Indicators of Sustainable Development in Brazilian

0 downloads 0 Views 523KB Size Report
... care and social protection; a world committed to the human right, to safe drinking ... are meant to guide the evaluation and performance of municipalities, institutions ..... http://www.fbes.org.br/biblioteca22/artigo_inclusao_social.pdf (accessed ...
nd

22 International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, School of Science and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 13 – 15 July 2016

Indicators of Sustainable Development in Brazilian Capitals between 2000-2010 Cláudia Alexandra Bolela Silveira1, Mateus Duarte Ribeiro2, Salvador Boccaletti Ramos3, Monica de Andrade4 1

Universidade de Franca, [email protected]

2

Universidade de Franca, [email protected]

3

Universidade de Franca, [email protected]

4

Universidade de Franca, [email protected]

Abstract Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) considers the economic, social and environmental dimensions, and one of the key challenges is eradicating poverty and hunger in the world. In this context, it is important to identify indicators of SDGs in Brazil to support public policies in order to achieve the goals and targets set for 2030. This descriptive and exploratory research aimed to calculate the differences between economic, social and environmental indicators in Brazilian capitals in 2000 and in 2010. The indicators selected were illiteracy rates, education level, income, vulnerability and housing, obtained in the electronic site of the Atlas Brazil. We used the software Estatística 7.0 to run cluster analysis and comparisons, and Principal Component Analysis. It was possible to verify the existence of clusters between geographically close capitals, with two clusters, one consisting of Southeast, South and Midwest capitals (G1) and another composed of North capital and Northeast (G2). Regarding the evolution of the indicators between 2000 and 2010 there was an improvement in SDGs indicators in Brazilian capitals except for Rio Branco and Macapá. In 2000, North and Northeast capitals had higher social inequality, greater percentage of extremely poor and vulnerable people into poverty compared to 2010. Among the capitals of the G1 cluster, Florianópolis, Porto Alegre, Curitiba, São Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Rio de Janeiro, Vitória, Cuiabá, Campo Grande, Goiânia and Brasília showed better indicators of SDGs. The analysis of main components and clustering, in the present study, showed that Brazilian capitals have improved since 2000. We concluded that there was an improvement in the indicators of living conditions, education, social inequality and health of the population in Brazil in 2010. Keywords: Healthy environments, Sustainable development, Health promotion, Indicators, Public policy. 1. Introduction The concept of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was born at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20, in 2012. The objective was to produce a set of universally applicable goals that balances the three dimensions of sustainable development: environmental, social, and economic. The SDGs replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which in September 2000 rallied the world around a common 15-year agenda to tackle the indignity of poverty. The MDGs established measurable, universally-agreed objectives for eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, preventing deadly but treatable disease, and expanding educational opportunities to all children, among other development imperatives. The MDGs drove progress in several important areas, such as income poverty, access to improved sources of water, primary school enrollment and child mortality (UNDP, 2016). Galvão et al 2016 suggest that the social environmental determinants of health are closely related to sustainable development; they are the societal conditions in which people are

nd

22 International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, School of Science and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 13 – 15 July 2016

born, grow, live, work, play, ad age. They include early year’s experiences, education, economic status, employment and decent work, housing and environment, and effective systems of preventing and treating ill health. For post-2015 era, the challenge posed by the WHO is the reduction of health inequalities, which necessarily involve the social inequalities that concern the healthy environments and sustainable development (UNITED NATIONS, 2015). The Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals has 17 goals and 169 to be achieved by 2030. The targets are relate to a world free of poverty, hunger, disease, fear and violence, with universal literacy, with equitable and universal access to quality education at all levels, to health care and social protection; a world committed to the human right, to safe drinking water and sanitation, among others (UNDP, 2016). In order to achieve the SDGs, countries should establish indicators that address each recommendation. Comparative analysis of health, environment, economy and education indicators in time, are important to evaluate the evolution of those indicators. Indicators are measures defined to represent a phenomenon to be studied, do not represent a number in itself, needs to be understood in context. "The indicator is part of the semantic information and cannot be presented as an isolated one" (AUGUSTO, 2002, p. 307). Krank et al. (2013) wrote that the indicator systems consist of a purposeful selection of different indicators, whereas sustainability indices are formed by weighted and aggregated indicators. Sustainability indicators, indicator systems and indices are more than pure information and ‘raw’ statistical data: they have a normative character and should have implications for political decision-making. Singh et al. (2012) presented some important indicators for measurement and monitoring of sustainable development: innovation indexes, knowledge and technology, levels of human and economic development, the ecosystem based indexes, indexes of sustainability of industrial performance, product indexes based on sustainability, sustainability indexes of municipalities, environmental indices for national and regional policies, environmental indices for industries, social indicators and quality of life and indices based on energy. The evaluation of sustainability consists in provide subsidies to enable decision-making in the short and long term, in order to integrate nature and society. Thus, it appears that the indicators are meant to guide the evaluation and performance of municipalities, institutions informing the actual data relating to the dimensions for the publication of successes or change of strategic planning when not achieving the goals. In this paper, we intended to verify if there were improvements in social, economic and environmental indicators in the 10-year period in different geographic regions of Brazil. The aim of the present study is to compare social, economic and environmental variables in Brazilian capitals between 2000 and 2010. 2. Methods This is a descriptive exploratory study with secondary data, using variables related to the Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals. Data of 27 Brazilian capitals in 2000 and 2010 were obtained from the website of Atlas Brazil (http://www.atlasbrasil.org.br/2013/pt/ranking/). The indicators of Education were illiteracy (illiteracy rate between 11 and 14 years, illiteracy rate above 25 years) and years of study (18 to 24 with completed elementary school, 18 to 24 with completed high school education, above 25 years with completed higher education, percentage of children aged 0 to 5 years out of school and percentage of children aged 6 to 14 years out of school). The indicators of Economy were income (per capita income, percentage of extremely poor, percentage of vulnerable to poverty, Gini Coefficient, unemployment rate of 25 to 29 years,

