Indicators 2012

8/12/2019 Indicators 2012

1/80

Sustainable Development

in GermanyIndicator Report 2012

Federal Statistical Office of Germany


2/80

Published byStatistisches Bundesamt (Federal Statistical Office), Wiesbaden

Layout and graphicsStatistisches Bundesamt (Federal Statistical Office)

Published in Febrary 2012Status of indicators: October 2011

Order number: 0230002-12900-1

Photo copyright iStockphoto.com / AVTG panthermedia.net / Christian Schwier

Printed on RecyStar Polar, 100% recycled paper,Blue Angel certied.

Statistisches Bundesamt (Federal Statistical Office), Wiesbaden 2012Reproduction and distribution, also of parts, are permitted providedthat the source is mentioned.


3/80

Federal Statistical Ofce, Sustainable Development in Germany, Indicator Report 2012

Preface

3

The National Strategy for Sustainable Devel-opment is celebrating its tenth anniversarythis year. The Federal Statistical Office

presents its fourth review on the develop-ment of the sustainability indicators in theIndicator Report 2012.

Sustainability has become increasinglyestablished as a central principle in politicsand society. Successes and failures in theimplementation of the political strategy aremeasured using selected indicators, most ofwhich are provided with quantitative targets.

Tasks are distributed between politiciansand statisticians so that the Federal Govern-ment determines the content of the strategy,the indicators and the target values, whilethe Federal Statistical Office reportsindependently on the indicators by way ofdata and statistical analyses, calculatestarget achievement levels, and advises theFederal Government on matters of method-ology. The Federal Statistical Office oper-

ates on the principle of neutral, transparentand independent reporting and insistson upholding this principle when workingtogether with the Federal Government. Mostof the data on the indicators is derived fromofficial statistics, especially from nationaland environmental-economic accounts.

Sustainability policy requires a long-termapproach. It should not be influenced byshort-term day-to-day politics. Continuity

is a priority in every respect. However,this does not rule out any possible furtherdevelopment of the indicators. The numberof individual indicators rose to 38 in theIndicator Report 2012. Three new indicatorswere added on the subjects of nationaldebt and conservation of resources, andthree existing indicators in the areas ofrenewable energies, education and crimewere redefined. The Federal Government

has also changed its targets for two indica-tors (Innovation, 1824 year olds withoutschool leaving certificates).

As a means of providing at-a-glance infor-mation on the status of the sustainabilityindicators, every indicator is assigned oneof four possible weather symbols. Thissymbol is neither a political appraisal nor if the target year has not yet been reached

a forecast. It is merely the result of a simpleforward projection to the target year on thebasis of development in the past. Althoughthe symbols also show changes in statusover the course of time, only limitedcomparison with the results of the previousIndicator Report 2010 is possible. This is

due to changes in definitions and targets.It should also be noted that the reportingperiods for the various indicators differ

and so the indicators may be influenced bydifferent economic phases. For this reason,the symbols are not intended as a substi-tute for a detailed study of the text with itsbackground information and analyses.

Roderich Egeler

President of the Federal Statistical Office


4/80


Contents

I. Intergenerational equity

Resource conservation

1a, b Energy productivity, Primary energy consumption . . . . . 6

1c Raw material productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Climate protection

2 Greenhouse gas emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Renewable energy sources

3a, b Share of renewable energy sources in final energy

consumption, Share of renewable energy sources inelectricity consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Land use

4 Built-up area and transport infrastructure expansion . . . 14

Species diversity

5 Species diversity and landscape quality . . . . . . . . . . 16

Government debt

6a, b General government deficit, Structural deficit . . . . . . . 18

6c Government debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Provision for future economic stability

7 Gross fixed capital formation in relation to GDP . . . . . . 22

Innovation

8 Private and public spending on research

and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Education and training

9a 18- to 24-year-olds without a

school leaving certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

9b 30- to 34-year-olds with a tertiary or post secondary

non-tertiary level of education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

9c Share of students starting a degree course . . . . . . . . 30


5/80

5

Contents


II. Quality of life

Economic output

10 Gross domestic product per capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Mobility

11a Intensity of goods transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

11b Intensity of passenger transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

11c, d Share of rail transport andinland freight water transport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Farming12a Nitrogen surplus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

12b Organic farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Air quality

13 Air pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Health and nutrition

14a, b Premature mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

14c, d Smoking rates amongst young people and adults . . . . 48

14e Proportion of adults suffering from obesity . . . . . . . . 50

Crime

15 Criminal offences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

III. Social cohesion

Employment

16a, b Employment rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Prospects for families

17a, b All-day care provision for children . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Equal opportunities

18 Gender pay gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Integration

19 Foreign school leavers with a school leaving certificate 60

IV. International responsibility

Development cooperation

20 Share of expenditure for official developmentassistance in gross national income . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Opening markets

21 German imports from developing countries . . . . . . . . 64

Annex

Indicator status summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Definitions of the indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72


6/80




Using resources economically and efficiently

Energy productivity and economic growth1990 = 100

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1990 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 2010 2020 2050

Goal: 200

Primary energy consumption

Energy productivity

Gross domestic product (price-adjusted)

129.5

137.4

94.2

Goal :1

47.7

Goal :1

76.3

1 These goals correspond to a reduction of primary energy consumption from 2008 levels of 20% (76.3) in 2020 and 50% (47.7) in2050 (Energy Concept).

Source: Federal Statistical Office, Working Group on Energy Balances

1b

1a1a Energy productivity

1b Primary energy consumption

The use of energy occupies a key positionin the economic process because almostevery production activity is either directlyor indirectly associated with the consump-tion of energy. Private households useenergy particularly for heating their homesand providing hot water, using electricalappliances as well as to run motor vehicles.The consumption of energy has a number ofenvironmental effects, such as a detri-

mental impact on landscapes, ecologicalsystems, the soil, water bodies and groundwater due to the depletion of natural energyresources, emissions of harmful substancesand greenhouse gas emissions. Last butnot least, the consumption of non-renew-able resources is of great importance withregard to safeguarding the livelihood offuture generations.

The aim of the Sustainability Strategy is todouble energy productivity (price-adjustedGDP per unit of primary energy consump-tion) by 2020 compared to that of 1990.A new goal added to the SustainabilityStrategy is to lower the primary energy con-sumption seen in 2008 by 20 % between


7/80

Federal Statistical Ofce, Sustainable Development in Germany, Indicator Report 2012 7


2008 and 2020 (corresponds to the 76.3 %figure in the chart, indexed to 1990=100)and by 50 % by 2050 (corresponding to

47.7 %, 1990=100).

Energy productivity increased by 37.4 % inGermany between 1990 and 2010. Whilethis productivity increase reflects a moreefficient use of energy, in absolute termsprimary energy consumption has fallen byonly a modest 5.8 %. Most of this increasein efficiency was sapped by the expandingeconomy, which grew by 29.5 % during this

period. A continuation of the previousaverage pace of development would not besufficient to achieve the goals set for 2020for either energy productivity or primaryenergy consumption.

In 2010 energy productivity rose by 0.9 %compared to the previous year. Energyconsumption, on the other hand, climbed4.6 %, roughly paralleling GDP growth. Thiswas primarily due to the very cold weatherexperienced in 2010. A record of the tem-peratures during the heating period showsthat it was around 17 % colder in Germanyin 2010 than it was in 2009. When adjustedfor temperatures, consumption would haverisen much more modestly, namely by 1.6 %.

In private households, energy consump-tion (excluding motor fuels) rose by 8.4 %between 1990 and 2010. Between 2000

and 2010 it remained virtually unchanged.Inducing this rise in consumption was theincreased demand for energy services.With regard to indoor heating, the decisivefactor is the increase in living area. On theother hand, savings by private householdsand better insulation in buildings hasresulted in a sharp decrease in heating fuelconsumption. With regard to electricity,the greater number of electrical devices in

households has led to a rise in consump-tion. Starting in 2007, consumption herefell slightly for the first time, probably dueto savings by consumers following thestrong jump in electricity prices at this time.

Energy consumption in the industrial sectorrose by 5.0 % between 2000 and 2010. Theeconomic situation in 2010 brought abouta very sharp 10.2 % rise in consumption.

The year before was marked by the financialcrisis and consumption fell by 8.8 %.The increase in energy efficiency was notenough to compensate for the increase inconsumption due to the growing economy.Consumption of energy in the transport sec-tor rose by a total of 7.5 % between 1990

and 2010. On the other hand, consumptiondeclined by 7.1 % between 2000 and 2010.A downward trend in the energy consumed

by road vehicles has been observed(11.5 % from 2000 to 2009; see also Indi-cators 11a and 11b), while the air trafficsector has shown a large increase (+23.3 %between 2000 and 2009).

The domestic energy industry is charac-terised by a high dependency on energyimports. The percentage of net imports(imports minus exports minus bunker-

ing) in primary energy consumption rosesignificantly between 1990 and 2010 from56.8 % to 70.7 %.


8/80




Using resources economically and efficiently

1c Raw material productivity

The use of raw materials is indispensable

to economic development. However it alsohas environmental implications. Moreo-ver, the non-renewable natural resourcesconsumed today will no longer be availableto future generations. For many companies,raw materials represent important input fac-tors and hence cost factors. The economicaland efficient use of raw materials thereforelies in the interest of all social groups. TheFederal Government is pursuing the target

of doubling raw material productivity by2020 from the level recorded in the baseyear of 1994.

Raw material productivity expresses howmuch gross domestic product (in euros,adjusted for price) is obtained per tonneof abiotic primary material used. Abioticprimary materials include the raw materi-als taken from domestic natural sources excluding agricultural and forestry products

as well as all imported abiotic materials(raw materials, semi-finished and finishedproducts).

Raw material productivity increased by47.5 % between 1994 and 2010. While

Raw material productivity and economic growth1994 = 100

Raw material productivity1

Raw material extraction and imports

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1994 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 20102 2020

Goal: 200

Gross domestic product (price-adjusted)

122.3

82.9

147.5

1 sAbiotic. 2 .Preliminary result

Raw material extraction and imports (incl. indirect imports)

82.7


9/80



material usage decreased (17.1 %), thegross domestic product went up by 22.3 %.After seeing a relatively sharp increase

in productivity between 2008 and 2009(+5.4 %), this indicator rose only slightlyin 2010 (+0.7 %). Although on the wholethis indicator moved in the right direction,its rate of increase over the past five yearswould not be enough to achieve the goalset. If this pace is maintained, the indicatorwould in 2020 have covered around 82 %of the distance needed to meet the goalset for it, enough to give it level 2 status

(partly cloudy).

The rise in raw material productivitybetween 1994 and 2010 can be tracedprimarily to a drop of 34.4 % (correspond-ing to 274 million tonnes) in the amountof raw materials used in construction. Theamount of fossil-based energy sourcesused has decreased only slightly (2.8 %)since 1994. In contrast, the use of ores and

ore products increased significantly duringthis period (by 45 % or 39 million tonnes).The described increase in productivity wasa result of an overall decrease in materialusage at a time of rising gross domesticproduct.

One important factor in interpreting thetrend in the resource indicator is that thedemand for materials is increasingly being

covered by imports, the weight of whichis used in the indicator formula (so-calleddirect imports). While the extraction of rawmaterials in Germany decreased by 349million tonnes (32 %) between 1994 and2010, imports of raw materials, of semi-finished, and of finished goods increasedby 93 million tonnes (+24 %). This meansthat the share of imported goods in all pri-mary materials used increased from 26 % in

1994 to 39 % in 2010. In terms of quantity,the most important factors in this shift werethe increased imports of metallic semi-finished and finished products (+96 %) andof fossil-based energy sources.

This development warranted supplement-ing the raw material indicator with informa-tion on indirect imports to complementthe data on raw material extraction in

Germany and on direct imports. Together,direct and indirect imports comprise allraw materials used abroad to manufacturegoods imported into Germany (e.g. metalore for manufacturing machines, crude oilfor making synthetic fibre, energy sourcesfor producing steel). In 2009, for example,

538 million tonnes of goods were importeddirectly, the manufacture of which requiredaround 1,600 million tonnes of raw materi-

als in the producing countries. Between2000 and 2009, the raw material input asdefined above (broken line) also declined(11.3 %), though at a slower pace than theraw material input that only includes directimports (13.8 %). The overall result is animprovement in raw material productivity,albeit less than if indirect imports were nottaken into account.


10/80


Climate protection

Reducing greenhouse gases


2 Greenhouse gas emissions

Climate change is an enormous challengefor mankind. Germany has thus committeditself to an average reduction of 21 % in itsemissions of the six greenhouse gases andgreenhouse gas groups referred to underthe Kyoto Protocol between 2008 and 2012compared with 1990. Beyond this, theFederal Government has set itself the goalof cutting emissions by 40 % from 1990levels by the year 2020. Looking to the longterm, the Federal Government wants to see

greenhouse gases slashed by 80 to 95 %compared to 1990 by 2050 as part of theEnergy Concept.

According to the Kyoto Protocol, green-house gases include the following sub-stances: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane(CH4), nitrous oxide = laughing gas (N2O),hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluoro-carbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride(SF6). In terms of quantity, these gases are

emitted chiefly during the burning of fossilenergy sources, such as coal, oil and natu-ral gas. But they are also produced duringother, non-energy related activities, forexample in the production of iron and steel,during the application of solvents, in the

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Greenhouse gas emissions (six Kyoto gases) in CO equivalents2Base year = 100

74.7

Goal: 60

Goal: 79

101.4100

Goal:20 to 5

Baseyear 1990

9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 92000

01 02 03 04 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 92010 2020 2050

Source: Federal Environment Agency


11/80


use of mineral fertilisers, in the field of ani-mal husbandry and at waste disposal sites.

Since 1990 Germany has substantiallyreduced its greenhouse gas emissions.Compared to the base year set out in theKyoto Protocol (1990/1995; not includingemissions from land use changes andforestry), aggregate CO2equivalentemissions had fallen by approximately312 million tonnes, or 25.3 %, by 2009.This means that Germany had alreadyattained its emissions reduction goal in thefirst year of the commitment period. By farthe greatest share (85.7 %) of total green-house gas emissions in 2009 came in theform of carbon dioxide, with methane con-tributing 5.3 %, laughing gas 7.3 % and thefluorocarbons 1.3 %. Between 1990 and2009, carbon dioxide emissions declinedby 252.9 million tonnes of CO2equivalents,or 24.3 %. A large share of this reduction(111 million tonnes) was primarily due to

the industrial shutdowns that took placein the first five years after 1990. Accordingto a near real-time forecast by the GermanFederal Environment Agency (UBA), green-house gas emissions rose again in 2010following a disproportionate drop in 2009as a consequence of the economic crisis.

The Overall Environmental EconomicAccounting report revealed that the majorityof greenhouse gases produced in Germany

in 2009 stemmed from manufacturingindustries (58.0 %), followed by privatehousehold consumption (20.6 %), the serv-ice sector (13.2 %) and agriculture (8.2 %).Strictly speaking, private householdsactually account for more emissions thanis indicated here, since the electricity theyuse makes up part of the high emissionsincluded in the production sector for thegeneration and distribution of power and

gas. Between 2000 and 2009, 72 % of thegreenhouse gas reduction fell to the pro-duction sector and 28 % to private house-hold consumption (not including emissionsfrom the use of biomass). The calculationsapplied here take account of the emissionsproduced by German nationals residingabroad but not by foreign nationals residingin Germany.

According to data provided by the EuropeanEnvironment Agency, greenhouse gasemissions in the EU 15 between 2009(3.7 billion tonnes CO2equivalents) andthe base year fell by 12.7 % (0.5 billiontonnes CO2equivalents). The strikingdrop of 6.9 % seen between 2008 and

2009 was due primarily to the overalleconomic situation. Reports by the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) citing greenhouse gasemissions in 2009 in industrial countrieslisted Germany behind the United States(6.6 billion tonnes CO2equivalents), Russia(2.2 billion tonnes) and Japan (1.2 billiontonnes) as the fourth largest emitter with0.9 billion tonnes of CO2equivalents andthus still near the top of the list of indus-trialized nations. The indicator is relatedto many other indicators, for example, to

Indicators 1a,b, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12.



12/80



Renewable energy sources

Strengthening a sustainable energy supply

Share of renewable energy sources in total energy consumptionin %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1990 9 1 92 93 94 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 2000 01 02 03 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 09 10 2020 2050

Share of primary energy consumption2

Share of (gross) electricity consumption17.0

9.4

Goal: 80

1 Gross final energy consumption. 2 Based on efficiency method.

Goal: 60

Goal: 18

Goal:35

Share of final energy consumption1 10.9 Goal: 12.5

Source: Working Group on Renewable Energies - Statistics, Working Group on Energy Balances, Centre for Solar Energy andHydrogen Research Baden-Wrttemberg, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, July 2011

3b

3a3a Share of renewable energy sources

in final energy consumption

3b Share of renewable energy sources

in electricity consumption

The reserves of important fossil energysources such as oil and gas are limited, andtheir use is associated with greenhouse gasemissions. Switching to renewable energies(natural energy sources that constantlyregenerate) serves to reduce energy-relatedcarbon dioxide emissions and hence theextent of climate change. It makes the econ-

omy less dependent on energy imports,reduces the consumption of resources,improves the security of supply, promotestechnical innovation and leads to gains inefficiency.

The goal of the Federal Governments Sus-tainability Strategy is to promote the devel-opment of renewable sources of energy.Renewable energies include hydropower,

wind power, solar energy and geothermalenergy, but also biomass and the biode-gradable portions of domestic refuse.

The development of the use of renewableenergy is measured in the SustainabilityStrategy by means of the indicators Share


13/80



of renewable energy in final energy con-sumption (3a) and Share of renewableenergy sources in electricity consumption

(3b). The indicator previously used, Shareof renewable energy in total primary energywill continue to be charted for informationalpurposes. The aim as stated in EU Directive2009/28/EC is for the share of renewableenergy in the total gross final energy con-sumption in the EU to rise to 20 % by theyear 2020. Based on this total, Germanystarget is set at 18 %, and this goal has beenincorporated in the Sustainability Strategy.

By 2050 this share is supposed to rise to60 %. With respect to electricity genera-tion, the Federal Governments goal wasto achieve a 12.5 % share of renewableenergy sources by 2010. By 2020 it wantsto achieve a share of at least 35 % and by2050 of at least 80 %.

Between 1990 and 2010 the share ofrenewable energy in final energy consump-tion rose from 1.9 % to 10.9 %. If the trendcontinues at the pace seen in the past fiveyears, the goal for 2020 will be significantlyexceeded. The share of renewables inelectricity consumption rose from 3.1 % to17.0 % between 1990 and 2010, clearlysurpassing the target set for 2010. This

positive development was supported by aseries of legislative measures (EuropeanDirective 2001/77/EC on the promotion of

electricity produced from renewable energysources in 2004, the revised RenewableEnergies Act (EEG) and the RenewableEnergies Heat Act (EEWrmeG)). The EEGrequires that producers of electricity giveprecedence to renewable energy sourceswhen buying electricity. Since January 2007all businesses that market fossil fuels havebeen and are still obliged to also market aspecified minimum quantity of biofuels.

In 2010 the shares of the different renew-able energy sources to the total final energyconsumption produced from renewableenergies varied greatly. 71 % came frombio-energies, 13 % from wind power and7 % from hydropower. Of the total energyproduced from renewable energies in 2010,38 % was used for electricity generation,49 % for heat generation and 13 % forbiogenic fuels.

The accelerated increase of the share ofrenewable energies in electricity generationsince 2000 is due among other things tothe growing significance of wind power. Forexample, electricity generation from wind

power increased from 7,550 gigawatt hours(GWh) in 2000 (20 % of total electricity fromrenewables) to 37,793 GWh in 2010 (37 %

of total electricity from renewables). Elec-tricity generation from biomass increasednearly tenfold between 2000 and 2010.Heat generation from renewable energiesfrom the total biomass reached at last92 %.

Given the associated reduction in emis-sions, this indicator has a positive correla-tion to Indicator 2 (greenhouse gas emis-sions). The Federal Environment Agencyhas calculated that some 118 milliontonnes of CO2equivalents of greenhousegas emissions were avoided due to theuse of renewable energy sources in 2010.The actual growing of biomass for energyuse can, however, lead to competition foragricultural land and have negative conse-quences for the quality of the landscapeand for biodiversity (see Indicator 5). Therenewable energy indicator is related to avariety of other indicators, including someused in the Strategy.


14/80



Land use

Sustainable land use

4 Built-up area and transportinfrastructure expansion

Undeveloped, unfragmented and unspoiltland is a limited resource and therefore invery high demand. A variety of interests arecompeting for such land, including thoseof agriculture and forestry, settlement andtransport, nature conservation, resourceextraction and energy generation. Of these,the greatest increase in land use is beingseen in the area of settlement and trans-port.

The direct environmental consequences ofbuilt-up area and transport infrastructureexpansion include the loss of natural soilfunctions through sealing, the loss of fertileland or areas still close to their natural stateand the associated loss of biodiversity. Inaddition to this, each new instance of landdevelopment near urban areas and outsideexisting settlement centres brings with itmore traffic and more land fragmentation.Such activity leads to increased noise andpollution, but also to increased expense toprovide the needed infrastructure.

The Federal Governments goal is, there-fore, to limit the use of new areas for settle-

Built-up area and transport infrastructure expansionin ha per day

0

40

80

120

160

1993-1996

97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 2020

Goal: 30

120

87

1 Except mining land.

77

120

Transport land

Moving four-year averageRecreational land, cemetery

Building and adjacent open land, commercial/industrial land1


15/80



ment and transport purposes to an averageof 30 hectares (ha) a day by 2020.

Recent years have seen a noticeable slow-ing in the increase in the amount of landused for settlement and transport. The mov-ing four-year average for first-time land usefor settlement and transport purposes wasplaced at 87 ha per day in 2010. Continu-ing the average annual trend of the last fewyears would, however, still not be sufficientto reach the proposed reduction goal by2020.

Settlement and transport land includesbuilding and adjacent open land, com-mercial/industrial land (except mining),recreational land and cemetery andtransport land. The land used for settle-ment and transport cannot all be countedas sealed land, since such areas may alsoinclude spaces that are not built upon andnot sealed. According to estimates, 43 to50 % of settlement and transport land is

impermeable. Sealed land is also found inrecreational areas (e.g. sports grounds).

The method of calculating the increasein settlement and transport land use asa moving four-year average (shown as a

curve) currently delivers more robust infor-mation than the figures obtained for eachyear individually (columns). The reason for

this is methodological reorganisation of thepublic land survey registers on which thearea statistics are based. The moving four-year average shows an on-going reductionin the rate of land use expansion for set-tlement and transport between 2000 (129ha per day) and 2010 (87 ha per day). Thisdevelopment corresponds with the price-adjusted drop of 15.8 % in the amount ofmoney invested in building projects over

this period. A more detailed look at the fig-ures reveals a continuous drop in the yearsto 2005 followed by an up and down fluc-tuation in building investment. It remainsto be seen whether this will affect the paceof built-up area and transport infrastructureexpansion.

In the year 2000, the expansion of settle-ment and transport land use (131 ha perday) was distributed in percentage termsbetween the three components of buildingand adjacent open land, commercial/indus-trial land, recreational land, cemeteryand transport land at a ratio of 66:16:18.By 2010, overall expansion had fallen to77 ha per day and the distribution had

changed to 43:30:27. Alongside the sig-nificant reduction in the contribution madeby buildings and adjacent open land and

commercial/industrial land to the growth ofland used for settlement and transport, theincrease in the proportion of recreationalland and cemeteries is also noteworthy.One of the reasons for this latter trend wasthe aforementioned reorganisation in thepublic land survey registers. Independentof the land use growth figures, the actualshare of recreational and cemetery land inthe total settlement and transport land was

only 9.1 % in 2010.

In 2008, about 53 % of all settlement landwas used by private households, mainly forresidential purposes. Between 1992 and2008 the amount of settlement land usedby private households went up by 28.3 %, arate far faster than the number of residents(+ 1.3 %). A major reason for this is thesharp increase in living space per capita,which rose by 18.5 % (from 36 m2to 43 m2per capita) between 1993 and 2006.


16/80



Species diversity

Conserving species protecting habitats

101 Goal: 100

Species diversity and landscape qualityIndex 2015 = 100

107

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1970 1975 1990 91 9 2 9 3 94 9 5 9 6 97 9 8 9 9 2000 01 0 2 0 3 04 0 5 0 6 07 0 8 0 9 2015

Sub-index forestsSub-index housing areaTotal index

Sub-index farmland Sub-index inland waters

77

67

Source: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, 2011

5 Species diversity andlandscape quality

Having a wide diversity of animal and plantspecies is a fundamental prerequisite for ahealthy natural environment and an essen-tial basis for our human livelihood. Natureand landscapes in Germany bear the marksof centuries of use. Small-scale protectionof species and habitats alone will not besufficient to preserve the diversity whichhas been created by such use and throughwholly natural processes. What is required

instead are sustainable forms of land usethroughout the entire landscape, restric-tions on emissions and a more gentle handin dealing with nature. In this way speciesdiversity can be preserved and at the sametime the quality of human life can besecured.

