Detailed notes on UN Statistical Commission IAEG – SDGs, 1-2 June 2015

Stefan Schweinfest, Director UN Statistical Division (UNSD), in opening the meeting said that the Group’s creativity was needed to figure out the problems.

Mr Wu Hongbo, United Nations Secretary-General, for Economic and Social Affairs welcomed everyone to the Interagency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goals (IAEG on SDGs), operating under the Statistical Commission (UNSD). He noted that14 years ago the IAEG / MDGs met to start developing MDGs monitoring framework and to galvanize targeted interventions. Now the IAEG on SDGs should build on its success and experiences. They must consider the challenge ahead. Member States and the Open Working Group proposed 17 goals and 169 targets. The post-2015 agenda will be universal, addressing the needs of and seeking contributions from people across the planet. including social inclusion,  and should be relevant to all countries. The UNSC will need to develop a robust framework of indicators, which will involve intense methodological and technical work. The challenge will be to strengthen statistical systems world wide. At the March session of the  intergovernmental negotiations, Member States reviewed the UNSC report, which presented an assessment of preliminary indicators. The agreed proposal is for a global indicator framework to be prepared by March 2016. It is a technical process that requires time. Indicators must directly respond to the goals and targets and their level of ambition. They must not undermine or reinterpret targets or introduce contentious issues. They should maintain balance, be global and limited in number, including multi-purpose indicators.

He stressed the importance of disaggregated data to leave no one and no group behind. There will also be resource implications, which will need to be addressed by strengthening national statistical systems.

2015 is the most critical year in decades for global development, including launching a new development agenda for all humanity. There should be a global database for SDG indicators to facilitate the implementation of national and regional indicators and to allow integrated reporting. 

This first meeting will set up the process for the development of the framework and establish working methods of the group and agree the way forward. The IAEG on SDGS, which brings together experts from national statistical systems, and as observers international organization and representatives  of academia, civil society and the private sector, should decide on the most suitable methodological approaches.

Stefan noted that all the problems would not be solved by the next evening and that the principles to bear in mind were: they are all in it together and there are no winners and no losers. He then referred to the “3 Cs”: creativity, cooperation and compromise. They should support the process with an indicator framework for the long-term, ie for next 15 years. Formulation is the first step and then implementation. There will be a lot of work after 2016 and it is to be assumed that, on technical advice, there will have to be adjustments. He said that it was like writing software: no one would assume that it will be same in 2030. This therefore was “indicator framework 1.0” The indicator framework will not be a  list, but will be the “architecture” and the initial focus on global indicators. 

As this is a new initiative the IAEG in electing the co-chairs are almost making it up as they go along. The terms of reference (ToR)) don’t specify for how long and are an interim tool. They should be elected for one year and he noted that there had been expressions of interest from Italy and Philippines, which gave regional and geographical spread: Mrs Lisa Grace Bersales and Fabiola Riccardini, who were duly elected. 

Francesca Perucci referred to the agenda and the way that the Group will operate. It will review and discuss the indicator framework, ie the overall architecture:

• Monday morning they will address agenda item 4 on basic criteria, inter-linkages across goals and targets, and issues such as disaggregation and inequality;
• Monday afternoon there will be discussions on proposals in the compilation of those received so far. Colleagues from the IAEG will introduce these discussions and there will be statements from Major groups and other stakeholders.
• Tuesday morning there will be discussions on goals;
• Tuesday afternoon they will discuss the way forward and next steps, ie the work plan for groups and the face-to-fce meeting and the follow up work in Nov / Dec. 

UK said that the group work should not limit cross discussions.

Cuba said that their representative was unwell and had not had sufficient time to arrange to come and that he wished it to be recorded. He noted that there was no interpretation and that they could not just work in English. The IAEG on SDGs should not therefore take decisions. He was only a Second Committee delegate and that it was difficult to agree anything, but he would not block the work.

Co-chair took note saying that as this was a technical meeting, interpretation was not provided and that it was just the first meeting. 

US was concerned about the time frame and about putting the cart before the horse in focusing on the goals and not the framework.

