Agenda item 8 – Metadata compilation for global SDG indicators
The open session started with a discussion on metadata compilation for global SDGs. Insofar as this is a global reporting exercise, a standardized template will be sent to agencies and individual agencies will collect the metadata from countries.
This template will address, for example, goals and targets; definition of indicators and methods of computation; rationale and interpretation; disaggregation; sources and data collection; comments and limitations; current data availability / indicator tier; responsible entities; data collection and data reference calendar; treatment of missing values; sources of differences between global and national figures; regional and global estimates & data collection for global monitoring; references.
A number of comments were made from observer countries and international agencies. Italy asked why only National Statistical Offices (NSOs) or official agencies using official statistics can define metadata and pointed out that there is a need to start with data gap analysis and analysis of available data. Eurostat on the roles of NSOs and international agencies, stressed the importance of describing the data and give it equality grading. UNHCR referred to international law and the sovereign of human rights, while WHO pointed out that the SDGs more complex than MDG processes and that NSOs probably don’t collect some of the data. Collaboration between NSOs and international agencies is therefore important. The US said that NSOs make decisions on how data should be reported and they may choose to defer to another data source.
In summing up the UN Statistical Division (UNSD) said that this is a global reporting exercise and that a standardized template will be sent to agencies and that individual agencies will collect the metadata from countries.
9 Development of global reporting mechanisms and data flows on SDG indicators from national to the global level
UNSD introduced this agenda item, making the following points:
During the discussion that followed comments were made including comments on only providing the data once to the UNSD, through which the international agencies could access it. Others expressed serious concern about heavy burden of reporting.
10 Establishment of baselines for tracking global trend in SDG indicators
It was noted that the IAEG is just beginning its work on baselines and different countries have different situations. Comments were made as to which year they should start measuring from, with suggestions for both 2010 and 2015. Concerns were also expressed as to how they could agree on baselines, when they haven't even agreed on indicators, or metadata. They also asked about frequency of reporting.
UNSD said that NSOs have to produce annual progress reports, starting this year. There is a need to go back a few years to show progress on the goals. Some have already begun working. On the other hand, the US referred to the expectations for the July report, saying that the UN missions don’t believe statistics should be used for it and that it would be much better to describe a process that will be used and develop a reporting process. Just because some countries are moving quickly ahead, it doesn't mean there is an expectation for all countries to start reporting in July. Secondly, they need to be realistic about the kind of progress that could be expected in two - three years.
13. Establishment of procedures for the methodological review of indicators, including approval mechanisms of needed reviews
The IAEG has been developing a work plan for the outlined mandate from the Statistics Commission, based on decisions 1(d), 1(e) and 1(f). The proposed calendar is for 2017. Some proposed refined amendments will be presented for consideration at the 48th Statistical Commission in 2017. The work will begin following the adoption of the indicators at the ECOSOC and General Assembly.
The proposal is for review of indicators in 2020 and 2025. Special attention will need to be paid in the reviews to indicators classified as Tier 3, to make sure that there are no indicators in the 2030 Agenda that won't be monitored at all and for which no data is being collected. It will also provide an opportunity to look at new tools and methodologies.
A review of proposals for refinement by the Statistical Commission is suggested for 2017. These will include indicators that are not aligned with the target; that do not fully reflect the target; that go beyond the scope of the target; that are included in the global indicator framework but are not sufficiently measureable or specific; and those for which methodologies need to be developed etc.
The US asked whether consideration has been given to the review of indicators where there weren't methodological issues, but where no significant variation was observed, eg there is only a constant rather than a variable, it could be an opportunity to revisit that indicator (as it wouldn't really be providing information). In response the Secretariat said that there might be indicators not sensitive to any changes, while Capo Verde said that just because an indicator is stable, it could be because they are not doing well in the SDGs, it would not be the indicators fault.
In a request for information as to how the recommendations coming from the reviews will be adopted, the UNSD said that the Commission has no mandate to revise the indicators in its mandate from Agenda 2030. The IAEG is trying to understand the best way forward and to make proposals, mindful of the fact that they don't have 100% certainty of what is going to happen.
WHO referred to indicator 3.8.2 referring to decision 1(d). He said that at the start of the process, there was an indicator proposed by WHO and WB. They were surprised that it was rated as grey rather than green before Bangkok, where it was not modified but completely replaced. What is on the agenda now, as a modification, is not something that just suddenly came up. WHO and WB are not coming with something new. It was actually the member states that did this. They would like a commitment that this indicator be prioritized to be considered in the list of indicators for refinement. Current form of the indicator fails on all four of the dimensions mentioned.
UNSD said that IAEG will have two proposals on the indicators specifically mentioned to refine in 2017, and to review indicators in 2020 and 2025.
Korea noted its concerns about 2.b.1 and the Secretariat confirmed that the two indicators concerned are 3.8.2 and 2.b.1.
The U.S, also pointed to 5.6.1 and 5.6.2, and hoped that these indicators can also be prioritized, when identifying the list of indicators that warrant revision
It was confirmed in response to a question from the World Bank that the exact list of indicators (as currently being worked on) will go to ECOSOC and UNGA. All indicators for change (ie 2.b.1 and 3.8.2 that were specifically mentioned in the 47th session of the Statistical Commission) will be referred to the 48th Statistical Commission with a request that they be refined. 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 were never mentioned there, but we can go back and double check.
Japan and the US expressed concern at this procedure that should be addressed through the IAEG. UNICEF reiterated that if there are indicators in question, they need to have this list, since they are already starting implementation US asked the co-chairs to provide more information on the rationale for only considering for refinement those indicators specifically mentioned in 47th Commission, because US took position early on, to endorse a framework so that they could proceed as a community. US had purposefully used the approach for not explicitly mentioning specific indicators at that the Statistical Commission, which is why they didn't enumerate each indicator about which they had concerns. They believe that as a community, they were encouraged to adopt a ‘high road’ approach, and now feel like they are being penalized for that.
The Co-chairs are also concerned in that they will need to review many of the indicators. They are speaking about two steps: 1) cleaning up the indicators explicitly mentioned at the Statistics Commission; 2) ensuring that they are not penalizing anyone; this is why they had a very long debate the previous day, and the idea is that they will have a comprehensive review in the following years, but this is the best that can be done so far. It's not perfect, but it's a practical starting point that needs to be consolidated over time. They have stayed late at night debating what has been said here, but they have to move forward, and they have to be pragmatic as to how. So they will start with the 230 indicators agreed upon.
OHCHR shared the sense of imbalance, and felt it was a bit unclear.
14 Thematic, regional and sub-regional indicators for the SDGs
Possibilities were discussed about regional participations, pointing out that regionally value can be added to meet needs and demands.
Reference was made to thematic monitoring, including on health. WHO pointed out that health would not get enough attention through the ECOSOC process and that a resolution would be before the World Health Assembly in May asking for annual follow up and review in the World Health Assembly and using the six politically independent regional committees.
It was pointed out that health is not only included in goal 3 but also in others. In looking across the targets, they see life-expectancy and premature mortality as important and universal health coverage as cross-cutting. There should be a specific focus on equity, supported by data availability. There are plenty of country health indicators and data gaps can be addressed together with strengthening statistical capacity insofar as every country has a public health institute.
At the Statistical Commission they launched the health data collaborative. In strengthening health systems, over 30 specific commitments have been made to strengthen capacity of health in health statistics.
The Interagency group on gender statistics was also referred to:
The IAEG is trying to define the timeline for the next steps, which doesn’t address all the elements of the workplan as already approved. The proposal is on how the group will act with international agencies; ask agencies to explain how they work from their side; understanding flow from both ends.
1 Finalizing Tier system
UN Women asked for elaboration on additional information needed for indicators and whether it was tied to the discussion on metadata that had taken place before. In response they were told that the metadata will be on the indicators currently on the list; as emerged from discussion from IAEG, focus will be on next weeks will be on reviewing and clarifying. Might come back with more questions to observer states and agencies.
Other questions were posed by Italy on the agreement on the three Tiers, whether the discussion during the meeting was considered an agreement of the three tiers and, if not, could written comments be sent. It was pointed out that if Japan, Italy, USA are all asking you the same question, that there must be a reason.
In response the Co-chair said that the IAEG always goes back to the mandate that it was given by the 47th session of the Statistics Commission. The instruction was to develop a global indicator framework, taking into consideration that all goals and targets would have at least one indicator. In the last meeting of the Statistics Commission they were given certain decisions. She reiterated that they always go back to the mandate given to them. But they are also aware of the time given to them and they need to produce results. They have tried to be open and inclusive through the IAEG meetings, but also through the open sessions. It is difficult for them to debate among themselves (IAEG) …and these are all comments that they made in the IAEG. They believe that it is for them to do their mandate. They have to have time among themselves to discuss and provide information for each other. In all their closed meetings, there is nothing that they are hiding from the observers etc. What they are presenting is a result of their discussions. There is no information in our closed meetings that they are hiding.
The latest instruction to the IAEG is that by March next year, they should produce the plan for revision; they should also address the instruction of refinement. The expert group wanted to take advantage of their physical presence together to be able to freely discuss. Most of time that they spent together was on discussion of the Tiers. They want clarification among themselves on what is Tier 1, 2, etc. They are dong the best they can. They want to produce an output for the Statistics Commission. In their opinion, they believe these open meetings are the transparency and inclusiveness that they can offer. They appeal for patience and understanding, as they are doing their best to be participatory, but also have to make decisions.
2 Creation of sub and working groups
In reply to a question from UNESCO as to whether the subgroup for data disaggregation was for member states only, while the other subgroups were open and how to demonstrate interest in being involved, the Co-chair affirmed that the data disaggregation group is only for members of the IAEG.
The UNSD is revising the TOR and once they are finalized then they will be shared.
4 Once the process for adoption of global indicator framework by ECOSOC and GA is completed, the IAEG will take into account specific proposals for refinement, based on the Statistics Commission decision 1e.
5 They will develop a plan for review of the indicator framework, related to decision 1f, to propose a way to review the indicator framework regularly to be presented to the 48th Session of the Statistical Commission.
6 UNSD will request international agencies to submit detailed plans for developing Tier 3 indicators (July 29).
7 The review and finalized plans proposed by international agencies to develop methodologies for indicators in Tier 3 should be submitted by 15 September (since all this will have to fit into report for Commission).
Questions were asked as the IAEG will only come up with final list of tiers by 29 July, so how can international agencies promote their arguments that Tier 3 aren't Tier 3responseto which the response was that there are few indicators where there is a discrepancy between the IAEG and the international agencies. In those cases, they will have to come back for more details.
‘Orphan’ indicators are still an ongoing discussion. The problem with them is that in some cases they were originally proposed by agencies, but then modified/changed by members. This is why agencies are not in a position to offer reporting mechanisms. As such, discussion, including on some alternatives will be continuing in the coming months.
8 The UNSG will request IAEG members to provide scenarios on data flows to improve reporting mechanisms. Regional commissions and regional bodies of international agencies will also be involved.
9 The 4th meeting of IAEG will be probably held in October, most likely not in NYC.
WHO referring back to the provision of scenarios on data flows, noted that while the regional commissions present in the room were economic commissions, all the agencies have their own regional bodies. It would be important to know when these scenarios are provided, how international agencies at regional level participate in this process. This should be addressed from the beginning.
ECLAC supported the statement and suggested that for 4th meeting one day to work be used for the IAEG to meet alone, so that everyone else would feel that the process is more transparent and inclusive as opposed to having closed meetings spread out over the course of the 3 days).
The Co-chairs said that they were aware of this situation and had made the decision to have a one, or even two, whole day meeting(s) on their own, and then open meetings on the next day. In addition they had learned that they should communicate clearly how the meetings will be conducted.
During the final closing statement the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stakeholders, especially CSOs, academia, agencies were thanked and all were informed that all comments and inputs have been fully considered in closed and open discussion. All observations are greatly appreciated. In its discussions the IAEG have decided to continue working in an open and transparent manner. They want to keep up the dialogue, but at same time, have decided to take steps on how to decide the time frame and how they will move ahead. They have discussed about the urgency, and what is real, and what is pre-conceived. Some countries are starting to work; but there's no need for the global framework to be perfect before countries can start working.