The indicator supplies information onspecies diversity, on the quality of thelandscape and on the sustainability of thevarious land uses. The calculation of theindicator is based upon changes in the pop-ulations of 59 bird species, which togetherrepresent the most important types of land-scape and habitat in Germany (farmlands,forests, settlements, inland waters, coasts


17/80



and seas and the Alps). The size of the birdpopulations (based on the numbers of ter-ritories and/or breeding pairs) reflects the

suitability of the landscape as a habitat forthe bird species. This indicator also reflectsthe development of a number of other spe-cies in the landscape and the sustainabilityof land use, since besides birds there arealso other species that rely on a richlystructured landscape with intact, sustain-ably used habitats. A body of experts hasdetermined population targets for eachbird species for 2015, targets that could be

reached if the European and national legalprovisions relating to nature conservationand the guidelines on sustainable develop-ment are implemented quickly. Every year avalue for the overall indicator is calculatedbased on the degree to which the goals forall 59 bird species have been achieved.

In 1990, the indicator for species diversityand landscape quality was significantlylower than the reconstructed values for1970 and 1975. In the last ten years ofobservation (1999 to 2009) the indica-tor value has worsened to a statisticallysignificant degree. In 2009, it stood at justunder 67 % of the target value. If this trendcontinues unchanged, then the goal of

100 % in 2015 cannot be reached with-out considerable additional efforts by theFederal Government, the Lnderand the

municipalities in as many policy areas aspossible which are related to nature andlandscape conservation.

Over the ten years to 2009, the sub-indi-cators for farming land (66 % of the targetin 2009), for settlements (59 %), for coastsand seas (56 %) and for the Alps (77 %)moved further away from their respectivegoals to a statistically significant degree.For forests and inland waters (each at70 %), no statistically significant trend wasevident.

The chief causes of the decline in speciesdiversity are with regional differences the intensive use of land for farming andforestry, the fragmentation and over-devel-opment of the countryside, the sealingof land surfaces and the introduction ofsubstances such as acidifiers and nutrients

into the environment. In settlement areasthe loss of near-natural areas and villagestructures because of building activi-ties and soil sealing is having a negativeeffect. Endangering factors for habitatson the coast include disturbances due to

increased recreational use and overbuild-ing, for example through coastal protectionmeasures.

The climate change caused mainly bygreenhouse gas emissions is today alreadyleading to a shift in the geographic distri-bution of many species and is beginningto alter landscapes in Germany. Climatechange caused by human activity could inthe future considerably alter both speciesdiversity and the range of species as newspecies enter the area while others die off.Grassland ploughing and the increasingcultivation of fuel crops can also have nega-tive effects on the quality of the landscapeand on biodiversity. As yet it remains tobe seen in what ways the demographicchanges in those parts of the country withdeclining populations will affect speciesdiversity and landscape quality. Thisindicator is directly and indirectly related tomany other indicators used in the Strategy,including 1c, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13.


18/80



Government debt

Consolidating the budget

creating intergenerational equity

Ratio of government deficit

to gross domestic product in %

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

1991 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

General government deficit1 Economic growth

3.7

-2.1

Structural deficit

-4.3

Structuraldeficitlimit:-0.5

Governmentdeficit limit:-3.0

1 Overall balance of public finances in % of GDP.

Source: Federal Statistical Office, Federal Ministry of Finance

6b

6a 6a General government deficit

6b Structural deficit

Sound public finances represent anessential element of a sustainable financialpolicy. A policy that relies too heavily onborrowing to fund current public expendi-tures and then passes this debt on to futuregenerations is simply not sustainable.

The indicator for the general governmentdeficit is oriented to the Maastricht criteriainstituted on the European level. They

provide that every member of the Eurozone must consistently limit its annualgeneral government deficit to the referencevalue of 3 % of GDP. The aim is to achievea balanced budget or a surplus within themedium term. For this reason, an indicatorfor the structural deficit has been added tothe Sustainability Strategy. The structuralfinancial deficit serves as a benchmarkfor the funding gap in public budgets and

reflects the budget deficit of a country overthe economic cycle. In line with the Stabilityand Growth Pact as reformed in 2005, thegoal is to achieve a budget that is nearlystructurally balanced. Germany will complywith this mid-term goal by maintaining a


19/80



general government structural deficit (i.e.adjusted for cyclical and one-off effects)of no more than 0.5 % of GDP. Besides

the debt-to-GDP ratio, future pressures onpublic financing arising from demographicageing have also been taken into accountin setting this limit.

The balanced-budget provision that isanchored in Germanys Basic Law and thatapplies to both the Federal and Lndergov-ernments works to ensure that the Maas-tricht treaty rules for the member stateswill in fact be implemented on the nationallevel. This provision states that neitherspending increases nor tax decreasesare to be paid for through borrowing. TheFederal Government intends to reduce netstructural borrowing in regular stages to amaximum of 0.35 % of GDP by 2016 andto keep within this limit thereafter. As of2020, the Lndermust show no structuraldeficit whatsoever.

The financial and economic crisis hasplaced a noticeable dent in Germanyspublic finances. Following a small surplusin 2007 and a marginal deficit in 2008,the general government balance worsenedin 2009, with the deficit rising to 3.2 % of

GDP. The Maastricht reference value wasexceeded in 2010, with the deficit ratioclimbing to 4.3 % (EUR 105.9 billion). This

deficit was shared by the various levels ofgovernment as follows: EUR 79.7 billion forthe Federal Government, EUR 22.8 billionfor the Lnderand EUR 5.7 billion for themunicipalities. Only the social insurancesystem was able to record a positive fund-ing balance of EUR 2.3 billion.

The structural deficit in 2010 stood at 2.1 %of GDP. The primary reason that the struc-tural deficit exceeded the mid-term goal of0.5 % of GDP was the worsening structuralsituation in the budgets that was in turndue to the expansionary fiscal policiesimplemented to deal with financial crisis.During the first half of 2011, governmentrevenues rose sharply (+6.0 % comparedto the first six months of 2010), whilepublic expenditure increased only slightly(+0.3 %). The countrys funding deficitdropped to EUR 7.2 billion. The deficit ratiofor the first half of 2011 was 0.6 %.

The government revenue ratio fell to 43.6 %in 2010. The reasons for this included taxa-tion measures (more deductions allowedfor insurance contributions, plus stimulus

packages) and the lowering of the pre-mium rates for statutory health insurance.Though government expenditures in 2010

also dropped compared to the previousyear, this decrease was relatively modest,amounting to just 0.2 percentage points.

Expenditures associated with asset trans-fers jumped to nearly EUR 30 billion in2010. This was closely connected with the(one-time) transfer of risk exposures fromthe WestLB bank and the Hypo Real Estategroup to public institutions within theFederal Agency for Financial Market Stabili-sation (FMSA). By contrast, other expendi-tures (such as social benefits or employeesalaries) rose at a much lower rate than theGDP. In fact, the amount of property incomepayable, which mainly includes the govern-ments interest expenses, fell in absoluteterms from EUR 63.8 billion (2009) to EUR61.9 billion (2010).


20/80



Government debt

Consolidating the budget

creating intergenerational equity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1991 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Ratio of government debt to GDP

Government debt (Maastricht) in % of GDP

39.5

83.2

Reference value: 60

Source: German Central Bank, November 2011

6c Government debt

Besides the general government deficit,government debt is also an important

indicator of how sound public financestruly are. Among other things, the amountof money that the government has to payfor interest expenses is dependent uponthe level of government debt. The questionas to how much debt the public financescan sustainably bear cannot be answereddefinitively. There may be great variationsbetween countries so that the answer willdepend for one thing on the long-term

development of each countrys economicstrength in terms of its potential for eco-nomic growth. The most decisive factorregarding the sustainability of the publicfinances is the debt-to-GDP ratio, i.e. thelevel of public debt as a percentage of grossdomestic product (see also the Sustainabil-ity Reports issued by the Federal Ministryof Finance). The debt-to-GDP ratio indicatesthe amount of relative debt burden borneby the government budget and is a newindicator being added to the SustainabilityStrategy.

The European Unions Stability and GrowthPact specifies a reference value of 60 % as


21/80


the maximum debt-to-GDP ratio. This alsoserves as the national target for the indica-tor in the report. The balanced budget

provision anchored in Germanys Basic Lawis intended to guarantee a sustained reduc-tion of the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Since 2002, the debt-to-GDP ratio in Ger-many has continuously been above, and insome years far above, the limit set on theEuropean level. Following public budgetconsolidation efforts in the middle of thelast decade, the ratio had fallen to 65.2 %in 2007, only to rise again steadily in the

years that followed. At the end of 2010, thepublic budgets in Germany were burdenedwith a debt totalling EUR 2,062 billion. Thisis the equivalent of EUR 25,219 per person.This rise must be seen in the light of thefinancial and economic crisis. The sharprise between 2009 and 2010 (from 74.4 %to 83.2 %, a jump of EUR 294 billion) wasprimarily due to the fact that the newresolution agencies established for the

Hypo Real Estate and WestLB banks wereassigned to the public sector, meaningthat their liabilities were factored into thegovernment debt. This made up EUR 213billion of the total rise in government debtin 2010. At the same time, however, this

effected an increase in the governmentsfinancial assets. No expenditure has yetbeen made from the public purse for this

purpose. This component of new debttherefore has not increased the interestburden in the budgets.

The debt of the Federal Government rosebetween 2009 and the end of 2010 by EUR242 billion to reach approximately EUR1,308 billion. The main cause for this highjump was the aforementioned increase indebt associated with the founding of theresolution agency for Hypo Real Estate. The

debt owed by the Lnder increased in 2010by EUR 49 billion to EUR 620 billion, largelydue to the establishment of the resolutionagency for the WestLB bank. The debt owedby municipal governments in Germanyclimbed by EUR 5 billion in 2010 to reachEUR 134 billion. The social insuranceprogrammes recorded a surplus of over EUR1 billion in 2010. So in the final tally for2010, 63.5 % of the total debt was owed

by the Federal Government, 30.1 % by theLnderand 6.5 % by the municipalities. Theshare of debt borne by the Federal Gov-ernment and the municipalities declinedsteadily between 2000 and 2009 (beforethe resolution agencies were established),

while that of the Lnderrose during thesame period.

In the national balance of assets, the

debts owed by government are balancedby its assets, both tangible and financial.It is only after this balancing of debts andassets that we can draw any economicallyreliable conclusions concerning the burdenthat will be inherited by future generations.The biggest asset owned by the state isits infrastructure (roads, schools, publicbuildings). According to the physical assetaccounts maintained by the Federal Statisti-

cal Office, these assets were valued at EUR1,067 billion in 2009. Due to the interestsheld in the resolution agencies mentionedabove, securities now represent the secondmost highly valued asset. The indicator forthe Maastricht debt-to-GDP ratio is directlyrelated to Indicators 6a, b and 10 andalso has many links to other sustainabilityindicators from the economic, social andenvironmental fields.

21



22/80



Provision for future economic stability

Creating favourable investment conditions securing long-term prosperity

0

5

10

15

20

25

1991 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Gross fixed capital formation in relation to GDPin %

23.2

17.5

7 Gross fixed capital formationin relation to GDP

The investments made by both the privateand public sectors are decisive in creat-ing a strong and competitive economy. Inparticular, investments in new equipmentand in intangible assets lead to innovationsbeing realised and to markets and thusalso jobs being secured or expanded.At the same time, investment can contrib-ute to increasing the energy and resourceefficiency of the economy, for example,via energy saving measures in buildings,introducing more environmentally efficientproduction technologies or manufacturingmore environmentally efficient goods. Onthe other hand, certain types of investment,most notably in new construction, consumelarge amounts of material. In the case ofexpansion projects, such investment alsoinvolves the exploitation of previouslyunused land for settlement or transport

(see the environment-related indicators,e.g. 1c and 4).

Gross fixed capital formation includesinvestments in buildings (dwellings andnon-dwellings), equipment (machinery,vehicles, tools) and other assets (intangible


23/80



assets such as software and copyrights,property transfer costs, production live-stock).

On average over the last five reportingyears, the investment ratio (the ratio ofgross fixed capital formation in current pric-es to the gross domestic product) has risenslightly, although no statistical trend canbe identified. Between 1991 and 2005, theinvestment ratio dropped from 23.2 % to17.3 %. Until 2008, gross fixed capital for-mation grew faster than GDP and the ratioclimbed to 18.6 % (2008). But this upward

trend came to a halt in 2008. In 2010, theinvestment ratio reached 17.5 %. In theprevious year it had fallen to just 17.2 % fol-lowing the sharp drop in investment activityin 2009. While building investment in 2010had nearly regained the level seen prior tothe financial and economic crisis, invest-ments in equipment were, at 14.7 %, stillfar below pre-crisis levels.

Investment activity in 2009 was seriouslyaffected by the fallout from the worldwidefinancial and economic crisis. Equipmentinvestment (price-adjusted) literally col-lapsed, plummeting 22.8 % from the yearbefore. Building investment fell by 3.0 %.

Public sector investment in building activityhad a stabilising effect, though, manag-ing to rise by 2.8 % during the crisis yearof 2009. This increase, combined with theinvestment boosting effect of the variousstimulus programmes (such as the build-ing refurbishment programme) betweenNovember 2008 and January 2009, servedto prevent an even larger drop in buildinginvestment. 2010 saw a recovery in invest-ment activity. Equipment investment (price-adjusted) experienced a strong increase,climbing 10.5 % over the year, while build-ing investment rose by 2.2 %.

The period stretching from 1991 to 2010witnessed a strong shift in investmentactivity from the manufacturing sectorto the service sector. In 1991, 27.5 % ofinvestments in new plant and equipmentwere still being made by manufacturingcompanies. By 2010, this figure had fallento just 18.7 %. In 2010, 79.6 % of invest-ments were made in the service sector, up

from 70.7 % in 1991. The largest singleinvestment area was that of property andhousing. This sector accounted for 32.6 %of investments in all new buildings andequipment in 2010. This rise in the servicesectors share of capital spending was seen

throughout the period with the exception of2007 and 2008, when above-average eco-nomic and investment growth in manufac-

turing again led to a short-term rise in thissectors share of total investments.

Total net fixed capital (sum of fixed invest-ments minus depreciation) amounted toaround EUR 8,012 billion in 2009. Of thistotal, EUR 6,807 billion belonged to theprivate sector and EUR 1,097 billion wereheld by public sector. In calculating thetotal assets, the value of land and of finan-cial assets must be added to the tangible

assets (for information on the national bal-ance of assets, see Indicator 6b).


24/80



Innovation

Shaping the future with new solutions

* 8 Private and public spending onresearch and development

Spending on research and development

(R&D) can be counted among the mostimportant parameters in determining thepace of innovation of an economy. Thehigher the spending, the better the pros-pects of more dynamic gains in productiv-ity, stronger economic growth, improvedcompetitiveness and, not least, the chancethat our production and consumption pat-terns will move further in the direction ofsustainability.

This present indicator includes spending onR&D by the private and public sectors andby institutions of higher education as a per-centage of gross domestic product (GDP). In2002 the Barcelona Council set a Europeangoal for the share of expenditure on R&D of3 % by 2010, and the Federal Governmentincorporated this goal for Germany earlyon as part of its National Sustainability

Strategy. In accordance with the goal set bythe EU, the R&D spending target of 3 % ofGDP is now envisioned for 2020 (instead of2010) as part of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Private and public spending on research and developmentSpending as % of GDP

Goal: 3*

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1991 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 091 2020

Germany Japan USA EU 27

* / new evaluation .New goal ; no comparability to the previous period. For detailed comments see text1 .Partially estimated

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)


25/80



According to provisional figures, overallR&D expenditure in Germany in 2009amounted to EUR 67.0 billion, equivalentto 2.8 % of GDP. By comparison, this valuestood at 2.8 % in the USA in 2008 and at3.4 % in Japan. The EU 27 region, however,had a significantly lower proportion of R&Dexpenditure in the GDP (2.0 % in 2009).Since 2000 the proportion in Germany hasrisen by about 0.35 percentage points. Inthe 1990s it initially fell, dropping to itslowest point in 1995/96 and not surpass-ing the 1991 level again until 2002. If theaverage annual trend of the last five yearswere to continue unchanged, it might bepossible to attain the 2020 goal, but notthe target originally sighted for 2010.

Internal research within industry accountedfor by far the largest share of R&D expendi-ture in 2009 at around 68 %, with 18 %spent by institutions of higher educationand another 15 % by both public andprivate non-profit research institutions.

Staff employed in R&D in 2009 comprisedaround 534,600 full-time equivalents, afigure that only includes the proportion oftheir working hours actually spent on R&Dwork. Some 62 % of these employees workin the private sector, 22 % in institutions of

higher education and 16 % in public andprivate non-profit research institutions.

A comparison of research fields shows

that in both public and private non-profit research institutions the natural andengineering sciences played a particularlyimportant role (with 46 % and 27 % of 2009R&D expenditure spent in these areas,respectively). Research in the humanitiesand social sciences accounted for 13 % ofexpenditure, human medicine for 8 % andagricultural sciences for 6 %.

R&D activities in private industry focusedon the sectors of vehicle construction, dataprocessing, electrical engineering, chemi-cals and pharmaceuticals, and mechanicalengineering altogether comprising around72 % of expenditure in private enterprise. In2009 the automotive industry alone spentabout EUR 13.8 billion on R&D. (Source:Stifterverband Wissenschaftsstatistik)


26/80



Education and training *

Continuously improving education and vocational training

18- to 24-year-olds without a leaving certificate from post-16 education and not in trainingShare of all 18- to 24-year-olds in %

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 2020

Female Male

11.9 (total)

Goal:


27/80


did not go on to qualify for university or tocomplete vocational training and are nolonger participating in the education proc-ess are also counted as early school leavers.Moving in line with the EU2020 Strategy, theFederal Government retracted its 2010 goalfor the indicator (9 %) and revised its goalfor 2020. The aim is for the share of earlyschool leavers to not exceed 10 % in 2020(previous goal: 4.5 %). In 2010 the indicatorstood at 11.9 % and therefore missed theprevious goal. If the current average trendcontinues, however, the new goal for 2020will be met. The improvement seen since

the last report must be viewed in connectionwith the changes made to both goals.

In 2010 a total of 784,000 young peopledid not have an apprenticeship or had notcompleted upper secondary education.Between 1999 and 2010, the share of thistotal attributed to 18- to 24-year-olds fellfrom 14.9 % to 11.9 %. In 2006 it stood at14.1 % and in 2009 at 11.1 %. Since 1999the gender-specific figures for the indica-tor have deviated from the total values todiffering extents. In 2010 the proportion ofyoung women stood at 11.0 %, lower thanthat of young men at 12.7 %. Looking at theshare of school drop-outs (not shown inchart), school statistics show that in 2010

a total of around 53,000 young people(6.6 % of the graduating class) left schoolwithout a Hauptschulabschluss(generalschool leaving certificate). Their share hasdropped by 36.7 % compared to 1999. Inthe case of young women the proportioncontinues to be markedly lower (5.3 %)than that of young men (7.8 %). In 2010,22.3 % (179,753) of all school leaverswith a school leaving certificate obtaineda Hauptschulabschluss(general schoolleaving certificate), some 43.5 % (350,856)a Realschulabschluss(intermediate schoolleaving certificate), 1.4 % (13,455) the

Fachhochschulreife(applied sciences uni-versity entrance qualification) and 28.4 %(268,194) the allgemeine Hochschulreife(general higher education entrance quali-fication). The proportion of school leaverswith a Hauptschulabschlusshas declinedsince 1999 by 3.8 percentage points, whilethe proportions of school leavers with aRealschulabschlussrose by 2.7 percentagepoints, with the Fachhochschulreifeby 0.4

percentage points and with the Hochschul-reifeby 3.6 percentage points.

Family and social background and onesknowledge of the German language play animportant role in school and professionaldevelopment. There continues to be a large


discrepancy between the educational suc-cess of Germans and that of foreign youngpeople (see Indicator 19). According tovocational education statistics, the numberof new apprenticeship contracts droppedto 558,100 in 2010, a decline of 0.6 %compared with the preceding year (prelimi-nary results as at 31 December.). Here, theslight rise (1.4 %) seen in the former WestGerman Lnderwas more than offset bythe sharp drop in the eastern Lnderand inBerlin (9.7 %), where demographic trendsplay a role along with the greater tendencyof those who qualify to actually go on to

attend university. In the case of unsuccessfulapplicants apart from unrealistic job pref-erences and a lack of openings in appren-ticeships regionally a lack of qualificationsoften played a significant role. But due todemographic changes and the associateddrop in the number of young people applyingfor apprenticeships, companies are experi-encing increasing difficulty in filling traineeslots, a problem that is particularly (though

not solely) found in the eastern Lnder. Atthe end of 2010, 1.508 million young peoplewere receiving education and training withinGermanys dual education system, 4 % lessthan during the previous year.


28/80





30- to 34-year-olds with a tertiary or post-secondary non-tertiary level of educationShare of all 30- to 34-year-olds in %

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 2010 2020

33.6

Goal: 42

22.4

33.4

41.3

Total tertiary orpost-secondarynon-tertiary(ISCED 4, 5A, 5B, 6)

Male

Female

Total tertiary(ISCED 5A, 5B, 6)

EU 27 tertiary(ISCED 5A, 5B, 6)

9b 30- to 34-year-olds with a tertiary or

post-secondary non-tertiary

level of education

Advanced economies like Germanys, inwhich the service and knowledge/expertisesectors are becoming increasingly impor-tant in comparison to industrial manufac-turing, need a highly skilled and qualifiedlabour force. Based on the core target of theEurope 2020 Strategy drafted in 2010, theNational Sustainability Strategy indicator asrevised by the Federal Government in 2012specifies the share of all young people aged

30 to 34 (previously: 25-year-olds) whohave completed a programme of tertiaryeducation (as per International StandardClassification of Education/ISCED levels5/6) or comparable education (ISCED 4).

Tertiary degrees include degrees fromtraditional universities and universitiesof applied sciences (ISCED 5A/6), as wellas from public administration colleges,

professional and vocational colleges,technical schools and health care schools(ISCED 5B). In addition, the new indicatoralso includes qualifications awarded frompost-secondary non-tertiary schools (ISCED4; see definition in Annex). The distinguish-


29/80


ing feature here is that two upper second-ary degrees are obtained consecutively oreven simultaneously. For example, one canobtain university-entrance qualifications(theAbitur) from an evening school, adulthigh school or vocational/technical highschool (in each of these cases, studentsmust first have completed a programme ofvocational education), or one can com-plete a course of teacher education afterreceiving theAbitur, or after completingtwo consecutive programmes of vocationaleducation. The Federal Government and theLnder want to see this national indicatorrise to 42 % by the year 2020. The Europe2020 Strategy cites a goal of 40 % for terti-ary degrees or comparable qualifications.

Starting at 33.4 % in 1999, this nationalstrategy indicator had by 2010 climbedeight percentage points to a level of 41.3 %,just short of the target set by the Cabinetfor 2020. At 42.7 %, the figure for womenhad already exceeded the goal, while the

figure for men (40.0 %) was still well belowthe target. These favourable figures mustbe seen in connection with the fact thatthe international community does notnormally include post-secondary non-terti-ary degrees in this indicator for the simple

reason that such degrees do not exist inmany other countries. For the EU 27 coun-tries, the more narrowly defined indicator(limited to ISCED 5/6) has risen steadilysince 2002 to reach a total of 33.6 % in2010. If we were to apply the EU definitionfor the indicator to Germany (i.e. share of30- to 34-year-olds with a tertiary degree)the numbers would have risen from a base-line of 24.8 % in 1999 by five percentagepoints to 29.8 % in 2010, nearly four percent below the EU figure. In 2010, therewere no noteworthy differences betweenthe percentage figures for men and women.

The number of graduates from institutionsof higher education in 2010 totalled361,697, 63 % more than in 1999. Theseincluded 59,249 engineering graduates(40 % more than in 1999) and 63,497mathematics graduates, almost twice the1999 total.

The European-wide restructuring of univer-sity programmes (Bologna process) hasthe goal of introducing bachelors andmasters courses in order to encourageinternational mobility among students andgraduates and to enhance the attraction ofEuropean universities for foreign students.

In 2010, 69.7 % of all those commencingtheir studies in Germany chose a bachelorsdegree programme (previous year: 69.4 %)and 3.6 % chose a course leading to amasters degree (previous year: 3.0 %). Bycomparison, the numbers of studentstaking the traditional state examinationsand other programmes declined (18.0 %,from 19.3 % the year before), while thefigures for those working towards Diplomand Magisterdegrees barely moved (8.6 %compared to 8.3 % in the previous year).Another intended effect of introducing theBachelors degree was to reduce the periodof study. In 2010 the average age of gradu-ates completing their first degree was 26.9years and thus slightly lower than in 1999(28.3 years). This figure is connected witha childs age at the time of starting school,the period of time spent at school and theduration of the transition from school tohigher education, but also of course withthe length of time spent in higher education.On average in 2010, graduates obtainingthe Bachelors degree did so at the age of25.4 (previous year: 25.5), while the age ofMasters recipients remained unchanged at28.0, slightly more than those graduatingwith a Diplom(27.8, compared to 27.7 theyear before).



30/80





Share of students starting a degree course

Share in %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1993 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 20101

Goal: 40

Total(national calculation)OECD mean

24.8OECD standard

1 Preliminary results.

Total(OECD standard)

OECDstandard42.5

9c Share of students starting

a degree course

An educational policy which enables as

many young people as possible to acquireeducational qualifications is a prerequisitefor our societys ability to meet the challen-ges of the future. The indicator for the shareof students starting a degree course meas-ures the number of first-semester studentsfrom Germany and abroad enrolled at insti-tutions of higher education (excluding pub-lic administration colleges) expressed as apercentage of the relevant age group. The

Federal Governments goal was to increasethe share of students starting a degreecourse to 40 % by 2010, and in subsequentyears to increase and stabilise this figure ata high level. When discussing what meas-ures need to be taken to achieve this goal,we must keep in mind that the Lnder areprimarily responsible for education policy.

Between 1993 and 2004 the share of stu-

dents starting a degree course in Germany(determined according to the OECDstandard) rose from 24.8 % to 37.5 %. Aftera drop in the years 2005 to 2007, it has inrecent years risen sharply to reach 42.5 % in2010, topping the goal set for that year. At


31/80



43.4 % the percentage of women was abovethe target value and again over the percent-age seen for men (41.7 %).

The average rate among the OECD countrieswas much higher than this, with 59 % ofyoung people entering higher educationprogrammes in 2009. The proportions ofstudents starting a university course werewell above average for the relevant agegroup in Australia (94 %), Poland (85 %),Portugal (84 %), New Zealand (78 %), Ice-land and Norway (77 % each) and Korea(71 %), while Germany, together with Swit-

zerland, Turkey, Mexico, was at the lowerend of the scale. The differing structure ofthe educational systems in the OECD coun-tries must be taken into consideration here.The below-average value for Germany isinfluenced by the fact that most vocationaleducation and training is provided within adual-track system, whereas in other coun-tries it takes place primarily at universitylevel.

During the 2010 academic year (summersemester 2010 and winter semester 2010/2011), 443,035 new students enrolled atGerman institutions of higher education(preliminary results). This number cor-

responds to a first-year student quota of46.0 % when calculated based on nationalclassifications (blue line). With an increaseof 18,800 (4.4 %) compared with 2009, thenumber of new students in 2010 exceededthe previous record achieved the year before(424,273 new students). This marked rise isconnected to some extent with the pecu-liarity that certain Lnderhave mandateda reduction in the number of school years(2007 in Saxony-Anhalt, 2008 in Mecklen-burg-Western Pomerania and 2009 in Saar-land), which then led to two classes gradu-ating in the same year. It is expected thatthe suspension of the military draft com-bined with overlapping graduating classesin further Lnderwill result in another steepclimb in the number of students enrolled inhigher education institutions.

2010 saw around 456,000 young peopleobtain their university entrance qualification(theAbituror Fachhochschulreife), up 1.6 %from the previous year (preliminary results,

including those graduating after eight yearsat Gymnasium). 47.2 % of those obtaininguniversity qualifications were young men.

Young people who were eligible to go touniversity increasingly chose vocationaltraining instead of attending a university.

The proportion of those starting an appren-ticeship who were eligible to go to universityrose from 14.0 % in 2003 to 20.9 % in 2010.Reasons for the increasing preference forvocational training among those qualifiedfor university include the desire for morepractical types of training not offered by uni-versity as well as the enrolment restrictionsthat apply to certain subjects.

First-year students who acquired their uni-versity entrance qualifications in Germanywere on average 21.6 years old in 2010.15.3 % of all new enrolees came to Germany

from abroad to study. Since most of thesehad already studied in their home country,on average they were two years older thandomestic students. This meant that theaverage age for starting university stud-ies was 22.0 years. Looking at examplesfrom other European countries, first-yearstudents in Belgium, Spain and Ireland werethe youngest enrolees in 2009 (around 19years), while new students in Iceland (22.8),

Denmark and Sweden (22.1 each) were theoldest. But there are also broad age differ-ences within Germany itself, with the ageranging from 20.8 years in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony, Saxony-Anhaltand Thuringia to 22.2 years in Hamburg.


32/80


II. Quality of life

Economic output

Combining greater economic output with environmental and social responsibility

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1991 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

GDP per capitaPrice-adjusted, at 2005 prices in EUR 1,000

29

10 Gross domestic product per capita

Gross domestic product (GDP) expressesthe total economic output produced within

the country. It is considered an importantindicator of a nations economic strengthand growth. Changes in GDP are related ina variety of ways to other topics includedwithin the National Sustainability Strat-egy. Social factors such as the populationstructure, the labour supply, the educa-tional system and social cohesion play animportant role in society with regard tointernational economic competitiveness.

Increasing economic output is, of course,desirable from a welfare perspective.Sufficient economic growth can enablestructural change, safeguard and createjobs and stabilise social systems againstthe background of the ageing society andthe desired intergenerational equity. Onthe other hand, growth of the GDP tends tohave an adverse effect on the environment.The continued decoupling of economic

growth and environmental degradation istherefore an important prerequisite for asustainable economy.

Between 1991 and 2010 price-adjustedGDP per capita increased by a total of

II Q li f lif


33/80


23.7 %. Following vigorous GDP growth inthe period 2005 to 2008 averaging 2.8 %per year, the GDP per capita dropped by4.9 % in 2009 compared with the previous

year in the wake of the financial and eco-nomic crisis. Economic output recovered in2010 and the GDP rebounded to an averageof EUR 29,000 per capita, nearly equallingthe 2008 level. Over the last five years, GDPper capita rose by an average of 1.4 % peryear.

Economic growth varied considerably bysector. The price-adjusted gross value

added in the industrial sector (manufactur-ing industry excluding construction) expe-rienced real growth of just 7.4 % between1991 and 2010. The service sectorsenjoyed a very much sharper rise of 46.1 %.In 2009 industry suffered a severe dropin economic output, which fell by 17.9 %compared with the previous year. The dropin the service sector on the other handwas very much lower at 1.1 %. Although

economic output bounced back in 2010,the industrial sector has not yet managedto return to the production levels seen in2008. While in 1991 the industrial sectorstill accounted for a 30.2 % share of totalgross value added (at current prices), by

2010 this figure had declined to less than24.7 %. By contrast, the share attributed tothe service sector increased from 62.5 %(1991) to 70.1 % (2010). 73.9 % of the

labour force worked in the service sector in2010, 24.5 % in the manufacturing industryand 1.6 % in agriculture and forestry. Thesechanges to the structure of the economy marked by the increasing importance ofservices and the decreasing significance ofthe production, mining, and constructionindustries contributed to a decoupling ofeconomic growth and environmental degra-dation (see Indicators 1 and 2).

Economic output also varied from region toregion. The eastern Lnder(except Berlin)were able to more than double their percapita economic output between 1991 and2010 (+105 %). The GDP increased by 81 %,while population figures dropped by 11.9 %(1.549 million people). In the former WestGermany (excluding West Berlin), per capitaGDP increased by only 17.1 % to 2010, with

a 23.9 % increase in total GDP and 5.7 %increase in population. Despite these highgrowth rates, per capita GDP in the easternLnderstill lagged some 31 % behind thefigures seen in the western part of thecountry in 2010.

II. Quality of life

The total number of gainfully employedpeople in Germany increased by about 1.9million persons between 1991 and 2010.Nevertheless, parts of the population are

still threatened by poverty. The EU Statisticson Income and Living Conditions (SILC)for 2008 showed that 15.3 % of the totalpopulation in Germany was threatenedby poverty. This was up from the 12.3 %figure seen in 2005. Being a relative value,this statistic shows that growth in percapita GDP does not necessarily reducepoverty. A comparison with the other EUcountries places Germany below the EU

average of 16.5 %. However, Germany findsitself above the European average whenit comes to the number of people living inhouseholds with very low work intensity.The figure for 2008 was 12 % of all personsbetween the ages of 0 and 59. The EUaverage here was 9 %.

