2030 Agenda data and indicators discussion at the Statistical Commission

For consideration of data and indicators for the 2030 Agenda, the UN Statistical Commission (UNSC) had before it: the Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group (IAEG); the Report of the High Level Group for Partnership, Coordination and Capacity-Building for Statistics for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; and the Report of the Secretary-General on the work for the review of progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals as well as a number of other background documents. Also to be discussed was the draft resolution on the work of UNSC pertaining to 2030 Agenda. This was circulated in an informal paper.

IAEG-SDGs, global indicator framework and draft resolution

Following the introduction of the report by the IAEG-SDGs Co-chair and representative of the Philippines, and the decision of the previous UNSC session which referred to the global indicator framework as a “practical starting point”, Member States commented on the various aspects of the report and the draft resolution, including:

• Global indicator framework
• Two proposed reviews for consideration in 2020 and 2025 to monitor fully the progress on targets
• Tier system and work plans for Tier 3 indicators
• Three working groups that had been established on Geo-spatial information; on Inter-linkages of SDG Statistics to allow for Integrated Analyses in the Monitoring; and on SDMX, as well as the work stream on data disaggregation
• Review and updating of IAEG-SDGs terms of reference, including rotation of membership
• Role of custodial agencies
• Annual progress report by the UN Secretary-General
• Suggestions for amendments to the draft resolution

Key issues that emerged requiring further attention include the following:

• “Framework” as opposed to “list”. (While “framework” was used in the 2030 Agenda (para 75), a “list” is more specific when it comes to measuring progress)     
• Role of national statistical offices as the coordinators of the national statistical systems
• Emphasis on capacity-building
• References to countries in situation of conflict and post-conflict situations
• Leave no one behind
• CBDR (common but differentiated responsibility)
• Foreign occupation

Comments from individual Member States

A large number of countries made interventions during the discussion of this agenda item, including:

Mexico, the other IAEG-SDGs Co-chair, recognized that the mandate of UNSC had been followed by the IAEG. They support the global indicator framework, the 2020 and 2025 reviews; the work plans for tier 3 indicators; and the review of the terms of reference for the group

Sweden supports the adoption of the report including the revised indicator framework. They are ready to work together to advance the statistical follow-up of SDGs and support the review plans, but are concerned about the lack of Tier 1 indicators for Goal 13. Donors should support less developed country statistical systems. They referred to the role of custodial agencies and support adoption of draft resolution.

Russian Federation supports the revised global indicator framework and the proposed future regular review and mechanisms, which are important for development of Tier 3 indicators. He was concerned that not all indicators have been approached in same way -- bbout 1/3 of indicators are Tier 3.

United Kingdom referred to the need to finish the initial work this year. The indicators are no longer at a practical starting point, but are also not at the end. The UNSC is only adopting something for the global level, with work remaining at the regional and national levels. In looking at ways of speeding up, disaggregation becomes more important and to leave no one behind they must look at all levels. He also referred to a proposal for a City group on ageing.

Cuba welcomed plans, timetables and mechanisms and supports adoption of the global indicator framework, while saying that it must be a voluntary framework, taking account of national situations.

Germany supports the work of IAEG-SDGs, and agrees with the revised global indicator framework. For global acceptance, it must be country-led through national statistical offices (NSOs). The Washington Group on Disability Statistics must be included. The IAEG aspires to reflect country-led progress, and Germany, therefore, appreciates the efforts to deal with the gaps at the national level. There is a need for co-ordination among all monitoring levels.

China appreciated the work of IAEG work, in which it actively participated. The framework is most comprehensive, but most difficult to be coordinated. He referred to the goal of leave no one behind and CBDR. Capacity-building for developing countries needs to be supported. China hopes all countries will continue to cooperate.

Italy endorses the revised framework. He agreed with annual minor refinement and the 2025 and 2025 reviews. He also agreed on the mechanisms for reclassification of Tier 3 indicators. Italy fully supports the adoption of the resolution as is.

Japan supports the adoption of the resolution. The principles have been prepared in an inclusive way and the work will contribute to the high-level political forum (HLPF) in July. Japan will continue to contribute to UN discussion of 2030 Agenda and the global indicator framework.

Latvia supports the revised global indicator framework including the refinements. Planned activities for review have been set out in consecutive and logical way. Co-operation at national, regional and global should be continued. Latvia supports the draft resolution.

Switzerland welcomes the work of IAEG-SDGs, and supports Italy and the current global indicator framework.

Korea, Republic of, supports the timetable for reviewing and the Tier system. Tier 3 indicators represent 35 percent of the total. They should strive for integrity of the global indicator framework. The rotation of members of the IAEG could be improved.

United States said that the IAEG had continued its work in developing a constructive solution to the 2030 Agenda. She supports the schedule and the process it describes and strongly supports the majority of the IAEG refinements. She will supply specific comments. On the role of custodial agencies, global statistics require harmonization of national statistics. What is not clear is the relationship with NSOs. Various custodial agencies may feel pressure and are rushed in preparing reports. This adds to the growing confusion and unnecessary stress on very good agencies. The UNSC should ask the IAEG to develop more detailed guidance to increase understanding of each other’s needs. The US strongly supports the proposed resolution including encouraging work to continue in transparent and inclusive way.

Colombia supports the report and the global indicator framework. The process provides an opportunity to get more comparable, reliable information. Colombia is also pleased that Cape Town Global Action Programme (CTGAP) includes capacity-building for statistics.

New Zealand applauded the work of the IAEG, noting its ability to work with pace. It supports the revised global indicator framework and echoes comments of the UK to support them in full. New Zealand will continue to report on SDGs increasing disaggregation, which is a challenge for both it and the Pacific islands in the context of leave no one behind. She supports the work programme. Custodial agencies should foster a systematic approach, in use of data from national statistical systems. She also supports the US position on practical guidance and endorses the resolution as it stands.

Brazil noted that originally the IAEG started talking about 600-700 indicators and the IAEG report has arrived at excellent set. They provide the best possible starting point at this moment, and should be supported. Interlinkages and disaggregation are important issues. The development of a process of work and the process to be member of IAEG should be clarified together with the relationship between NSOs, custodial agencies and others.

Ecuador (on behalf of the G77 and China) proposed the set for adoption, noting it as a major step in the mandate from para 75 of the 2030 Agenda. National ownership is key. He expressed appreciation for the UNSD briefings. The global indicator framework is of considerable importance for review and follow-up. The work will be based on the framework. There is a need for timely data to ensure that no one is left behind and the process should continue to be led by NSOs. They understand that refining progress reflects the need for action. Statistical capacities should be strengthened. Data gaps must be discussed. The High-level Group for Partnership, Coordination and Capacity-Building for statistics for the SDGs (HLP) has been tasked on national ownership, and on partnership and coordination. It is important that the listing of developing countries include foreign occupation. The outcome of IAEG should be captured in the processes. They look forward to learning the results of the Ottawa session on updated classification, the work plan and harmonization. The review at the global level may not be suitable for all national situations. The 2030 Agenda is voluntary in being at the national level. The Group will support the work of Statistical Commission in indicator framework.

Bangladesh (as chair of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs)) said that they must not left behind. There is still room for improvement in the global indicator framework, which should remain a living document, subject to refinement and revision. They call on their developed partners to strengthen their statistical capacity. Bangladesh is moving towards becoming a middle-income country and is using statistical data for effective monitoring and evaluation. There is a High-level Committee headed by the Prime Minister. A priority is for data support.

Fiji (on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS)) said that the sub-region had identified 109 indicators that will tell the “Pacific story”, the majority are related to health and education. They are concerned at the number of Tier 3 indicators and await information on the methodology and the data sources. These are important for PSIDS as they do not want to be left behind.

Turkmenistan – said that they have nationalised many of the indicators for regional economic development. Turkmenistan has a body to collect and monitor data. They are working at the level of state statistics. One of the more general indicators would relate to economic indicators.

Maldives (Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)) takes note of IAEG report. They welcome the reference to the HLG and look forward to its report, including on coordinated capacity-building. The global indicator framework is a critical part of the review process and they hope to see the promised flexibility. There is significant room for improvement in many of the indicators. They agree with adopting the framework and hope that in moving forward, the specific needs of SIDS are taken into account. Every country will decide for itself how to include SDGs and targets.

Namibia (for African countries) noted that Africa has come up with an integrated monitoring framework for both the 2030 Agenda and Agenda 2063. Workshops have been held so far on 2063. Pan-African stakeholders should meet and agree indicators for both.

India attaches importance to the indicators for 2030 Agenda. He pointed out that the work plan needs improvement. As far as the Tier system is concerned, he appreciated the IAEG efforts on Tier 3, but said that there had been no effort for reclassification in Tiers 1 or 2. A phrase such as “South-South cooperation” should be removed. He suggested that the indicator list be adopted as work in progress that needs improvement. He also said that some international agencies are giving misleading information eg 2.1.2. The voting in IAEG should, moreover, be by consensus. He then cited specific paragraphs in the report, while stating that it is a valuable document and he hoped that India’s recommendations would be taken on board.

Philippines commended the IAEG. In its second year, the IAEG is taking on the challenge of implementing 2030 Agenda. Capacity-building is needed. They welcome the process for developing the framework, but recognize that much more work is required, and that it is guided by and feeds into the HLPF.

Canada strongly supports the approval of the global indicator framework and using the mechanisms.

Indonesia said that practical guidance for monitoring is required in the national context and that every country is different. It is important to recognise national differences. All indicators for the SDGs should prioritise national targets and circumstance, with the most relevance and weight towards poverty. Efforts should continue to balance ambition of the 2030 Agenda with capacity-building. There will be technical challenges when no data is available. Indonesia will continue to support the work of IAEG-SDGs.

Iran reaffirmed the principles for 2030 Agenda, namely CBDR and that they should be voluntary and country-led. They referred to the role of NSOs and local coordinating agencies. Iran is ready to share experience with other countries.

Algeria pointed out issues related to disaggregation by characteristics, eg geography should consult with national statistical agencies over estimates.

Malaysia will face challenges over the Tiers, due to the cross-cutting nature of the data. There should be an emphasis on capacity-building.

Belize (on behalf of the CARICOM states) said that the indicator list is a work in progress, and that it must be more country focused. They call for capacity-building for SIDS.

Australia said that perfection is the enemy of the good. They support adoption alongside the work of the IAEG.

Egypt (speaking on behalf of ESCWA) agrees with the framework as proposed and with the review mechanism and the mandate for group, particularly the T3 indicators which are the most challenging to NSOs.

Albania referred to paragraphs 7-8 of the resolution on strengthening role of NSI.

Norway supports the revised set of indicators, the future work stream and adding necessary indicators in 2020 and 2025. It is crucial to agree on the global indicator framework, regardless of its imperfections.

Dominican Republic congratulated the IAEG on the difficult task it had undertaken, noting that greater emphasis on the Agenda is coming from the political level.

Argentina supports the global political framework and the set of proposals from IAEG and the other working groups. The world of statistics is criticised for not being sensitive to the need to formulate public policies, because inter alia degree of maturity. They support the draft resolution as proposed.

Mongolia supports the IAEG work and suggests that they should annually be modified and revised. There is a need for capacity-building

Bahrain (for the Gulf Council) said that the reporting mechanism must be given sufficient attention.

Samoa (for the Pacific developing states) noted that there are more than enough indicators to track progress in Pacific. They encourage a coordinated approach in reporting framework

Romania said that the resolution will be sufficient to develop statistics also at regional level. It is good to increase transparency and they support the resolution

South Africa said that the political process was waiting for indicators. The African Group has costed indicators. They support the UK in changing the demographic profile and they support the City Group on Ageing.

Kyrgyzstan supports the reports of the IAEG and the HLG. There is a need for capacity-building for developing countries

Austria supports the global indicator framework and welcome the draft resolution. They still have concerns on 8.9.2 and 12.b.1 for which minor refinements should be considered.

Myanmar is facing challenges and needs more resources and capacity-building. Their focus on inclusive development, with concept of leaving no-one behind.

Jordan focused on implementation of indicators at the national and regional levels, as well as the need for funding especially related to refugees and vulnerable groups.

Ukraine welcomes the review of the indicators and the review mechanism. It would be important to include a methodology for SDG indicators at the national level.

Spain welcomes the global indicator framework and the proposal for minor adjustments. It will be important to take costs into account. They support the idea of a published list of national indicators. Coordination without duplication is important.

Kazakhstan supports the draft resolution and called for continued work in this area.

Paraguay supports the IAEG and agree overall with the global indicator framework. They hope to be able to access data soon in all languages.

Sri Lanka stressed that it is imperative to adopt the global indicator framework and the refinements. It is the first country to have a Ministry for sustainable development.

Israel supports the IAEG and its report, as well as the global indicator framework and the draft resolution and refinements.

Uruguay will adopt the global indicator framework and welcomes the work of the IAEG.

Palau stressed that they must not leave small member states behind.

FAO and UN Women also made statements before Francesca Perrucci for UNSD summed up.