1 | Timestamp | Name of Contributor | Organization Name | Organization's web site | Is your organization an international, national, or subnational civil society organization or network? | Do you consider your organization a data user, a data producer or both? | Has your organization PRODUCED DATA on indicators that would be relevant to the SDGs monitoring at local, sub-national, national, regional or global level? | If you answered YES to the previous question, please provide details, including description of indicator and methodology, data source, for how many countries data are available and for how long. | What is your feedback regarding the UN Statistical Commission's technical report on indicators? | If your organization has produced a longer paper about INDICATORS for the SDGs, you may provide a link to it here. | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 3/24/2015 11:44:31 | Antonia Wulff | Education International | http://ei-ie.org/ | International organization | lars | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1APH_r97kxGRUYxSWxDWjF4YlU/view?pli=1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 3/24/2015 11:53:12 | Bill Orme | Global Forum for Media Development | http://gfmd.info/ | International organization | GFMD's specific area of expertise is draft SDG 16.10, which calls on signatories to “ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.” The UNSC assessed two possible indicators: 1) Indicator 16.10.1: Percentage of actual government budget, procurement, revenues and natural resource concessions that are publicly available and easily accessible Comment: This is both inappropriate and impractical (see GFMD critique in link below). Far better is the UNSDSN alternative: “Existence and implementation of a national law and/or constitutional guarantee on the right to information.” This includes a basic factual test: Is there an access-to-information law? Most member-states already have such laws; a commitment to universality would be attainable and measurable. 2) Indicator 16.10.2: Number of journalists, associated media personnel and human rights advocates killed, kidnapped, disappeared, detained or tortured in the last 12 months Freedom of expression and media is required for open public access to information, as this proposed indicator recognizes. But numbers of journalists killed or abducted are misleading in isolation as 'proxy' measurements of press freedom. For methodological and political reasons this is unlikely to be accepted, as the ‘CBB’ rating suggests. Nor should it be, as the UN already produces serious, contextualized press freedom assessments. The UN Statistics Commission could empower UNESCO to provide what the Commission calls ‘expert reviews’ – analytical reports that icomplement data-based indicators. UNESCO reports on independent media development go beyond tallies of threats and violence to take into account the legal, political, cultural and economic context in which media operate. UNESCO leads the “UN Action Plan on Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity,” advocating a “free and safe environment for journalists and media workers, both in conflict and non-conflict situations, with a view to strengthening peace, democracy and development worldwide” with laws that are “favorable to freedom of expression and information.” Reporting on the Plan could be included in monitoring for Target 16.10. | http://gfmd.info/en/site/news/767/UN-STATS-COMMISSION-QUESTIONS--PROPOSED-'A2I'--INDICATORS-FOR-DEVELOPMENT-GOALS.htm http://gfmd.info/en/site/news/720/GFMD-Policy-paper-released--Monitoring-Access-to-Information-in-the-SDGs-Indicators-Issues-and-Practical-Solutions.htm | |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 3/24/2015 12:38:05 | Arjan van Houwelingen | World Animal Protection | http://www.worldanimalprotection.org | International organization | A FIRST REACTION TO THE PROPOSED PROVISIONAL INDICATORS World Animal Protection have been active in the deliberations around a Post-2015 development agenda for many years now, always showing why sustainable development for humans can best be achieved if animals are part of the solution. Having seen the List of proposed provisional indicators, as well as the proposed roadmap and time line as proposed by the UN Statistical Commission we would propose the following three criteria for the development of a core global set of indicators to be used by the proposed Inter-Agency Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goals: Sustainability: The Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals seeks to inspire a new approach to global development that embeds all three dimensions of sustainability: economic growth, social progress and environmental protection. We are concerned that the proposed preliminary list of indicators fails to capture the essence of sustainability and is too much based on the more traditional approach to development and largely focused on measuring the economic or social dimensions in isolation from each other. We hope that you will be able to suggest indicators that fully capture or at least hint at the concept of sustainability. Integrated approach: The debate around the Sustainable Development Goals has emphasized that a sustainable development approach should lead to the eradication of a strictly sectoral or ‘silo’ approach to development. We would strongly urge you to favour indicators that cut across targets and where possible cut across goals. Policy coherence: 2015 will see the culmination of multiple global policy frameworks that seek to influence global strategic policy. The UN Member States have rightly insisted that all efforts be undertaken to ensure that there is coherence in terms of the policies promoted by these various frameworks. In this regard, we strongly urge you to take the outcomes of the Sendai conference on the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction into account during your considerations. | No paper | |||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 3/24/2015 14:26:56 | Martin Edwards | Seton Hall University - Center for UN and Global Governance Studies | http://www.shu.edu/academics/diplomacy/center-for-global-governance-studies/index.cfm | National organization | Please see attached blogpost below: http://blogs.shu.edu/unstudies/2015/03/09/proposed-sdg-indicators-and-governance-rule-of-law-or-simply-rule/ | Proposed SDG Governance Indicators: Rule of Law or Simply Rule? Blogpost available from URL below: http://blogs.shu.edu/unstudies/2015/03/09/proposed-sdg-indicators-and-governance-rule-of-law-or-simply-rule/ | |||||||||||||||||||||
6 | 3/24/2015 16:30:08 | Marcela Ballara | Red Educacion Popular entre Mujeres America Latina y el Caribe REPEM LAC | http://www.repem.org/ | International organization | Post 2015 is necessary for clear and towards the development goals that include measurable indicators are established. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B30miZcgelAESDUwaTFLclNtaVU/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||||
7 | 3/24/2015 18:11:42 | Jessie Durrett | Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves | http://cleancookstoves.org/ | International organization | For the indicators, the Alliance suggests revising the indicator on cooking under Goal 7 to read “Percentage of households primarily using clean and efficient cooking fuels and technologies” to most accurately reflect the issue and align the Post-2015 Agenda with ongoing international efforts. The Alliance recommends revising the indicator on air pollution under Goal 3 on health encompass not only urban pollution, but pollution everywhere considering the prevalence of household air pollution in rural and peri-urban areas. The Alliance suggests the indicator read “Mean air pollution of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).” It would also be welcome to mention both household air pollution and outdoor pollution specifically. Additionally, the Alliance supports the inclusion of indicators on unpaid work in the Post-2015 Development Agenda under Goal 5 on gender equality, but would also like to note the uncompensated hours that women and children dedicate to cooking and collecting fuel. Therefore, we suggest including two indicators on unpaid work: “Average weekly hours spent on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age, and location” and “Proportion of households within 15 minutes of fuel and clean water.” On these indicators, we would like to note that the UN Women 2014 World Survey on the Role of Women in Development: Gender Equality and Sustainable Development Report recommends investment in clean cookstoves as a potential direct driver of gender equality in part due to the unpaid care burden and time poverty of women and girls that is exacerbated by fuel collection and cooking time. | Clean Cookstoves and Fuels are Critical to the Success of the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8gaHhtyCpJXdGJVNTlQMU1Fc3c&authuser=0 Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves Stance on Indicators of the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8gaHhtyCpJXVlFuZTNTQzlBVDg&authuser=0 | |||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 3/25/2015 1:12:55 | CLAUDIO SCHUFTAN | PHM | http://www.phmovement.org | International organization | PHM sees the sorry lack of human rights targets and indicators. This despite tonnes of lip service being given to center the post 2015 agenda on HR and despite Kofi Annan's 1999 call to center all UN activities around HR. UN agencies have not complied to the degree necessary. Are we going to miss the chance again in the 2014 preparatory process? The report keeps talking about stakeholders which is NOT HR language. It should unequivocally be talking about rights holders and duty bearers. The agenda should be calling for and funding massive HR learning campaigns to empower both duty bearers and rights holders about their respective obligations and rights which the latter must demand forcefully. It is no longer a matter of begging for changes, but for demanding them since most countries in the world have ratified HR conventions and covenants. Another thoroughly missed focus is one on food sovereignty as a replacement for calls for food security; we are beyond the latter. The post 2015 role of public interest civil society organizations and social movements must be guaranteed through clear targets and indicators. | http://www.phmovement.org | |||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 3/25/2015 4:22:06 | Robert Bakiika | Environmental Management for Livelihood Improvement Bwaise Facility (EMLI) | http://www.bwaisefacility.org | National organization | On Indicator 13.a.1 should be edited to reflect that USD 100 billion is to be mobilized by 2020 NOT after 2020. Indicator 13.a.2 should be edited to reflect the UNFCCC language i.e. Financial Mechanism. Green Climate Fund is part of the financial entities under the convention finance mechanism. Other entities such as Global Environment Facility (GEF), Adaptation Fund and others MUST be reflected. Indicator 17.16.1 should be edited to read "% of multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries equipped with technical and financial support" Indicator 17.17.2 should be edited to read "# of partnerships adhering to the Rights Based Approach in Developing Countries" | None. | |||||||||||||||||||||
10 | 3/25/2015 9:17:43 | Fabio Palacio | International Movement ATD Fourth World | http://www.atd-fourthworld.org/ | International organization | Please see paper | See paper | |||||||||||||||||||||
11 | 3/25/2015 10:00:38 | Sunil Suri | Saferworld | http://www.saferworld.org.uk/ | Subnational organization | - Overall, the report is not very positive for G16, but also across the framework. Nonetheless, it is clear that the G16 indicators will need more work and engagement. - Many Member States are calling for a limited number of global indicators. However, setting artificial limits on number of global indicators at this stage when the technical work on indicators is in its early stages might actually undermine Member States desire to ensure all goals and targets are treated equitably as some targets might not be measured effectively at the indicator-level. [N.B. When considering G16, best practice strongly suggests use of basket of indicators: if number of indicators is limited, very restricted space to advance this approach]. We should be pushing for the highest ambition - even if it takes 14 years for most member states to develop capacities to measure an ambitious framework that would be a good result for our community. We should not only be pushing for what we can monitor today, but what we want to be monitoring comprehensively by 2030. Of course we need some indicators and baselines to start, but if we start with low ambition we’ll move very slowly, and we’ll be having this conversation again when we’re all 15 years older. - Many Member States have also endorsed use of indicators that measure progress towards multiple targets. However, we need to think carefully about this. The risk is that indicators that measure multiple targets don't actually measure said target(s) (meaning certain targets could simply fall off the agenda) or could have the effect of creating perverse incentives. Other key messages: - Goal 16 is measurable. We have plenty of experience of measuring these issues. - The report makes clear it is initial thoughts, not comprehensive and "have not been endorsed by national experts". - NSOs are generally conservative and cautious. We need to ensure that the ambition of the SDGs is communicated to them and that they are in turn ambitious. - NSOs generally draw on administrative data, only a few have started polling people on experiences and perceptions – this has implications in terms of how they assess the indicators. - "Feasible” under what conditions? Did they ask NSOs if this is feasible today, with their existing budgets and capacities? - Finally, the limited capacities of NSOs only support the case for building partnerships with third parties: international organisations, private companies, NGOs, who collect data. | http://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/view-resource/891-measuring-peace-from-2015-an-indicator-framework-at-work | |||||||||||||||||||||
12 | 3/25/2015 10:49:17 | Shana Narula | Framework Convention Alliance for Tobacco Control | http://www.fctc.org/ | International organization | Monitoring tobacco use prevalence is a great way to understand whether we are on track to reach the proposed target on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) – target 3.4. The UN Statistical Commission, recommends the tobacco use prevalence (among persons 15 year of age and over) to be the best indicators for target 3.4. The Commission believes the tobacco use indicator is feasible, suitable and very relevant to measure the respective target (its rating is AAA). FCA and the entire tobacco control community fully supports this proposal and calls on all countries to endorse it during the UN negotiations this week. | N/A | |||||||||||||||||||||
13 | 3/25/2015 11:46:47 | Nicole Cardinal | Save the Children | https://www.savethechildren.net/ | International organization | N/A | https://www.savethechildren.net/ | |||||||||||||||||||||
14 | 3/26/2015 10:01:26 | John Hontelez | Forest Stewardship Council | https://ic.fsc.org/ | International organization | A specific comment on the indicators presented related to forests, targets 15.1 and 15.2. They include one on sustainable forest management. It is important to indeed have such an indicator, and not limit, as the indicators related to the Millennium Goals did, attention for forest coverage only, but also for what is happening inside the forests. However, we foresee difficulties in defining this indicator further given the many views on what sustainable forest management is. We encourage, and want to contribute, to finding a broadly shared definition which is concrete enough to recognise practices only that do deliver on environmental, social and economic sustainability experiences. At the same time, we submit that there is a globally relevant indicator available right now, which is forest certification. While this is based on multi-stakeholder non-governmental initiatives, it is de facto recognized by many governments (in most cases in their public procurement policies or by using certification for state-owned forests) and relevant international agencies and bodies, such as FAO, ITTO, CBD, UNEP, UNECE who in report regularly, when analyzing progress with sustainable forest management, use forest certification as their main indicator. Introducing forest certification as an indicator for sustainable forest management does not oblige governments to see this as the main tool, but encourages them to consider the effectiveness in their specific situation and possible political support. FSC has published a paper to explain this proposal further. | "FSC TO UN: USE CERTIFICATION AS INDICATOR FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT!" to be found via the related newsitem on: https://ic.fsc.org/newsroom.9.1097.htm | |||||||||||||||||||||
15 | 3/27/2015 6:01:06 | Sifisosami Dube | Gender Links | http://www.genderlinks.org.za/ | International organization | It is commendable that the UN Statistical Commission has come this far in developing and rating indicators which are a framework for implementing and achieving the targets for the SDGs. However, as gender equality movements, we are disappointed that there are roughly about 35 gender sensitive indicators developed so far yet gender cuts across all the SDGs. The issue of food security which is of great importance especially in the Southern African region has to be viewed with a gender lens to address the gaps of vulnerable groups including women. The indicators need to push for strong constitutional provisions for women to be in decision making positions otherwise without this women in decision making will always remain low. Under Goal 3; there is a need for an indicator that highlights health issues in a gender responsive manner in places like prisons and barracks. Access to treatment for inmates and sanitary facilities especially for women remain scanty in many countries. Under Goal 4, there is need to include an indicator for inclusion of gender equality education in curricula at all levels of education. Under goal 5; the indicators are quite progressive but there is a huge gap missing for gender sensitive media reporting, regulation and representation – and this could be included under target 5b. Indicator 5.c.1 should include costed action plans as implementation documents for policies such as gender equality as policies alone will not yield much. Goal 8 requires an indicator that will address gender equality gaps in sectors such as mining, engineering and agriculture. Women remain marginalised in these sectors therefore there is need to track their access to income and opportunities in these sectors. Goal 9 does not have any gender sensitive indicator at all; what industrialisation can be advanced if there is no inclusiveness? Small scale industries some which are run by women should be tracked through an indicator. Similarly, access to capital which is skewed between men and women should be highlighted as an important indicator. Goal 10 focusses on inequality reduction and yet there is no indicator that focusses on reducing the inequality that exists between men and women. Goal 11 indicators have neglected the informal sector which many times has a human face. There is need to track the development of safe markets for traders who are mostly women in cities as well as borders where cross border trading occurs especially in African countries. | https://drive.google.com/drive/#my-drive | |||||||||||||||||||||
16 | 3/27/2015 11:30:20 | Antonio Garcia Allut | Fundación Lonxanet | http://www.fundacionlonxanet.org | National organization | Thank you Mr. Chairman, I am here to express the support of small-scale artisanal fishers to Objective 14 on the Ocean and its targets as proposed by the Open Working Group. We find then pertinent as a whole, as long as relevant and practical indicators accompany them. We are grateful for Target 14b which seeks to ensure access to marine resources and markets for artisanal fishers. We have wanted to make comments in writing on the indicators proposed by the Statistical Commission. They are available on our website, or you can also contact me. My comments on the indicators are the following: About Target 14.4 (fisheries), Indicator 14.4.1: we are surprised by the absence of action against Illegal and destructive fishing, which is however mentioned in the text of the Target itself. A robust indicator could be the number of countries ratifying and Party to the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures (PSMA). About Target 14.5 (Marine Protected Areas), In Indicator 14.5.1: we miss a reference to the different types of MPAs. In how many of them do artisanal fishers participate their management? We also note that there is no reference to High Seas MPAs. About the two indicators proposed for Target 14.6: the issue of subsidies is of special concern to the artisanal fishing sector, because they distort the markets. What is proposed here is confusing. We need optimum transparency, and to distinguish between different types of subsidies. Those that facilitate the development of good practices are useful. Those that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing are disastrous. And to finish, the Indicators for Target 14b, of special interest for us; what is proposed does not appear acceptable. To certify a fisheries is expensive and we are a low income sector. We cannot but express our surprise that this certification criteria would apply to us but not to industrial fishing. Thank you. | BRIEFING FOR THE MEETING OF THE 2015 AGENDA INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATION ON THE SDGs, NEW YORK, 23-27 MARCH, 2015 - OBJECTIVE 14: OCEANS, INDICATORS PROPOSED BY FUNDACIÓN LONXANET FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHING Available at: https://fundacionlonxanet.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/briefing_ny_eng1.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||
17 | 3/27/2015 13:56:47 | Medani Bhandari, Ph.D. | Atlantic State Legal Foundation | http://www.aslf.org | National organization | Eradicating poverty in all its dimensions and addressing inequality Tackling climate change and achieving more sustainable lifestyles Building strong, inclusive and resilient economies Promoting peaceful societies and strong institutions A renewed global partnership and adequate means of implementation Reviewing progress on SDG commitments; universality and differentiations If these aspects addressed properly it will be a milestone is this field. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | 3/28/2015 2:49:09 | Delegates of World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) | Youth Delegates of WAGGGS | http://www.wagggs.org/en/home | International organization | |||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | 3/31/2015 8:07:26 | Nicholas Schoon | Bioregional | http://www.bioregional.com/ | International organization | The report offers a useful starting point in the challenging but essential task of identifying a compelling and credible set of indicators to measure progress on sustainable targets and indicators. Much further work remains to be done. Bioregional has prepared its own short briefing on indicators related to sustainable consumption and production as part of the SDGs and their targets. We give a link to it below. | Indicators for Sustainable Consumption and Production, Bioregional, 2015 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3TuklREyGz6V0VtNFBUV1RTaGs/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||||
20 | 4/1/2015 10:01:50 | Claire Schouten | International Budget Partnership | http://internationalbudget.org/ | International organization | The International Budget Partnership (IBP) and civil society organizations around the world support the Expert Group’s agreement to define an integrated monitoring framework, reflecting global, regional and national indicators, ensure disaggregation (following the ‘no one left behind’ principle), and build on the Millennium Development Goals’ experience and lessons learnt. One of the experiences and lessons learnt of the MDGs is that it is very difficult to monitor resources and progress as governments currently do not publicly report on investments in pursuit of the goals, and how these resources were raised. Without this data, we cannot analyze whether development goals – the MDGs or the SDGs alike – are well planned, monitored and achieved. The current draft indicators take this challenge into account and their budgetary emphasis is critical. Countries were asked to rate on a scale of A to C the feasibility, suitability and relevance of the proposed provisional indicators for each target. Several of the indicators address spending towards development areas – for example for social protection and employment programmes (Target 8.b.1). The indicator ‘total government spending in social protection and employment programmes as percentage of the national budgets and GDP’ received a welcome rating of AAA. Budgetary indicators are critical for developing effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. They are also vital for ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. They are essential for Goal 16 and 17, meaning they are necessary for the institutions, means of implementation and global partnership required to achieve the SDGs. The table in the link below provides suggestions on existing indicators as well as a new one on participation. Endorsed by the UN, IMF, OECD and the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency, including member states, international financial institutions and non-governmental organizations, budget participation principles apply to public policy decision-making and should be integrated in the monitoring and indicators framework. To enable participation, there should be legislation and mechanisms in place; information, including on the purpose for engagement, shared well in advance; and governments should report on how inputs were taken into account. We suggest the indicator that legislatures conduct public hearings at the enactment and evaluation of the budget. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8AANUUMzfiTQ2NJS1pPdjdyMTg/view?usp=sharing | Please see the International Budget Partnership's submission on the indicators: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8AANUUMzfiTQ2NJS1pPdjdyMTg/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||||
21 | 4/2/2015 9:24:25 | Rachel McMahon | Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation | http://www.pedaids.org/ | International organization | The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation thanks UN-NGLS for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft indicator framework. We are interested in how the indicators will measure and account for the populations directly related to our mission, specifically women, children and families. The Foundation strongly supports the inclusion of an HIV indicator that measures incidence (3.3.1), with specific reference to children and adolescents, and HIV/AIDS related deaths (3.3.2). EGPAF requests indicator 3.3.1 be expanded to include specific reference to pregnant women and that indicator 3.3.2 include children, adolescents and pregnant women. In addition, EGPAF encourages the inclusion of an indicator on treatment access for children, adolescents and pregnant women. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION: DATA DISAGGREGATION Additionally, when collecting the data for these indicators it is imperative that the data be further disaggregated by age and sex. HIV data is typically lumped into one of two age groups: (1) age 0-14 or (2) 15 and older. However, infection rates, mortality rates and treatment access vary greatly among infants, school age children, and young adolescents. Data shows that 1/3 of children living with HIV die by 1 year if not initiated on treatment and 50% will die by age 2. Under existing WHO guidelines all HIV-positive children under 5 are eligible for treatment, however only 24% of all children living with HIV are accessing treatment and the median age of children living with HIV being initiated on treatment is 4.6 years. UNAIDS’ reporting system recently began compiling data by smaller age groups (e.g. < 1 yr, 1-4 yrs, 5-9 yrs, 10-14 yrs) to better monitor coverage and outcomes for different age groups. JUSTIFICATION FOR REPORTING DATA ON PREGNANT WOMEN Collecting and reporting data on pregnant women is critical to ending new pediatric HIV infections as well as monitoring incidence and HIV-related mortality among women living with HIV. HIV/AIDS continues to be one of the leading causes of death among pregnant women globally. UNAIDS notes that the number of new HIV infections among women of reproductive age remains high - having declined by only 17% since 2009 – and an estimated 1.5 million women living with HIV gave birth in 2013 – virtually unchanged from 2009. UNAIDS has also reported that between 2012 and 2013, the percentage of HIV-positive pregnant women receiving antiretroviral medicines rose only marginally, from 64% to 68%. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | 4/5/2015 16:01:23 | Ross Bailey | WaterAid | http://www.wateraid.org/ppa | International organization | WaterAid welcomes the technical report. The rating of the indicators is valuable and we are pleased to see the overwhelmingly positive assessment which targets 6.1 and 6.2 have received. We also welcome the inclusion of indicators that woudl promote inter-linkages between WASH and targets on education and unpaid care. We have concerns that the indicators proposed will seriously impact on implementing Goal 6. Given that the proposals of the Open Working Group (OWG) for a drinking water target (6.1) includes at least 5 elements, and the proposed sanitation target has 7- 10, it is crucial that member states do not reduce the sophistication of the targets through an insufficient number of core indicators to be globally monitored. It is also a requirement that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are not less ambitious than existing commitments, which means they must reinforce the requirements of the human right to water and sanitation. Whilst accepting that in some areas too many indicators would be burdensome for countries to implement and report on, WaterAid believes that a) A single core indicator as proposed in the indicative indicators would be insufficient to deal with the complexity implied by the current wording of the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) targets. b) Core indicators proposed in our "longer paper” and by the WASH sector Technical Experts’ consultation process (see longer paper), are already monitored, are necessary to be monitored at national level, and can be aggregated to a global level. They would not amount to additional burden on countries. c) Indicators act as an incentive or driver and by focusing solely on measuring the highest form of water and sanitation, progress on stepping stone levels are not achieved. The ambition of the target language of ‘safe” or “adequate” in 6.1 and 6.2 is in no way reduced through the inclusion of additional indicators. It is supported by providing intermediate steps which can incentivise “some progress for all’. Member states should consider a “ladder of access” with a minimum set of three core indicators for each target that fully capture, between them, the majority of the aims and the most important elements of the proposed target. At very minimum, this ladder should be agreed globally so that all countries which measure elements nationally but do not report globally can compare at regional or common economic level e.g. LDCs. For more details , consult the paper linked below. | Measuring what matters: Analysis and proposals for indicators on Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in post-2015. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4rWv_IfTKYhSV9xMXNmRnBKMVE/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||||
23 | 4/6/2015 18:25:45 | Cornie Huizenga | Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport | http://slocat.net | International organization | The third IGN session, along with the UNSC technical report on indicators, has confirmed that transport, based on its inclusion in targets and indicators across a range of SDGs is expected to play a substantive role in the post-2015 development agenda. It can be argued that among major sectors (e.g. energy, and water) the mainstreaming of transport across a wide range of SDGs exemplifies best the cross cutting nature of the post-2015 development agenda called for in the deliberations. SLoCaT supports the inclusion of UNSC-proposed transport-related indicators, which include the following: • Indicator 2.a.1 • Indicator 3.6.1 • Indicator 3.9.1 • Indicator 5.4.2 • Indicator 7.3.2 • Indicator 9.1.2 • Indicator 11.2.1 • Indicator 11.2.2 • Indicator 11.6.2 • Indicator 11.7.2 • Indicator 11.a.1 • Indicator 11.a.2 • Indicator 12.c.1 • Indicator 17.17.1 • Indicator 17.17.2 SLoCaT also recommends a number of additions and modifications to these indicators, including the following: • Number of premature deaths from road related air pollution by 2030 compared to 2010 (with desired achievement of 50% reduction from 2010 baseline) • PM10 and/or PM2.5 from passenger vehicles (with desired achievement of 70% reduction from 2010 baseline) • Proportion of households within 500 meters of good quality affordable public transport accessible by dedicated walking and/or cycling facilities • Travel times by traveller type and purpose • Fuel economy in all new light duty vehicles by 2030, and in all light duty vehicles by 2050, from a base year of 2005 (desired achievement: double fuel economy) • Zero emission vehicle share of light-duty 4- wheel and motorised 2-wheel vehicle sales worldwide by 2030 (desired achievement: 20%) • Motor vehicle fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 (desired achievement: 100% phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies) SLoCaT's proposed indicators are detailed further in the 'Summary of Proposed SDG Indicators on Sustainable Transport' which can be accessed via the link below. | Summary of Proposed SDG Indicators on Sustainable Transport http://slocat.net/sites/default/files/annex_2_-_indicators.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||
24 | 4/9/2015 7:13:05 | Rineke van Dam | Countdown 2015 Europe | http://www.countdown2015europe.org | International organization | As Countdown 2015 Europe, a consortium of 15 SRHR organizations from 12 European countries advocating for global sexual and reproductive health and rights, we would like to emphasis that the identification of indicators should not be politically negotiated in detail amongst UN member states, and should be, as indicated in the UN Statistical Commission’s technical report, a technical process. We would like to emphasis the importance of inviting and including civil society to provide input into the process of the development of indicators, including in identifying, developing, reviewing and monitoring indicators for the coming years. We see it as a major strength that the UNSC’s technical report does not discuss a maximum number of indicators. Focus should be on identifying the right indicators that comprehensively reflect the objectives of each of the targets of the post-2015 framework, rather than on focusing rigidly on a specific number of indicators that is decided beforehand. We would like to emphasize the importance of disaggregated data across all indicators. At a minimum, data should be disaggregated on the basis of: gender, sex, age (including 10 to 14), geographic location and income. Disaggregation should be specified for each indicator and core factors of disaggregation should be consistent across the framework. Protection of the confidentiality of data collected is key. While the post-2015 indicator framework must capitalize on existing measurement systems and existing data, new indicators will be needed. There is a need for investment in new data collection and indicators development to fill critical gaps and to ensure truly rights-based measurements that will make a difference in peoples’ lives and create a transformative change. We emphasize the importance of a continued process, also after a set of SDG indicators has been decided upon. The constantly evolving data landscape must be taken into account and the process of developing indicators should be seen as ongoing rather than ending at a particular finite point. In the new indicator framework, the importance of investments in the capacity of national statistics offices must be a priority. In addition, the important role that civil society plays in collecting and analyzing data must be recognized. Making data freely accessible, transparent and user-friendly will be essential for implementers at national and local levels. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Nr9sCL0vxncWg2SWE5c2NwYTA/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||||
25 | 4/9/2015 10:35:04 | Matthew Simonds | International Trade Union Confederation | http://www.ituc-csi.org | International organization | Comments from Workers and Trade Unions Major Group on Indicators Proposals The limitation of indicators to two per target presents a major challenge for adequately monitoring the commitments and corresponding set of targets under the SDGs. Ignoring this limitation the Workers and Trade Union Major Group wishes to propose some changes and additions to the list of indicators shared by the UN Statistical Commission secretariat with National Statistical Offices. Full paper can be found here: http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/wtumg_indicators_document_19.03.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | 4/13/2015 12:57:20 | Elaine Geyer-Allély | WWF International | http://wwf.panda.org/ | International organization | WWF welcomes the technical report by the Bureau of the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) and appreciates the challenging task ahead to develop a robust monitoring mechanism for the Post-2015 agenda. The preliminary proposal of indicators for the new agenda is a good starting point, however significant additional work is needed. WWF supports the drive for a limited set of indicators, but believes this must support, not undermine, the interdependency between goals. WWF offers a few preliminary suggestions: - Increase the number of indicators that link outcomes in different goal areas to actively drive interdisciplinary, inter-ministerial collaboration for systems-based approaches to national development planning, implementation and monitoring; e.g. Proposed Indicator 2 for Target 1.4 should be reformulated to “measure the percentage of women, men, indigenous peoples, and local communities (IPLCs) with secure rights to land, property, and natural resources” to clearly recognize the direct link between multi-dimensional poverty and access to natural resources. - Enhance creative clustering across traditional sectors within the Inter-Agency and Expert Group-SDG to foster systems-based perspectives and approaches. The Post-2015 monitoring framework must break new ground with new and strategically placed indicators that make explicit the interlinkages between environmental, social and economic outcomes; e.g. twenty-five of the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP) indicators are crosscutting and could be used as indicators of progress across the SDGs framework. - Balance measures of efficiency with sustainable ecological burden: numerous indicators are proposed to measure the efficiency of resource use. However, experience has shown that a focus on efficiency is not enough to ensure that resource use stays within ecologically sustainable boundaries. Indicators for the Post-2015 agenda must strike a balance between combining efficiency with sustainable ecological burden at relevant levels (e.g. watershed, river basin, resource stock, total pollutant load). - Make some space for innovation: the Post-2015 agenda indicator architecture has real potential to take a long stride forward towards a new way of measuring development progress. More investment is needed in designing indicators for measuring progress beyond GDP to include equally important measures of progress such as wellbeing and healthy ecosystems. | https://drive.google.com/a/wwf.panda.org/file/d/0B4xFEl-c1puRWER1YW81eW44SUE/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||||
27 | 4/13/2015 22:56:56 | CLAUDIO SCHUFTAN | PHM | http://www.phmovement.org | International organization | ISN'T IT A SHAME THAT HUMAN RIGHTS IS NOT MENTIONED ONCE IN THE 6 CHOSEN SUBJECTS FOR THE UPCOMING INTERCTVE DIALOGUES? Are we in CSOs insisting in the centrality of HR doomed? or naif dreamers? What a scandal..... [Also note that apart from 'Sustainable lifestyles', Sustainability is not mentioned!] It is nothing new though: “Human rights have thus become a lightning rod in the geo-political wrangling around the next global development goals. It is for this reason that the draft SDGs contains very few explicit references to human rights, and is conspicuously silent on their role as a universal normative framework for sustainable development. Indeed the OWG Co-Chairs have admitted that they deliberately avoided explicit human rights language in the SDG draft for fear that this would be considered to be too ¨controversial¨.[1]________________________________________ [1] Saiz, I. and R. Balakrishnan (2014) Regrettably the 'stakeholder' word is again used in all texts. I cannot stop being amazed how during HR negotiations, even the NGLS still calls for a 'Stakeholder Preparatory Forum'. Are we not supposed to be using rights holders and duty bearers instead? After all, these fora are to give HR their deserved position in the post 2015 final negotiations... Basically, the voices of the people’ demanding a HR focus are not being heeded… The Agenda is simply not calling for full consistency with current political commitments and existing obligations under international law specifically including HR law. It is not enough to include concrete goals with matching measurable and achievable targets. Why? Because the former and the latter do not really guarantee sustainable development. Instead, we should be asking MS to prepare long term progressive realization of HR plans and setting annual benchmarks for processes that simply have to be set in motion to achieve the long term realization. On a yearly basis, CSOs acting as watch dogs will monitor the achievement of the benchmarks and will help setting the benchmarks for next year. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | 4/14/2015 6:30:51 | Esmee Russell | End Water Poverty | http://www.endwaterpoverty.org/ | International organization | Together, we support the inclusion of goal 6 - a goal dedicated to water and sanitation because water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) underpin life – they are central to sustainable economic and social development, and environmental sustainability but we are concerned that the current indicators proposed by the UN Statistical Commission 1) are not sufficient. Under the current proposals, some targets will go unmeasured for example 6b, and there are insufficient indicators to truly measure whether people have access to safe, affordable and equitable WASH. We call on Member States to developed sufficient indicators to faithfully measure all targets, instead of maintaining the current prescribed number of 120 indicators. 2) will not direct government action towards those who need it the most (the vulnerable and marginalised) replicating one of the failures of the MDGs. While target 7.3 of the MDGs has increased access to water and sanitation - the greatest increase has been among the upper economic quintiles. Vulnerable and marginalised individuals and communities still lack access to this fundamental human right. | SDG 6: indicators must go further to ensure that marginalised and vulnerable communities are reached http://www.endwaterpoverty.org/sites/endwaterpoverty.org/files/EWP-%20response%20to%20indicators%20final_0.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||
29 | 4/16/2015 13:42:50 | Priya Kanayson | NCD Alliance | http://ncdalliance.org/ | International organization | NCD Alliance: Proposed Indicators for NCDs in the Post-2015 Development Agenda https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2vPeriaLvgXX0ZkMGgtTDN2cDA/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | 4/17/2015 8:13:49 | Jean-Philippe Thomas | ENDA Tiers Monde | http://endatiersmonde.org/instit/ | International organization | Due to the fact that the rating gives more 2/3 (near 70%) BBA, BBB, CBB for the proposed indicators, it’s seems very unrealistic, in particular for LDCs countries, to maintain all these indicators or it’s necessary to put in place a “statistic Marshall plan” for these countries. We think that the criterion “feasibility” is a key criteria to decide or not to maintain this indicator. If an indicator is relevant but not feasible, It’s not necessary to introduce in the table indicators. That is to say, to day we have to select relevant and feasible criteria. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | 4/18/2015 9:29:44 | Ross Bailey | WaterAid | http://www.wateraid.org/ppa | International organization | WaterAid recognizes the UNSC's technical report on indicators. We would like to raise the following points: 1. Whilst accepting that the indicators agreed should not be greater than national capacity, we have significant concerns that insufficient debate has gone into the exact number. There is no rationale for limiting the indicators to two per target and no formal discussion took place within the General Assembly to instruct this. Two indicators are no less arbitrary than four or six. 2. We recognize the importance of manageable process to selecting indicators but urge the UN Statistical Commission to focus on selecting sufficient indicators to represent the ambition of the targets proposed by the Open Working Group. With specific to Water and Sanitation (Goal 6), there should be sufficient global indicators to recognized and incentivise progress for the very poorest. The current indicators monitor a level of access for targets 6.1 and 6.2 that many individual countries will not reach anywhere close to this. We do not believe this indicator should be removed but it should be supplemented with a stepping stone indicator that measures and incentives access at a lower level of improvement. 3. Finally, whilst we welcome the inclusion of country offices in reviewing the indicators, it is important that the future feasibility of indicators is understood. In particular, we suggest that the rating of indicator 6.2 is based off existing data gathering techniques for hygiene that are expected to improve in the near term future. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4rWv_IfTKYhSV9xMXNmRnBKMVE/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||||
32 | 4/18/2015 11:46:59 | ATTAH BENSON | COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE INITIATIVE -(CERI) | http://www.cerinigeria.net | National organization | It is important that those issues that created challenges to the success of some MDGs Targets are not repeated. it should not be assume that citizens from certain parts of the globe do not have rights hence issues are based on areas with best advantage.Particular issues relating to Water,Sanitation and Hygiene and Climate Change. It will be ideal to use Least Develop Countries as base line rather than use already developed countries. Also, specific attention needs to be give to women, children, physically challenged persons. Water and Sanitation should be seen as human right issue in view of their importance to human survival. 6.2.1- Am recommending BAA -(This should be disaggregated into women,girls and people with disabilities) LDC should be used as based 6.2.2- Am recommending BBA as it is suitable but its feasibility needs to be discussed. 6.31 CAA- difficult to achive even with stronger efforts as this is only focusing on urban centres without consideration for those in rural areas and difficult terrains. 6.4.1-BCA- No consideration is given for those in rural locations and difficult terrains 6.4.2-CBA- We agree that water productivity is very relevant but this should go beyond urban cities. 6.a- should be assigned appropriate indicators 6.b- should be assigned appropriate indicators CLIMATE CHANGE 13.1.1 - CCB - This might have the challenge of verifying claimes. 13.1.2- CBB- This is based on the challenge of accessing data in remote locations hence we might be forced to rely on data from unreliable source. | N/A | |||||||||||||||||||||
33 | 4/20/2015 15:18:21 | Lizeth Zúniga | