it comes to quick and major changes in the environment. Figuratively speaking, nature can correct the direction of the Gulf Stream as a result of a climate change. For Estonia this would mean the development of tundra. In terms of all indicators of ecological balance Estonia ranks 23 among the European Union states. The reason for that is inefficient use of fossil fuels (e.g oil-shale) in electricity production causing pollution. Oil-shale energy is the reason for Estonia ranking among the last EU states in terms of other indicators reflecting pollution and waste generation. As to the share of consumption of electricity produced from renewable sources we have taken the last position with 1.5% in Europe – that is when we exclude Cyprus and Malta where no electricity produced from renewable sources is consumed. In terms of waste generation we are among the last three states, however, in terms of waste recovery Estonia holds a middle position in Europe. In comparison with other members states we are quite advanced in terms of low pollution load of the aquatic environment. Ecological balance depends, first and foremost on the decisions and choices people make. On the basis of yellow-red dashboard we can conclude that the contribution of Estonia to the maintenance of ecological balance is smaller than the contribution of other European states.
Setting the goal of viability of cultural space and measuring progress towards achieving it is specific to Estonia. Sustainable choices are based on weighed decisions. Traditional values in upbringing, ethics and moral are directly related to the culture. In terms of cultural indicators Estonia ranks eighth among the European Union states which is the best result in comparison with all four areas. As to the ratio of employees of the cultural sector we rank fourth among European states just after the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland. The value of the indicator is the smallest in Romania, followed by Portugal, Poland, Bulgaria and Slovakia. In terms of total fertility rate Estonia is among the first ten EU states, to be more precise – we rank ninth. The leading states in this area are the Nordic countries, France, Ireland and Great Britain. In terms of the rate of natural increase we rank seventh counting from bottom to top. Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany and Romania are behind us. Ireland and France are among the four top states also in terms of the rate of natural increase.
![[at]](/extensions/stat/images/at.png)