II Q lit f lif


34/80


II. Quality of life

Mobility

Guaranteeing mobility protecting the environment

Intensity of goods transport1999 = 100

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 102 2020

Goods transport performance

113.1

Goal: 98

Goal: 95

110.6

125.1

1 Excluding air transport, transport via pipelines and by light commercial vehicles (< 3.5 t gross vehicle weight). 2 Preliminary results.

Energy consumption1 Energy consumption per tonne-kilometre1

103.0

82.1

Gross domestic product(price-adjusted)

Intensity of goods transport

Source: Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development, Federal Environment Agency

11a Intensity of goods transport

The Federal Government monitors thesustainability of goods transport develop-

ment by means of the indicator Intensity ofgoods transport. The intensity is measuredas the ratio between domestic goods trans-port performance (road, railway, inlandwaterways, pipelines and air) in tonne-kilometres and the price-adjusted GDP. Thegoal of the Federal Government is to reducethe intensity by 2 % compared to the 1999base value by 2010, and by an additionalthree percentage points by 2020.

Between 1999 and 2010, the intensity ofgoods transport moved opposite to thedesired direction and increased by 10.6 %.The goal set for 2010 was not achieved.The indicators movement over the pastfive years reveals no statistically significanttrend.

The only year that the indicator moved inthe desired direction was 2009. This wasprimarily due to the drop in economicoutput (price-adjusted gross domesticproduct). The same year also saw steepdownturn in goods transport performance(in tonne-kilometres) that was in part the

II Quality of life


35/80


II. Quality of life

result of a reduced vehicle capacity utilisa-tion rate in the road transport sector due tothe economic crisis. This also explains theslight increase in average energy consump-

tion per tonne-kilometre even thoughoverall energy consumption dropped. Asthe economic recovery took hold in 2010,goods transport performance began to riseagain, reaching a level 25 % above that of1999. One side effect was an increase inenergy consumption, which rose by 3 % inthe period between 1999 and 2010. Theenergy consumption per tonne-kilometredropped during this same period, with the

2010 value amounting to 82.1 % of the1999 amount.

Besides the presumably short-term effect ofthe economic crisis, a number of long-termfactors also influenced developments intransport intensity in the 1999 to 2009period. In industry, the vertical range ofmanufacture has decreased, somethingthat is normally associated with greater

transport requirements because companiesprocure more intermediate goods fromboth domestic and international suppli-ers. This so-called technical division oflabour is approximately described by theratio of the total volume of goods (both

domestically produced and importedgoods and services) to the GDP. This factoraccounted for a calculated increase of 10.0percentage points in transport intensity.

In addition, the average distance betweenthe place of production and the place ofuse of the goods increased, working toraise transport intensity by a further 10.0percentage points. On the other side ofthe balance sheet is the shift in demandto less material-intensive goods (e.g., anincreasing share of services). The resultingchange in the composition of transportedgoods served to cut 11.9 percentage points

from the calculated total transport intensity.All three factors described above result inthe cited aggregate rise in the intensity ofgoods transport of 8.1 % between 1999and 2009.

The indicator on goods transport perform-ance refers by definition to transport withinGermany. It does not therefore sufficientlyreflect the influence of the growing integra-

tion into foreign trade of the German econ-omy (globalisation). Globalisation causessignificant traffic flows outside of Germanyas well. 960 million tonnes of Germanimports and exports were moved outsideof Germany in 2008, making for a transport

performance of 2,855 billion tonne-kilome-tres (including sea and pipeline transport).By comparison: Domestic goods transportperformance in 2009 came to 583 billion

tonne-kilometres with a transport volume of3,702 million tonnes.

The indicator is directly and indirectlyrelated to indicators 1, 2, 4, 10, 12, 13 and16 (with regard to the transport servicesindustry and the automobile industry), andothers.

II Quality of life


36/80


II. Quality of life

Mobility


Intensity of passenger transport1999 = 100

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 20101 2020

Passenger transportperformance

106.7

Goal: 90

Goal: 80

94.4

113.1

Energy consumption Energy consumption per passenger-kilometre

94.6

89.5

1 Preliminary results.

Gross domestic product(price-adjusted)

Intensity of passenger transport

Source: Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development, Federal Environment Agency

11b Intensity of passenger transport

The availability of adequate, flexibleand inexpensive passenger transport is

important both with regard to social welfare(especially personal mobility) and for thefunctioning and the international competi-tiveness of a modern economy based onthe principle of division of labour. Passen-ger transport activities can, however, alsolead to substantial environmental burdens,especially through the use of fossil energysources, atmospheric emissions, land useand noise pollution. For this reason the

Federal Government is pursuing the goalof decoupling economic growth from anincrease in passenger transport perform-ance and the environmental burden causedby transport.

The sustainability of passenger transporttrends is measured by the intensity of pas-senger transport indicator (ratio betweenpassenger transport performance in pas-

senger-kilometres and price-adjusted grossdomestic product). The goal of the FederalGovernment is to reduce the intensity ofpassenger transport by 10 % compared to1999 by the year 2010, and by an addition-al ten percentage points by 2020.

II Quality of life


37/80


After moving in the right direction for a longperiod, the indicator jumped sharply in2009 compared to the previous year. Thiswas not, however, due to a corresponding

rise in passenger transport performance,but rather to the plunge in economic output(price-adjusted GDP) in the wake of the eco-nomic crisis of 2008/2009. As the economyrecovered, the indicator resumed its move-ment in the desired direction in 2010, butdid not reach the goal set for 2010. Theend result is that the indicator fell only by5.6 % since 1999. The past five years haverevealed no statistically significant trend.

Despite the rise in passenger transportperformance between 1999 and 2010(up 6.7 %), the total energy consumptiondeclined. For all modes of transport, energyconsumption per passenger-kilometredecreased by 10.5 %, to 1.75 megajoulesper passenger-kilometre (MJ/pkm). Thisreduction was particularly achieved throughefficiency gains in private motorised trans-

port, since it is responsible for the largestproportion of total passenger transportperformance and hence for the energy usedto transport passengers.

The transport performance attributableto private motorised transport rose by arelatively modest 4.4 % since 1999. By con-trast, the passenger transport performance

for railway and public road transport (whichuntil 2003 comprised only enterpriseswith at least six buses) increased overallby 7.7 %. The performance of domestic airtransport increased by 21.2 %.

Private motorised transport accountedfor 80.2 % of total passenger transportperformance in 2010. This type of trans-port serves various purposes. Recreational

traffic accounted for the biggest share intransport performance (35.3 %) in 2009.The share of commuter traffic amountedto 19.4 %, followed by shopping traffic at17.9 % and business trips at 13.9 %. Theseshare figures have remained more or lessconstant over the years.

Between 1999 and 2009, fuel consump-tion per kilometre in passenger and estate

vehicles fell by 11.8 %. This was chiefly dueto technological improvements and thegrowing share of diesel vehicles.

This indicator is related to, among oth-ers, indicators 1a,b (as concerns energy

consumption), 2 (as concerns climate-damaging fuel emissions), 3, 4, 10, 12a,13 (as concerns atmospheric deposition ofnitrogen compounds from the combustion

of fuels), 14a, b (as concerns traffic acci-dents) and in some cases 16 (as concernsthe transport services industry and theautomobile industry).

II. Quality of life

II Quality of life


38/80


II. Quality of life

Mobility


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 20101

2015

Share of rail and inland freight water transport in goods transport performancein %

18.0

Inland water transportRail transport

Goal:14

Goal: 25

10.5

16.5

13.5

Excluding local haulage by German lorries (up to 50 km).1 Preliminary results.

Source: Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development

11d

11c11c, d Share of rail transport and

inland freight water transport

Goods transport by rail or inland waterways

has a distinctly lower environmental impactper tonne-kilometre than has transportby road or air. For this reason the FederalGovernment aims to significantly increasethe share of domestic rail (11c) and inlandfreight water transport (11d) in overallgoods transport performance. The goal isto increase the share of rail transport by2015 to 25 %, and of inland freight watertransport to 14 %.

Total domestic goods transport perform-ance went up by 27.9 % to 595.0 billiontonne-kilometres between 1999 and 2010.The market share of ra

Indicators 2012

Documents

Transcript of Indicators 2012