SDGs Global Indicators Dec Update: Consultation Open Dec 9-15th

I wanted to update you all on the development of the Global Indicators for the SDGs. On Friday the UN Statistics Division announced that an open consultation on the grey indicators will take place from 9th-15th December. The grey indicators are those the IAEG classified as needing more work or discussion. Please see this discussion thread for more information on the process of developing indicators along with all of the rational and meta data tables for each of these inidicators.

Below are the three current options for target 16.3 on access to justice. At this point we have been told it is very unlikely that member states will look at new options. Therefore, for indicator 16.3.1 Namati will be pushing for option 1, while option 2 is very similar we have some concerns that by separating this indicator states would drop the perception indicator.

  • Option #1: Proportion of those who have experienced a dispute in the past 12 months who have accessed a formal, informal, alternative or traditional dispute resolution mechanism and who feel it was just
  • Option #2: Proportion of those who have experienced a dispute in the past 12 months who have accessed a formal, informal, alternative or traditional dispute resolution mechanism"; ©"Proportion of those who have accessed such a mechanism for resolution of a dispute in the past 12 months who feel the process was just"
  • Option #3: Percentage of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized conflict resolution mechanisms (also called crime reporting rate)

We are also supporting the following indicators:

  • 16.5: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels: Indicator 16.5.1 - Percentage of persons who had at least one contact with a public official, who paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by these public officials, during the last 12 months.
  • 16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels Indicator 16.7.2: Percentage of population who believe decision-making is responsive and inclusive.
  • 1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance. Indicator 1.4.2: “Percentage of people with secure rights over rural land (out of total rural population), by sex and type of tenure”; and b) “Share of women among rights-bearers of rural land, by type of tenure”

Namati will be making a joint submission with the Transparency Accountability Participation (TAP) Network on Goal 16 indicators and for those who wish to input on Goal 16 we would encourage you to input through this joint statement. Please provide your comments to the proposed grey indicators by no later than Monday, 14 December at Noon (NY time). TAP will then synthesize and submit them to the IAEG-SDGs Open Consultation. Input into the google doc here: http://bit.ly/1QhWz25

Again, please see this discussion thread for more information on the process of developing indicators along with all of the rational and meta data tables for each of these inidicators. If you have any questions please let me know. Please share with any partners who are following the SDG Indicator Discussions. @abigailmoy @jaronvogelsang @marenabrinkhurst @marlonmanuel @AngoteGertrude @timmillar @yeyinth @paulmccann @donnyard @Lore @sonkitaconteh

1 Like

1.4 reads quite individualistically - were there efforts to include a more collective or communal approach to tenure and land rights that we had to cede?

Indeed! This was really clawing back from terrible indicators. This wording comes from the proposal led by FAO and UN-Women. However, we should acknowledge that has remarkably improved from the first version (i.e. Share of women agricultural landowners) because of inputs over the summer, and the dialogue we had since March with FAO and UN-Women - in partnership with the Post 2015 Land Coalition.

This is essentially a survey-based indicator, with no triangulation of administrative data. We raised already some issues in Bangkok as this Indicator is also listed under target 5a. These were i) concern about the clarity of the formula “ownership or secure rights”; ii) concern about the fact that the indicator does not explicitly refer to both “individual and communally-held” tenure or to “indigenous peoples and local communities”. These are outlined in more detail in the attached document. Indicator 5a- Community Land. Comments and Meta Data.doc (34 KB)

I will re highlight these concerns during this consultation, but given the backing by FAO and UN Women it’s an uphill battle. Like in other places, the hope would be to use these global indicators as a minimum standard and at the national level improve upon these for nationally relevant contexts. If you have any examples of national indicators which track community land I would be super interested to see these.

1 Like