Intergovernmental Negotiations on Post-2015 Development Agenda consideration of goals and targets – Day 1: Indicators

Ambassador Kamau, Co-facilitator, opened the third session of negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda on sustainable development goals and targets.  He drew attention to the two letters that had been sent out by the co-facilitators on 6 March and 17 March (See: Co-facilitators provide further information on the agenda for the third intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda) that outlined the agenda for the meeting. He also referred to the fact that there was no appetite for re-opening the goals and targets. 

In introducing the presentation by John Pullinger, Chair of the Statistical Commission, he noted that a document had been received from the Commission on 18 March. He said that he was seeking assurances and reassurances from the Statistical Commission and UN Statistical Division that work was moving along smoothly. 

Presentation by John Pullinger, Chair of the Statistical Commission

John Pullinger, Chair of the Commission, in his statement, commented (as had Ambassador Kamau) on the “buzz” in the room. The technical work on indicators is well under way and the Friends of the Chair group had been actively supportive in 2013 and 2014, including on the survey of available information, which had been led by France and India. Chief Statistical Officers had attended the 45^th session of the Statistical Commission, for which the main topic had been the indicators for the post-2015 development agenda.

Statisticians were ready “to step up, step forward and step on the gas” in developing indicators. He noted that many indicators are out of reach of developing countries and that developing countries should work towards meeting them. In outlining the proposed time frame, the Commission had endorsed a road map to July 2016 with the first meeting of the Inter Agency and Expert Group (IAEG) in May to decide its programme of work and criteria for the indicators, using the guidance received during this meeting. They were willing to update the international negotiating body after the May meeting and were planning a first note to be available by July.  

A robust framework is a technical process and the global indicator framework should include a limited number of indicators. There are existing conceptual indicator frameworks and the IAEG will work on a set of core indicators for the global level. He saw the Technical Report as a point of departure. There will also be added regional, national and thematic indicators, with reviews in future years.

The IAEG, according to the road map, will ensure equitable regional representation. A high-level group (HLG) to provide strategic leadership including in monitoring. He referred to the need to build capacity including those of least developed countries. 

Presentations were also made by the Chief Statisticians of India, who highlighted the importance of national ownership in measurement; Hungary, who reiterated the need for capacity building; Botswana , for whom stakeholder involvement critical; and Ecuador who spoke on behalf of the  ECLAC region.

Targets in the proposed SDG framework

Before opening up the debate, Ambassador Kamau said that the Co-facilitators were circulating a new paper “Targets in the proposed SDG framework". He said that they had a clear sense that some targets would require a little “tweaking” to take into account the ‘Xs’ and ‘Ys’. They had asked the UN Task Team (UNTT) also to look at those that fell below existing agreements, and to see whether any targets are duplicative. These have been reviewed, as well as possibilities for changing dates to align the set on 2030. 

This document includes some tweaks, which change the wording but not the intent. He emphasized that the co-facilitators were not engaged in a broad-based technical proofing exercise. Nineteen targets required some fixing out of 169, which was slightly over 10 percent -- a “pretty conservative” approach.

Key points from statements 

South Africa speaking on behalf of  G77 and China: emphasized that the goals and targets should not be reopened. They were averse to “repackaging.” The means of implementation (MOI) under each goal are essential components. They saw the indicator work as a technical process. They must respond to the goals and targets, which reflects a delicate political balance. In developing the indicators, all targets should be afforded the same level of importance. They should be limited in number and should measure a number of goals and targets. The Statistical Commission’s mandate is confined to global indicators and it should not delve into national indicators. The G77 and China took note that the IAEG will be inter-governmental in nature and recognized that it would need assistance to carry out its work. It must be led by national statistical offices.

European Union: supported a robust framework for timely indicators. Further work is needed and the EU strongly supports the Commission’s framework, but it should be broader, including the UNTT. Indicators should provide a measure of the relevance for each target and build on existing indicators and systems. Indicators should be gender and age sensitive and disaggregated. They should not result in oversimplifying targets and it is important that parts of targets are not lost. The EU also supported selecting targets that respond to targets under different goals. In addition they would welcome further updates, while recognizing that global indicators should be supported by regional and national with comparability. The process should not be rushed, but the Summit package should have include a political affirmation of importance of indicators. 

Namibia, on behalf of the African Group:  said that crafting indicators is a technical process, although they wished to underscore that the Statistical Offices need to preserve the confidence that is put on them by Member States. They pointed out that some sets of indicators have been circulated and wondered from where they emanated and who gave the mandate. Only the Statistical Commission had the mandate to develop them. The IAEG should be an intergovernmental body. There was an issue of financing its work and it must not be used to introduce contentious issues, including overemphasizing one dimension of SDGs. They noted that not all targets might be equally measurable, which should not mean that some are more important than others. They stressed the importance of addressing the challenge of capacity deficit in this area, including in Africa, the least developed countries and small island developing states (SIDS).  

Maldives, on behalf of SIDS: pointed out that indicators can alter the visibility of goals and targets and that the MOI identified under each are essential components. For SIDS, measuring indicators is a problem. They preferred a smaller number of indicators.

Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Arab States: supported the proposed time frame, stressing that time was needed to study issues such as capacity building. The indicators should offer guidance at the global level and should not conflict with national laws. National authorities are the only mandated bodies at the national level. Financing should be made available for countries to attend meetings. They referred to issues that were missing from the SDGs but that were essential for achieving the goals and targets including fighting terrorism, foreign occupation and national sovereignty. 

Benin, on behalf of the least developed countries: expressed serious concerns about the MOI under Goal 17. They reiterated that goals and targets should not be reopened under technical and scientific proofing. Indicators should be developed using a multi-stakeholder approach. 

General discussion

Countries welcomed the Statistical Commission road map. They were in agreement that the indicator development is a technical process that should be carried out by the Commission, through the IAEG. The process should be open and transparent. Other concerns included that the indicators should be limited in number of indicators, have balance and the same importance. Where possible they should cover more than one target. There is a need to build national capacities, including in collecting data, and to strengthen national statistical offices. Indicators should be included for all targets and the role of the regions was stressed. Data that is collected should be relevant and, as suggested by the US, a “data ecosystem” should be facilitated.

Some countries raised issues such as the importance of tackling inequalities and addressing vulnerable groups, while others referred specifically to human rights. There is a need for better disaggregation. 

Questions were raised on the timing for the report and what was required for the Summit in September.

Summing up by John Pullinger

In summing up, John Pullinger expressed appreciation for the warmth of the welcome for himself and the other members of the Statistical Commission. He took note of the parameters for the IAEG and the need to respect the rights of each region, also at national level. With respect to financing its work, while the work of the Commission was funded through the UN process, it was intended to create a trust fund to enable country participation.

The discussion on indicators continues on the morning of Day 2.