The Global Indicators for the SDGs: Nov Update

In March the UN Statistical Commission set up the Interagency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) to lead on the development of indicators for the new goals.Last week, the IAEG met for the second time in Bangkok, and the members reached general agreement on 159 of the more than 200 draft indicators for the SDGs. They have color coded the list of draft indicators, marking those on which they reached general agreement green, and those which need additional work grey . This list is available in the documents section of the IAEG-SDGs web page for the Bangkok meeting here. You can also see the statements that we made as civil society on Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Governance) and Goal 1 (End Poverty and Hunger). I will write a separate post on the overall experience of the meeting shortly.

Civil Society Consultation (Now Closed)
The IAEG opened a window of 3 days (Nov 5-7) to submit input just on these 159 green draft indicators marked in green. Thanks to of a few IAEG the agreement that an electronic mechanism was open during three days to stakeholders (civil society, academia and private sector) and observers (non-IAEG member states and representatives of regional commissions and regional and international agencies) and other for final comments on indicators that were coded green prior to the meeting and therefore were not discussed.

Namati submitted the below recommendations on the green indicators. The inputs provided will be considered by the IAEG-SDGs Members in their final phase of preparation of the set of indicators to be submitted to the Statistical Commission. The final decision on the number, type and formulation of the list of indicators will remain with the IAEG-SDGs Members.

Namatiā€™s Postions A lot of the justice targets that we were working on are still in grey meaning that we can not currently provide feedback on these. We will be submitting these recommendations for the following green indicators.

  • 16.3.2 change from "Percentage of total remandees or unsentenced detainees who have been held in detention for more than [a defined period] while awaiting trial.ā€ Duration is important for understanding performance, but countries define this differently. We would further note that this indicator, on its own, does not measure the quality of the justice and there are risks that, without a complimentary basket of indicators, it could incentivize speedy trials without due process. The inclusion of an experiential survey indicator for 16.3.1 is thus critical.
  • 16.6: Keep and amend to allow for disaggregation ā€œProportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services disaggregated by serviceā€
  • 16.9: Revise ā€œPercentage of children under 5 whose births have been registered with civil authorityā€ to ensure disaggregation by year under 5. By disaggregating birth registration for children under five by single year age, member states will ensure a more responsive measurement to track 'immediateā€™ ā€˜lateā€™ and ā€˜delayedā€™ birth registration. NSOs should ensure that the design of household survey modules is suitable to capture non-registered populations, which may require substantial alterations to sampling designs to capture previously unmeasured populations.
  • 5.a.: Revise to ā€œPercentage of people with secure rights over rural land (out of total rural population), by sex and type of tenureā€; and b) ā€œShare of women among rights-bearers of rural land, by type of tenureā€

We have also fed into this open letter to ensure the process going forward remains open to civil society so we can continue to contribute to more robust indicators

Opportunities: What you can do

The following opportunities have now closed

  • Feed into the UN consultations: DEADLINE 7 NOV 9.00 AM EST If you agree with the positions that we are submitting please feel free to use our language. If you are making alternative suggestions please share these.

  • Feed into the Goal 16 response: DEADLINE 6 NOV 8.00PM EST The Transparency Accountability and Participation Network are feeding in a collective position on Goal 16 Green Indicators, please feed in your comments to this Google document to be part of the collective action.

  • Sign on to the open letter: DEADLINE 5 NOV MIDNIGHT EST Please add your organisations name/logo to the following Google document

Goal 16. TAP Network Inputs for IAEG.docx (1.8 MB) Indicator 5a- Community Land. Comments and Meta Data.doc (34 KB) Open Letter - survey indicators in Goal 16.pdf (365.6 KB) Human Right Indicators.pdf (1.3 MB) Open Letter to the Co-chairs of the United Nations Inter- Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs).pdf (154.3 KB) Justice 2015 Indicators.docx (59.0 KB)

3 Likes

This is impressive - thank you @staceycram for pulling it together in a single, user-friendly post. The google docs in particular are worth looking at, and I appreciate that you are opening them up to be commented on/contributed to by the wider Global Legal Empowerment Network. :green_heart:

I shared this topic via my twitter to help spread the word.

2 Likes

Hi Stacey, Just a quick comment on the 16.3.2 indicator. I suggest the use of the term ā€œunsentenced detaineesā€ instead of ā€œremandeeā€. ā€œRemandeeā€ can have different meanings (detention prior to start of trial, detention for those denied bail, etc.) depending on the jurisdiction. In the Philippines, many of the detainees have the right to post bail, but because they cannot afford the bail amount, they languish in prison. To avoid any confusion as to which of the detainees are referred to, it is better to use the plain language, i.e., ā€œunsentenced detaineesā€ or ā€œdetainees undergoing trialā€.
Regards, Marlon

5 Likes

Thanks for this Marlon, that is a good point - I will make this revision on the Google doc and hopefully this can be amended. This indicator was developed by OSJIā€™s criminal justice team in consultation with some governments but I am not sure if anyone has raised this point yet. Looping in @peterchapman so he is aware of this also.

2 Likes

@marlonmanuel @staceycram thanks for looping me in. Very much agree that there are significant challenges associated with definition of the PTD SDG indicator. We had floated remandee because our team felt that this would be a time that could be more generally comparable across jurisdictions, but I certainly agree Marlon that remandee can have different definitions. The point when pre-trial detention is triggered will be key to understanding the indicator. In looking at the results of the ā€˜greenā€™ consultation, many agree with us that duration is essential in making this a more meaningful indicator. Either way, however, I hope that we can get in a survey based indicator looking at peoplesā€™ actual experiences in addressing their justice needs! More on that soonā€¦

3 Likes