Brazil commenting on the lack of interpretation said that representatives of the national statistical office  (NSO) couldn’t attend and the representation was from the permanent mission. The meeting should be devoted mainly to methodology. 

They also expressed concern that there should be space for consideration of report of this meeting. 

Co-chair stressed the technical nature of the meeting as well as the recognition of the need for flexibility, referring to the ToR. She would call first on members, then observers, then monitoring groups, then request MGs and others.

The document under discussion was the indicator framework No 3.

The IAEG on SDGs will meet twice a year and conduct its work between meetings electronically. Communications would allow time for comments and suggestions.

Cuba called for consensus for adoption of their work, which would then be ratified by the UNSC. It should report annually.

UK expressed fears as to whether they could take everything forwardby consensus and suggested, where this was not possible a clear majority (2/3^rd) vote. He was worried about the pace of work and was looking for a middle ground while recognizing the concerns Cubans and Brazil. 

Russian Federation referred to the need for wider consultation. 

Co-chair said that the UN SD will send out the outcome documents to all countries, but representing of the regions get comments from colleagues.

Sweden hoped that there would no need for voting. Everything was about compromise. While she would choose majority, she hoped for consensus.

Botswana noted that cooperation would be necessary to come to some conclusions and that they might have to go with the majority, as consensus might tie our hands. 

Co-chair said that she was hearing support for consensus, but majority voting might be needed at some.  

Cuba said that this needed further discussion and should be approved by the UNSC. Everything should be adopted by consensus. 

The IAEG was not the decision-maker, but its work will be presented to the UNSC in March 2016. Reference was also made to contributions from civil society; the electronic platform; and the role of global monitoring groups. 

Japan requested better details as to how consultation should take place. It is stated that three meetings are being held but there are no detailed agendas. The electronic consultations should be open to member and non-member countries. 

Co-chair in response agreed about bringing in non-member countries, although the ToR were not clear. 

US with reference to civil society commented on the online form from NGLS, or on another venue. There had been a collation of initial comments.

Tanzania said that there should be clear ToR when calling on these groups. 

Francesca referred to the indicator framework and thematic monitoring, saying that  some simple indicators would be needed for advocacy and that they should not forget the importance of global indicators for consistency. Promotion of policy-oriented statistics was also important and there was a need to tie statistical work to policy as overall framework. She also emphasized the Importance of capacity building and linkages with thematic indicators,  some of which are overlapping.

She referred as to how they will report to the UNSC and how it will validate and approve their work. The “marching orders” come from IGN. The IAEG will have to move fast enough to have something ready before the end of the year, in order for the technical proposal to be approved. The IAEG cannot introduce additional elements of any source. The UNSC High-level Group is the most strategic group.

The IAEG will have to report on the intergovernmental negotiations regularly, including in June on the further work that has been done and the consultations on the proposals. 

Cameroon said that the SDGs should be aligned with national development plans and that they should propose thematics that have been elaborated for each goal. 

The WASH monitoring showed the move from the MDGs to SDGs. It used thematic monitoring for global reporting, with a clear focus on measuring progress in order to take action. The MDGs had a small number of relatively simple indicators, including proxy indicators. Progress made by different countries was measured using ladders with data coming from DHS and censuses, and NSOs. The database had grown dramatically. 

Sweden said that metadata was mixed up in framework discussion and that there should be one logic for targets. 

UK referred to the mixed up use of language. The IEAG is developing a stat istical framework versus a reporting framework for SDGs. It can have a hierarchical structure. The aim is to produce a similar to the SDG framework

IUCN emphasized work on bio-diversity partnerships, incorporating multi-purpose indicators.

US  said it was necessary to understand the political question on SDGs. She referred to the ‘tiers’ assignment

Matthias (UNSD), in his presentation, said that the mandate is to select appropriate indicators and to come up with a preliminary list that must directly respond to the goals and targets; must not undermine them; must cover all targets; and should not introduce any new or contentious issues.

The IAEG should have a number of outcomes; adhere to the principle of leaving no one behind; draw from integrated frameworks; have flexibility, as it might need to revise indicators; and use the tiering system.

The criteria included that the indicators should be relevant; methodologically sound; measurable; easy to communicate and access; and limited in number. 

What was needed was a standards-based statistical architecture and a system’s architecture for the SDGs. 

Russian Federation said that the selection of indicators  should take into account availability of information, but that more detailed metadata was also needed. Disaggregation would put an extra burden on NSOs, as some  will be produced at country level by others. 

UK stressed the weaknesses in the statistical framework and the need to development a clear framework for monitoring. He highlighted areas already developed which shows what trying to do. He especially referred to universality and the need to strengthen the social pillar. He pointed to a hierarchical structure, and then to drill down and then disaggregated. He also said that bookmarks should be used. 

Tanzania stressed the need for political oversight at some point. They should spend more time on global indicators. He referred specificially to inequalities and the contribution of women to GDP, asking how many countries can measure it.

Netherlands reminded the Group about the immense sense of urgency in February. He was worried as to the serious job they have to do, urging a systematic approach working on a framework. They should take existing work into account. 

Sweden agreed on the urgency, saying that they have some work on global indicators and some for the long term. As to disaggregation she referred on the short-term to sex, age, income, regions, nations, which many countries are already doing. Help from civil society will be needed for discrimination, ethnicity etc and they also do not have data on SOGI issues. 

China stressed the need to take into account validity and the better use of existing data. UNSD or others provide metadata. Currently only 25 percent of indicators are currently available.

US supported using existing frameworks and improving accessibility of statistics. She cautioned about the use of composites, which can be useful for a description but not in evaluating change. 

Matthias –explained the priority list before them. A list of 304 indicators had been prepared in February, for which they had consulted with the agencies, who provided their inputs. In March the list that went to the IGN had 2 indicators per target. They had then referred back to the agencies, as to which of the two should be the priority indicator. One had been selected one, taking into account the views of responsible agency in this area.

Egypt asked as to how are MS proposals had been reflected. 

Russia noted that those rated in the earlier document as AAA were based on their very good basis for collection. There is a need to think about data of presentation / provision from national level -- Some is on household and may only be observed every four or five years. Countries should provide data when it is comfortable for them to do so.

Egypt said that some regional groups / member states should be working within the group and that the experience from previous survey should be used. He asked how this current document takes the March meeting into account and what happened to the input from countries.

Co-chair said that it was time to combine different approaches and to put different perspectives together. 

Mexico said that they were talking about two different levels. 

Senegal pointed out that some regional groups had done work that they want to have reflected, eg info on indicators from the African regional meeting.

UN Women stressed their concern about prioritization as being highly eg should it be child marriage or FGM in target 5.3 as both were equally important. He also said that the gender indicators miss anything below 15 and over 49. 

World Bank said that national poverty lines should be different from the global levels. 1.1 was needed for global inputs. 1.1 and 10.1 rely on data from household surveys, which WB will support. It is difficult to disaggregate data below the household level. 

UNIDO said that priority list is only for international monitoring. All agencies have some sort of mandate from UNSC.

Mathias said that agencies are observers, but also provide their expertise in monitoring indicators at global level.  The mandate is to define a global indicator framework. Indicators proposed in addition may not be at global level.  The UNSD hoped that the new priority list of indicators was a step forward, but there had been too little time to reflect on what was put together.

WHO said that the criteria were the same as at time of expert group meeting. In looking at water and sanitation, they both having been monitored for 25 years, yet water is in tier 1 and sanitation is in tier 2. They were both part of same MDG target and were rated AAA, but now are in different tiers. International comparability leads to loss of national specificity. There is a discrepancy between national and international.

Goals 3, 4 & 5 introduced by Mexico who pointed to there being too many indicators. He also asked a question about neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Modeling is an important aspect for goal 3 and asked whether NSOs should start working on this and whether disaggregation should be simultaneous. Some special surveys should be undertaken, eg on drug abuse, but it might be costly. While he noted quality indicators for education; he didn’t see them for health.

He noted many multiple inter-linkages in goals 4 and 5, which could reduce the number of indicators, recognizing the tension between adding more and reducing indicators. Some targets include several other targets eg 4.7. Some don’t have the required scope eg 4.b1 on scholarships. In 4.7 he pointed to the bias on environmental science. Different frameworks should be inter-related. They should be mapped including against well-being. 

Senegal introduced goal 6 and 7, saying that it will be pretty hard to collect data and there is a need to look at them more carefully.

Samoa noted that while the SDGs constituted a global agenda, individual goals affect countries in different ways. He referred to NTDs, saying that the  poorest countries were trying to delete them.

Sweden, in discussing the environmental indicators, referred specifically on air quality in urban areas. 

India spoke on target 7 saying that the 2 indicators for 7.1 truly reflect the target, but that 7.2 has been completely dropped. It would be necessary to look into all of them and be examined. Any issue that can be, should be referred to the countries, as it was impossible to examine them all.

Russia referred to Goals 3, 14 and 16, including target 3.5. In many countries substitution was fully prohibited and it could not be a global indicator.

US said that there was too much work for the UNSD to take on or for whole body to consider as a larger group. Smaller groups should be set up to examine the issues, with rules, including those for the participation if civil society. 

Canada suggested doing a mapping and that all NSOs should go back to their line managers and consider those that are new. 

WHO spoke on air pollution highlighting the indicator for 7.1. WHO normative guidance on household fuel combustions discourages kerosene for health and safely risks. It also has a nine times risk for TB.

OHCHR – stressed human rights obligations and issues that are personal sensitive, to be disaggregated by all relevant bands. There is a clear role for the IAEG on data disaggregation under goal 17.

ICAO suggested travel and tourism and merging indicators. 

Cameroon shared another output on costing. Need to cost framework, saying that they have the methodology. They need basic material from UNSD to be assessed or completed and the African group can serve as way forward. 

Botswana proposed that the UNSD draft suggestions on the role and expectation on participating and non-participating countries. The IAEG should look at the global tier 1 ones. 

Netherlands suggested that there should be one group on over-arching and cross cutting issues. The second group should give inputs on inter-linkages and on conceptual frameworks.  

ECA referred to the African Matrix.

UNODC said that, in the context of multi-dimensional goals , there should be two targets on trafficking in persons. 

UNICEF commented on the possibility of child marriage and FGM

WHO referred to target 3.8 on universal health coverage and said that the tier-2 proposal is critical for this and other health targets. As far as the two dimensions of health coverage and protection, only the first is covered at the moment and not financial risk protection for catastrophic situations. Under target 3.4 reducing mortality would be as feasible as under maternal mortality. In developing a global monitoring framework, it was important not to reinvent the wheel.

UN Women again referred to not having to choose between child marriage and FGM, as well as 5.2 under which all forms of violence are limited to 15-49 age group.

UNFPA -- UNFPA will stand ready to continue supporting member states and in particular the National Statistics Offices (NSOs) in their work.  They supported the OHCHR intervention on disaggregation especially on age and sex but also on quintiles across all relevant indicators and the comments made on targets, including those on child marriage, and FGM. UNFPA also flagged that the work of some certain agencies had not been adequately reflected in the UNSD proposal, particularly the indicators of targets 3.7, 5.2 and 5.3. 

On tier 1 versus tier 2 discussions, target 3.7 will apparently loose the indicator specific to adolescents, and given the importance of ensuring universal access to SRH, it may be good to rethink to measure this coverage target. UNFPA supported the proposal made by the USA and re-iterated by Netherlands for smaller technical groups or Friends of the Chair, to help facilitate the process.

Human Rights Working Group noted the consistent approach to data disaggregation. 

PAHO, in addition to the comments of WHO, pointed out that in many instances that they are global, not regional, targets. 

UNAIDS commented on the difficulties in measuring HIV, TB and malaria

Global Alliance on health and pollution spoke on target 3.9 and the health impact. 

Under agenda item 8, statements were made by civil society, including by Ida Klockmann, Danish Family Planning Association which called for robust indicators under each target that respond to the ambition of the SDGs.  A limited indicator framework may unintentionally undermine implementation of the comprehensive programmes that will be needed to achieve them. They called attention to work being done by experts to develop relevant indicators, including for mental health and well-being (3.4) on and sexual and reproductive health (3.7) by UNFPA and civil society. 

The indicator framework should be based on principles of human rights and gender equality, and address inequalities and discrimination. Disaggregated data should be collected for all indicators, including previously ignored age cohorts such as over 49, between 5 and 10 and between 10 and 14. The indicator framework should make linkages across goals and targets, eg, target 3.4 including mental health and wellbeing, which is linked to goals 1, 4, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 16. Similarly, while goal 5 addresses gender equality, indicators should be established that measure the differential impacts of targets on women and girls across the framework.

France supported different subgroups but needed to know about criteria. She also referred to the on-line platform, which would enable Agencies and NSOs to work together.

Colombia expressed concern on methodology and lack of time. It was not clear what the conceptual framework is or how NSOs would participate. For the next steps NSOs should have enough time and should take the leading role. 

Mexico called for a longer meeting next time, which would only marginally be more expensive. 

UK supported the proposal to have subgroups, pointing out the time constraints. The way forward could be supported on the statistical framework. He also referred to criteria, interconnections and multi-purpose indicators. As the IAEG is a technical group, it should take a technical, scientific approach with voluntary subgroups including regional representation.

Egypt said there was a need for only 2 meetings, with documents circulated ahead of time. It should reflect a larger political process. There is a need for transparency on the flow of documents with capitals, as Member States have to reflect and consult in their regions. The document before them should have an annex with views of Member States. Certain UN agencies should tackle certain indicators, but the choice has to be justified. If smaller groups are to be used, he asked how the smaller developing countries would be included. The electronic technology could be challenging for LDCs and SIDS.

Brazil stressed the process should be led by NSOs, based on official statistics. He had questions about the content of the list, as it didn’t reflect those forwarded by his NSO. The indicators should not re-interpret targets. The IAEG may need to look further on the length and number of meetings. Documents should be copied to permanent missions in New York. Brazil will do its best to meet the target date of next year. On sub-groups he referred to the limited capacity of developing countries

Tanzania agreed to the US proposal for sub group.

China was concerned about the time for next round as they would need to consult with line ministries. They would also need translations as everything in English. Clarity was needed to avoid the risk of some countries discussing one version while others are discussing another. 

Russian supported some sub-groups but general TOR were for all groups. They would need extra time for translation.

US added that sub-groups be set up in which representatives from each region would participate without being too prescriptive. The leadership might best be managed by staff at UNSD, who would then propose ideas to the fuller groups for discussion. Materials should be clearly labeled from one to the next. Member States would be in the sub-groups, but she hoped there will be a role for observers, and that the role of international agencies and civil society should be specified.

Cuba supported Brazil, Egypt etc, not to split up into sub-groups.

Netherlands said keeping the group as a whole would mean meeting every month or every six weeks. All regions should be part of them. 

Co-chair introduced the section on the Way forward… There was a need to produce proposals for indicators. One timetable will be up to September for the General Assembly. The politicians are meeting in June and July, and the IAEG will need to feedback to them.

The sub-groups will work electronically and the physical meetings will remain as planned. She noted that inter-linkages had not been well-covered and should be discussed again. On the general statistical framework, its final destination would be the politicians and it should be technical, professional and effective, based on expertise. 

The proposal was to establish two sub-groups to be chaired by the Co-chairs, so as not to lose what has done Member States, observers and civil society would contribute to the process on voluntary basis. It would not be necessary to re-write the TOR again. Geographical distribution can be organized internally. 

By June there should be feedback as to what have done in the past two days. The second output will be by July for 2^nd meeting of politicians. The subgroups can then put together existing materials for first discussion of indicators to be worked on electronically.  This can be improved in August and early September. The next face-to-face meeting will then be held in October or November. 

Brazil suggested that the Secretariat put this in writing and circulate it to members for feedback. 

Cuba wanted more discussion electronically, leading to a list of indicators by September. He did not see a rush for the IGN, saying that the final list was expected by Feb 2016. Civil society participation and that of other stakeholders is pending in ToR bullet 2, re their and other and written inputs. 

Co-chair said they were not dividing into sub-groups, but working in streams.

Netherlands wanted to make progress and said they should have something by September and that the two Co-chairs should be involved. Their concern was about hierarchy inputs and how to deal with different types of inputs. 

UK stressed the finite time available and said that the two subgroups will maximize the expertise. They are aiming at a general statistical framework and inter-linkages. 

Egypt questioned the mandate to change the working methods, referring to participation section C (g) bullet 2. 

Mexico said that having different groups within larger umbrella groups is new. The two groups to deal will meet electronically and feed back to each other, as had the global working group on Big Data. It was thought to be too difficult to have 40 countries or more round the table so they created eight working streams to deal with different aspects of big data. 

Senegal supported two work streams and saying that most NSOs are decentralized systems. September is a big milestone and that they must have at least a draft. The two groups can be chaired by the two co-chairs, as it is not a decision-making process. 

Samoa suggested sub-regional working streams with the statisticians in the group coordinating the work in sub-regions. Their political leaders will want to see something in Sept.

Indonesia being representative by the mission of capitals. Importance of transparency, as the technical process will feed into the political process, echoed Egypt’s comments and that the end product will be for March 2016.

US –said the complete list of proposed indicators should be a background doc. And that they should hear back from the work streams in September/October.

Argentina said invitations for MS should be sent to missions and capitals at same time and no inputs from MS were reflected in the document. All IAEG members should participate in both work streams. He questioned how observers take part. 

New York. The way of working will not change the mandate, but it would be looked at it again. 

UNSD will propose a timeframe to implement the two levels of work ie the conceptual side of the indicators and assessment of inter-linkages. They will provide an electronic platform and will also assist members. All should be able to engage in both areas of work. They would like the two levels of work to be led by co-chairs. There will also be engagement with other stakeholders, including academia and civil society as well as agencies. 

The current basic doc will be a starting point, after clarification and correction, etc. It will be ready in about 1.5 to 2 weeks. All targets are to be addressed by at least one indicator, for some it might not be enough. 

Timing - Work will be carried until about July 23 in two work streams. 15 September will be the deadline for the Secretariat to send a report to all members before in-person meeting in October. There should be a clean version of the document by June 19. All materials will be posted on line, and also written statements.

Brazil made it clear that they were not in a position to agree to this way forward. The elements should be put on paper and circulated to Member States for their reaction. 

Cuba’s position was the same as Brazil. On the preliminary list of indicators they would not ready by September, preferring to continue until next February next year, but taking into account the wishes of the majority, the only condition is that all members be allowed to participate in both streams, be written into both. 

Philippines will report to the ESCAP for South East Asia Committee on Statistics. The Philippines echoed Mexico on the streams, as it was usual for statisticians. Time should be given for more discussion through email and the electronic platform. 

Italy will organize work at the national level involving all professionals, including civil society, academia and the private section. 

Botswana referred to the problems related to the organization of the meeting. He was also concerned about the participation of non-member countries. There should be a vote if it becomes necessary. 

UNDP said that workstreams could receive support through the TST. 

Following a short break in the proceedings...

Co-chairs said that they will do further consultation on the creation of two streams to have their own facilitators, agreed on by virtual consultation in the next two weeks to lessen the time. This is a proposal not a decision.

Cuba fully support the proposal but asked that they should be very clear about the issue of the vote, as not being decided. 

Stefan said that it had not been an easy meeting and they would have liked to have it better prepared, as was normally the case. There will have to be another meeting 12-16 October with consultation of the whole group and invitations ahead of time.  Documentation will also ready by mid-Sept. The IAEG was representing a much larger statistical community. The members are designated ambassadors of their regions. They have a clear mandate until end of the year. As the UCSC Chair said they have to hit accelerator button. 

Communication is very important, particularly as other stakeholders are informed about the group’s work and there should be an open door for the technical expertise of all those who can help. There is a need to build on work that is being done. It was not an easy meeting but they will work on a proposal for a more specific timetable and will write up proposals and put them out for review. At the moment the process was a “Bit of a construction site”. 

He thanked co-chairs (although he wasn’t sure that they would accept after today); the members; the technical teams; and his own team.