nd

22 International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, School of Science and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 13 – 15 July 2016

percentage of employed with completed higher education with 18 years or more, municipal human development index). The indicators of health were vulnerability (Life expectancy at birth, longevity of HDI, infant mortality, aging rate, dependency rate). The indicators environment were housing (percentage of population living in households with toilet and piped water, percentage of population living in households with garbage collection, percentage of population living in households with electricity) Data analyses were performed using Statistic software, version 7 (STATSOFT, 2004) to obtain Clustering analysis and Principal components analysis. These analyses are important tools for exploratory data analysis, as well as an attempt to understand the complex nature of multivariate relationships contained in the database. The Wilcoxon test (CALLEGARI-JACQUES, 2003) was performed to evaluate the differences between variables in 2000 and in 2010. The level of significance adopted was 0.01. 3. Results It was possible to identify the existence of clusters between geographically close capitals, 2000 and 2010 for the selected variables in 27 Brazilian capitals (Table 1). The result of cluster analysis in Figure 1, shows, the formation of two clusters: G1 and G2. In G1, capitals of Southern, Southeast and Midwest were clustered (in 2000) and North and Northeast capitals (in 2010). In G2, capitals of all North and Northeast were clustered in 2000. In G1, there is a subdivision into 3 clusters: G1a: the Southern, Southeast and Midwest capitals in 2010, Florianópolis 2000 and Palmas 2010; G1b: the capitals of the Northeast and Brazil in 2010; G1c: the Northern capitals in 2010, Southeast, South and Midwest in 2000, with the exception of Florianópolis and Palmas. That means that in G1, are clustered the capitals with better life expectancy, higher indicators of employment, Human development Index, Longevity Human development Index, level of education. In G2 were two subdivisions: G2a: Northeast capitals in 2000, with the except for Maceió and São Luis and G2b: North capitals in 2000, Palmas, Maceio, São Luís in 2000. That means that in G2, are clustered the capitals with high percentage of illiteracy indicators above 25 years and high percentage of people vulnerable to poverty and extremely poor.

nd

22 International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, School of Science and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 13 – 15 July 2016

Figure 1: Dendrogram of division of the Brazilian capitals into two clusters and their subdivisions.

In Figures 2 and 3 is possible to observe the changes of the cluster of the capitals between 2000 to 2010, characterizing the diference of the indicators in those two period.

nd

22 International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, School of Science and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 13 – 15 July 2016

Figure 2: Spatial distribution of sets of Brazilian capitals in the clustering of the analysis of in 2000.

Figure 3: Spatial distribution of sets of Brazilian capitals in the clustering of the analysis of in 2000.

In Figures 2 and 3 it is possible to observe that in 2000, the State SC, Santa Catarina, where Florianopolis is located, had already better indicators compared with all the other capitals. These better situations of indicators were only reached by other capitals in 2010. The analysis of the Main Components, confirms the results obtained in the clustering analysis as shown in Figure 4, where are observed the variables associated with the clusters, allowing to view the relation of the indicators with the location of the capitals in the quadrants.

Figure 4: Two-dimensional graph with the distribution of the Brazilian capitals according to economic, social and environmental indicators constructed with two Principal components.

According to the Principal Component 1 (CP1), most of the capitals of the G1 cluster (right of the graph), especially G1a, presented, as greater discriminatory power, the percentage indicators of employees with completed higher education, life expectancy, HDI, HDI longevity, people with completed elementary and high schools between 18 and 24 years old and people with completed higher education above 25 years. According to this CP1, the capitals of G2 clustering (left side of the graph) are characterized by higher illiteracy indicators above 25 years and higher percentage of vulnerable to poverty and extremely poor. The Principal component 2 (CP2) discriminates (upper left right of the graph) the capitals of G2a cluster and Alagoas (AL) in 2000. This cluster is characterized by high rates of Gini,

nd

22 International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, School of Science and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 13 – 15 July 2016

high unemployment rate, high illiteracy rate from 11 to 14 years, high infant mortality rate, and high rates of extremely poor and high amount of people vulnerable to poverty. The most part of G2b cluster (lower left of the graph), characterized by low rates of children out of school between 0 and 14 years and dependency ratio, respectively. The CP2 showed, also (upper right of the graph), the capitals with high percentages of households with electricity, bathroom and piped water and high aging rates. In G1c cluster, there are capitals (right of the graph), in a transition from left to right. In this cluster, the capitals with indexes from 2010 showed intermediate characteristics in the movement of the left of the graph in 2000 to the right of the graph in 2010. The indicators with greater discriminatory power for negative indicators were children out of school (0-5).and (6-14) and dependency ratio. 4. Discussion The SDGs recognizes that social inequality as a major factor to fight in order to move forward and achieve the goals proposed for 2030 (UNITED NATIONS, 2015a). The indicators selected as variables in the present study, in the Brazilian capitals are related to some of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis of main components and clustering, in the present study, showed that Brazilian capitals have improved since 2000, its indicators of education, economy, health and housing. Brazil has improved its capacity to formulate, implement, monitor and evaluate multi-sectoral and universal public policies in the last twenty years, with the implementation of universal health care and conditional cash transfers. These policies have resulted in the improvement of the health indicators of extreme poverty and hunger, under-five mortality, maternal health, infectious diseases, and primary education coverage (ANDRADE, 2016). In Education, main aspects with better indicators were illiteracy, years of study and lowered the number of children aged 0 to 14 out of school. In Economy there were improvements in per capita income, in Gini Coefficient, unemployment rate of 25 to 29 years, percentage of employed with completed higher education with 18 years or more and municipal human development index (HDIM). There were a significant reduction in number of extremely poor and vulnerable to poverty. The indicators of health also improved in life expectancy at birth, longevity of HDI, infant mortality, aging rate, dependency rate. In housing, there was a decrease in number of population living in households with toilet and piped water; in households with garbage collection and population living in households with electricity. Florianópolis had the best indicators since 2000. This capital has have the best social inclusion ranking: access to and acquisition of goods and services, better education levels, lower exposure of young people to violence (BARROSO, 2001). The presence of the Transdisciplinary Research and Development Center of the Federal University of Santa Catarina could have contributed to improvement of public policies. There was a huge improvement in the indicators since 2000 in most of the Brazilians capitasl, however Rio Branco and Macapá still have lower indicators, in relation to other capitals. The improvement of the indicators are a result of policy actions that gave access and maintenance of students (0-5 years and 6-14 years) in schools; as well as the decrease in numbers of the inactive population - dependency ratio. Although, between 2007 and 2014, the North and Northeast regions registered decrease in the percentage of students with 4 or

nd

22 International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, School of Science and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 13 – 15 July 2016

