Inputs provided by the Observers of IAEG-SDGs and Other Stakeholders during the Open Consultation on Grey Indicators (9 Dec - 15 Dec 2015)
Read Me First
(As of 18 December 2015)
1. This document contains the inputs provided by the Observers of the Inter-agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) and other stakeholders during the Open Consultation on proposed SDG Indicators that are coded as "grey", indicating that additional work and discussion are needed before reaching a final agreement on them.
2. These inputs 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 indicators in the global indicator framework proposal will be taken by the IAEG-SDGs Members.
Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere
Target 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.
Target 1.5: By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters
Target 1.b: Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication efforts.
Indicator 1.4.1: Proportion of the population living in households with access to basic services
Indicator 1.5.1: Number of deaths, missing people, injured, relocated or evacuated due to disasters per 100,000 people
Indicator 1.b.1: Number of national action plans related to multi-lateral environmental agreements that support accelerated investment in actions that eradicate poverty and sustainably use natural resources
Discussion prompt: There is a parallel process to review this indicator.
Discussion prompt: The IAEG-SDG Members ask for suggestions for an alternative indicator.
Sum of Total Grants and FDI and non-debt creating inflows - $$$ equivalent.
Central Statistical Office of Poland
CSO of Poland comments: Further clarification is needed.There is no information what services should be treated as basic, whether public free of charge services are taken into consideration only and whether the indicator concerns administrative data. It is difficult to design one aggreagated indicator referring to different kinds of sevices, like education, health protection, transport, social assistance etc.
CSO of Poland comments CSO of Poland collects data on number of deaths according to International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) - Revision 10. It does not allow to determine, wheather the death was a result of disaster.
Government of Japan
(Comments on the overall) Japan makes its comments on the entire procedures before submission of comments on each indicators. - Prior consultations of the draft reports of IAEG-SDGs should be made amang the obserbers before submitting them to the UNSC in order to avoid confusion in UNSC. In addition to the already submitted comments from Japan, Japan submits herewith its new comments which have been consulted newly amang the relevant ministries and agencies.
Japan support the comment made by ISDR and several countries in indicated in "Summary of comments (corrected version - 19 October 2015)" that both “Number of death/ missing and affected people” and “direct economic loss” are to be prioritized. Since there are some targets regarding Disaster Risk Reduction in different goals, it is preferable that both “Number of death/ missing and affected people” and “direct economic loss” are positioned as common indicators to measure progress of targets 1.5, 11.5 and 13.1. To minimize the reporting burden on countries, indicators for DRR targets in SDGs have to be identical with those in Sendai Framework. Therefore, we propose to set the indicators for targets 1.5, 11.5 and 13.1 as “Number of death, missing and affected people due to hazardous events per 100,000” and “Direct economic loss due to hazardous events in relation to global gross domestic products”.
Hungarian Central Statistical Office
HU: It’s not clear what “disasters” exactly mean, what we should include in it. In our point of view it has to be clarified. The target overlaps other targets, like 11.5 and 13.1.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos
We request the determination of basic services for the estimation of this indicator, undergoing this conceptualization implies making normative judgements on what these services are.
This indicator does not measure enables resilience capacity to the poor. We recommend the addition of another indicator that would allow the estimation of the capacity of building resilience in impoverished individuals. Ecuador proposes the following: Percentage of territory that has evacuation plans or contingency plans in response to extreme environmental events.
ISTAT-ITALY: It is necessary to know what are the basic services
ISTAT-Italy: The SENDAI process will provide the final formulation for this indicator with economic losses also considered
Deem appropriate to provide the definition of "basic services"
The indicator does not capture the natural resources element, however we realize that this is not the key focus of the target and hence it cannot be expected that the indicator has a specific environmental focus for this target.
In relation to Gender Equality we wish to propose that this indicator should be disaggregated by sex. The merging of “death” and “evacuation” number seams inappropriate and will give a wrong impression on the disaster impact, e.g. 1.500. per. 100.000 could cover 1.500 deaths in Bangladesh and 1.500 temporarily evacuated in Denmark.
Finland proposes that a land indicator “Percentage of people with secure tenure rights to land (out of total adult population), with legally recognized documentation and who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and by type of tenure" is included under Goal 1.
Finland suggests an alternative indicator: "The number (or share) of national action plans/strategies with ex-ante assessment of poverty & gender impacts" It seems that the original indicator proposal contains too many vague expressions and the data is likely to be difficult to gather. Why is this focused on environmental agreements? It is unlikely that environmental agreements are the most relevant ones here.
Data could be available or estimate
The indicator is very ambiguous. It deserves further development in terms of the criteria for identification of national action plans related to environmental agreements. Moreover, in spite of the number of actions probably information on the expenditure with those actions per capita would be more meaningful about the efforts on the area of this goal.
Switzerland comments: Switzerland, as member of and in accordance with all other 23 members of the Global Donor Working Group on Land (GDWGL) https://www.donorplatform.org/land-governance/global-donor-working-group-on-land> highly opposes the deletion of former indicator 1.4.2 which was targeting access to secure land tenure. Switzerland therefore strongly supports the reinstatement of an appropriate land indicator under 1.4. The target explicitly refers to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, which CANNOT be measured by current indicator 1.4.1. The appropriate land indicator, under target 1.4, also supported by the Global Land Indicators Initiative (GLII), Landesa and many other partners, would read: “Percentage of people with secure tenure rights to land (out of total adult population), with legally recognized documentation and who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and by type of tenure". Besides the efforts of GLII, there are two ongoing initiatives that support data collection for the suggested land indicator: (1) The World Bank is collecting administrative data available within land registries and cadasters for as many countries as possible (data is currently available for 189 countries). They are conducting surveys with officials of land agencies and local experts to assess whether obtaining information is feasible, including disaggregated information. (2) A Rome data hub has recently been established jointly by FAO, IFAD and WB to document the land related information (including gendered perceptions of tenure security) in all of the household surveys of the Living Standards Measurement Study and make this information available as open data on our institutions’ data portal. These exercises are showing that collecting information is feasible - because information is already available and/or can be done at low additional cost (US$ 50K by country is often enough). The World Bank, as a member of the Global Donor WG on Land, is willing to share detailed information on these surveys. Further supportive information can be found in the following three documents: (1) Policy brief from GDWGL: http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/290501000?
Turkstat comments: Indicator 1.b.1 is vaguely formulated. The indicator per se is difficult to classify and measure because of the "and" conjunction resulting in two different requirements for its measurement. Turkstat suggests either to use only the part before the "and" conjunction or to replace the "and" conjunction with "with respect to" while favouring the former. A third alternative suggested would be considering the possible split of the indicator into two distinct indicators according the requirements given before and after the "and" conjunction in the sentence.
Turkstat comments that Indicator 1.b.1 is vaguely formulated. The indicator per se is difficult to classify and measure because of the "and" conjunction resulting in two different requirements for its measurement. Turkstat suggests either to use only the part before the "and" conjunction or to replace the "and" conjunction with "with respect to" while favouring the former. A third alternative suggested would be considering the possible split of the indicator into two distinct indicators according the requirements given before and after the "and" conjunction in the sentence.
US: This target spans a number of dimensions that are only partly related, which creates a problem in identifying indicators because it's not clear which are the key dimensions that need to be tracked. "Access to basic services" is arguably one of those dimensions, but clearly not the only one. Focusing exclusively on "Access to basic services" would be a mistake, because (1) it is only one of the several dimensions cited in the target; (2) there's no consensus on what constitutes "basic" services; and (3) focusing on access to the exclusion of quality is problematic. Without seeing the outcome of the review mentioned in Column E, it is hard to be more specific. Therefore, we support this indicator if supplemented by 1.4.2. (See below)
1.4.2. Share of women among agricultural land owners by age and location (U/R)
US: The indicators proposed appear reasonable for this purpose.
US: The original proposed indicator is incomplete by focusing on ONLY policy frameworks focused on environmental agreements, and second by requiring somebody to pass judgment on whether or not these agrements "support accelerated investment in actions that eradicate poverty." It is very unclear who would make that call, and on what basis.
We suggest instead to go back to the basics, recognizing that the key to poverty reduction is economic growth (which accounts for 97% of cross-country differences in the rate of reduction in extreme poverty.) In practice, a pro-growth" development strategy IS a "pro-poor" strategy. That being the case, we propose to use the "Distance to the Frontier" measure tracked by the World Bank's Doing Business unit. This indicator captures the distance between actual country policies and best policy practice in the world, based on 10 different policy areas. The indicator is strongly correlated with income per capita across a wide range of countries; it also has the advantage of being objectively measured, which most policy indicators are not. The summary below provides more info:
Distance to Frontier
The distance to frontier score aids in assessing the absolute level of regulatory performance and how it improves over time. This measure shows the distance of each economy to the “frontier,” which represents the best performance observed on each of the indicators across all economies in the Doing Business sample since 2005. This allows users both to see the gap between a particular economy’s performance and the best performance at any point in time and to assess the absolute change in the economy’s regulatory environment over time as measured by Doing Business. An economy’s distance to frontier is reflected on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the lowest performance and 100 represents the frontier. For example, a score of 75 in DB 2015 means an economy was 25 percentage points away from the frontier constructed from the best performances across all economies and across time. A score of 80 in DB 2016 would indicate the economy is improving. In this way the distance to frontier measure complements the annual ease of doing business ranking, which compares economies with one another at a point in time.
The development work should start with a definition of "basic services". Examples might be accessibility of grocery services, banking services, postal services, public transport, primary health care services, compulsory school etc.. Could partly be measured by multi-purpose indicator, e.g. from goals 3 & 4. The indicator does not refer to "equal rights to economic resources". More development work is needed at a later stage to achieve full coverage of the target.
Methodological development work in line with the Sendai framework required. Loss data are inadequate to report about exposure and vulnerability. Disaster Risk is about future losses. That needs to be modelled and exposure and vulnerability are the key variables together with hazards. The provision of global exposure (physical and population) information could be based on EO data delivering standardized global datasets (global high-resolution maps of settlements and population) that can make up for the lack of data in many data-poor countries. The indicator does not refer to "economic and social shocks". More development work is needed at a later stage to achieve full coverage of the target.
g7+ Secretariat: The indicator will be fine without breaking it into age group or gender. However "Basic services" should be defined in the country context. What might be considered "Basic services" in developed countries can be way far luxury in the LDCs and FCS. Let the countries define what basic service means for them. If we can't draw agreement on what will the "basic service" mean, we better leave this indicator be identified at the National level and should be "country level indicator". We feel strong on this notion as the service delivery, if measured at the global standard, will be difficult for us achieve
g7+ Secretariat: Should be modified as, "Number of deaths, missing people, injured, relocated or evacuated due to natural disasters, and Industry accidents per 100,000 people. (Industry accidents should include, the damage caused by drainage of chemical wastes, polluting of water used for irrigation and drinking).
g7+ Secretariat: The target is not about number of plans, but it is about the responsiveness of the plans to the need. The indicator should capture the quality of being pro-poor policy or responsive to the country needs. Again the quality standard of the plans (strategies) should be set at the country level based on countries context.
There is the need to clearly define the set of services to be considered here and the relative importance. The standardization of the definition to allow for a feasible comparison across countries is critical. The spatial disaggregation of this indicator will be important as there are baseline disparities not just between urban and rural areas, but also across regions within countries. Ensuring at least urban/rural disaggregations needs to be considered.
Land indicator is critical to ending poverty and must remain in SDG Goal 1 IFAD, as member of and in accordance with all other 23 members of the Global Donor Working Group on Land (GDWGL)