During the Briefing for Stakeholders, including civil society organizations (CSOs), on Friday 18 November, the Co-chair responded to a number of questions. These included:
Closed meetings – The Co-chair pointed out that these had begun in Bangkok. Insofar as the IAEG-SDGs meets only every 6-7 months with teleconferences between, it is not possible for everyone to attend all meetings and the closed meetings provide a process to bring everyone up-to-speed. This time they had two days of closed meetings as many issues had arisen at the last meeting for which decisions had to be agreed. In general, the IAEG-SDGs is trying to make decisions that are more fluent rather than trying to hide anything. He recognized that they should strive to have more dialogue with civil society and the private sector, but he will have to find ways to do it. There is room for improvement.
Politics of decisions – On the issue of indicators that might be considered reductive, he pointed out that the indicators had begun with a list of over 300, as provided by Agencies. The mandate is not to undermine or change targets and they have chosen indicators to have a balance across goals. For some goals and regions, the indicators do not address specific issues. On Goal 10, the indicator was good but not enough. Within regional agreements it can go deeper. One of main problems is disparities in the Latin American and Caribbean region. The IAEG-SDGs is trying to strike a balance across the global level and the indicators are global. He noted that others, such as bio-diversity and climate change, do not have a balance.
Goals 10 and17 – He noted that some indicators still being developed. There is a need to develop data collection tools. Technical people from CSOs could also involved in discussions.
Composite indicators – The mandate is for robust sound and simple indicators that are easy to communicate.
Draft report – He could appreciate the suggestion made by CSOs for the draft report to be posted on line as its done in cases of reports related to the work of ECOSOC. But this is a technical body. In addition, there is only one week for its report to the Commission to be finalised. It will factual, not a discussion.
Workplans for Tier III – There are 88 Tier III indicators – some are more advanced. Need to talk to respective agencies. Work plans are on line and thematic discussions with respective agencies could be organized.
Orphan indicators (ie those for which there is no custodial agency) – The Co-chair said that he needed to think carefully about a suggestion that other organizations should take on this role, while recognizing that there were issues related to solutions to bridge processes.
Tier II to Tier I – The Co-chair clarified that indicators were in Tier II when it was known that international agencies are collecting the data and there is established methodology, but there was not enough data for inclusion in the report.
Indicator 5.6.2 – This would be moved under leadership of UNFPA, UN Women and Population Division. UNFPA was developing a plan to move this indicator to Tier II.
Revision process – This would be started at least two years in advance of 2020 and 2025, which are the designated years for revision.
Non-official data collections to fill data gaps – This will be addressed at World Data Forum. While it is an official process, possibly something can be done at the country level depending on different stake-holders.
Status of global indicator framework re. General Assembly – The global indicator framework was to be sent to the General Assembly in 2016 but it did not happen. It will now be sent next year if the refinements are agreed and it is what Member States want.