more years of age on the public school (PLANO NACIONAL POR AMOSTRA DE DOMICÍLIO, 2015). Palmas in 2010 also deserves attention, having similar indicators in comparison to the capitals of the Southeast region. This is due to HDI of 0.788 in 2010, which places the city in the High Human Development range. The indicator that most contributed to this result was the Longevity with 0.82 index, followed by Income: 0.789 and Education: 0.749. The capital also ranks 16th among municipalities in HDI (BRAZIL, 2013). The capitals of Southeast, South and Midwest regions had similar indicators and were clustered togeter. These capitals are located ate the most economically developed region, accounting for 75% of Brazil's GDP, with diversified economic activities: agriculture and livestock, various industries segments, and development of scientific research (DINIZ, 2009). Noteworthy are also the infrastructure and sanitation, availability of piped water and electricity. All the capitals of the Northeast needs political investments in relation to social inequality, evidenced by the variables: Gini index, percentage of extremely poor and vulnerable to poverty, as well as education, especially regarding literacy, as evidenced by the illiteracy rate among people with 11 to 14 years and over 25 years, employability evidenced in the number of unemployed rate with completed higher education, health of childhood evidenced in infant mortality rates. In 2010, according to our results, it was observed that the selected indicators in the capitals have improved, as evidenced. The government social programs in the period favored the improvement of indicators in these capitals, such as the income transfer policy to families to fight poverty and misery, Benefício de Prestação Continuada, Previdência Rural and Bolsa Família program (BRAZIL, 2010a) The Brazilian income transfer programs such as Bolsa Família, was highlighted in the 2014 Human Development Report (UNITED NATIONS IN BRAZIL, 2015b). Like Brazil, there was a change in the world situation with a significant decrease in the number of people in extreme poverty from 1990 to 2015. “Progress towards the MDGs has, on the whole, been remarkable. With regard to extreme poverty, for example, the number of people living on less than US$ 1.25 per day has declined by more than half, from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million in 2015” (WHO, 2015b, p. 5). Concerning investments in education, the Ministry of Education, from 2000 to 2007, was among the ministries with higher government spending, with the most of spending destined to scientific research (BRAZIL, 2010a). The illiteracy rate among people aged 15 or more years in 2012 and 2014 period, showed a significant decrease having a higher rate among the age cluster above 40 years, because literacy in adulthood is more difficult to achieve (PLANO NACIONAL POR AMOSTRA DE DOMICÍLIO, 2015). The reduction of illiteracy rate are results of actions taken in National Plan of Education for democratization of education, such as the obligation of education for children aged 6-14 years and the broader access of early childhood education (PLANO NACIONAL DE EDUCAÇÃO, 2014). On the world stage in relation to education and the MDGs have that: “Significant progress has also been achieved with regard to education, with the primary school net enrolment rate in the developing regions reaching 91% in 2015, up from 83% in 2000” (WHO, 2015b, p. 6). Public policies implemented from the SUS implementation, such as the Programa de Saúde da Família (1994), Programa Fome Zero (2003), Bolsa Família (2004), Brasil Sorridente (2004), Programa Farmácia Popular (2004), Programa Saúde na Escola (2007), Política de Alimentação e Nutrição (2010), which enabled improvement of social inequality indicators and living conditions, education and health of the Brazilian population.

nd

22 International Sustainable Development Research Society Conference, School of Science and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 13 – 15 July 2016

Due to the still existing social inequality in Brazil, despite progress addressed in this research; equity in health, quality of life, work and financial conditions for all, remain targets for improvement; although Brazil has been presenting favorable results regarding the growth of DHI and poverty reduction from 1990 to 2014 (UNITED NATIONS IN BRAZIL, 2015b). 5. Conclusions We concluded that there was an improvement in the indicators of living conditions, education social inequality and health of the population in Brazil in 2010. References ANDRADE, M. 2016. Sustainability Transition in the Health Sector of Brazil. Hans Günter Brauch, Úrsula Oswald Spring, John Grin, Jürgen Scheffran (Eds.): Sustainability Transition and Sustainable Peace Handbook. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace 10 (Heidelberg – New York – Dordrecht – London: Springer-Verlag). AUGUSTO, L. G. S., 2002. A construção de indicadores em saúde ambiental: desafios conceituais. In: MINAYO, M. C. S.; MIRANDA, A. C. (orgs.) Saúde e ambiente sustentável: estreitando nós. FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro. BARROSO, A. V., 2001. Mapeando a Inclusão Social nas Capitais do Brasil. http://www.fbes.org.br/biblioteca22/artigo_inclusao_social.pdf (accessed 15.01.2016). BRASIL, 2013 Atlas do Desenvolvimento Humano http://www.atlasbrasil.org.br/2013/pt/consulta/ (accessed 30.07.2015).

no

Brasil.

______., 2010a Brasil em Desenvolvimento: estado, planejamento e políticas públicas. Brasília, Ipea, 2010a. http://www.ipea.gov.br/bd/pdf/Livro_BD_vol2.pdf (accessed 12.01.2016). CALLEGARI-JACQUES, S. M., 2003. Bioestatística: Princípios e Aplicações. Artmed, Porto Alegre. CNDSS., 2006. Carta aberta aos candidatos www.determinantes.fiocruz.br (accessed 04.01.2016).

à

Presidência

da

República.

DINIZ, C. C., 2009. Celso Furtado e o desenvolvimento regional. Nova Economia. Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n. 2, p. 227-249. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S010363512009000200001&script=sci_arttext (accessed 14.01.2016) GALVÃO, L. A. C., HABY, M. M. H., CHAPMAN, E., CLARK, R.. The new United Nations approadch to sustainable development post-2015: findings from four overviews of systematic reviews on interventions for sustainable development and health. In: Ver Panam Salud Publica, 2016. n. 39, v. 3. Disponível em: Acesso em: 12 jun. 2016. KRANK, S., WALLBAUM, H., GRÊT-REGAMEY, A.. Perceived Contribution on Indicator Systems to Sustainable Development in Developing Countries. In: Wiley Online Library, Sustainable Development, 8 set. 2010. Disponível em: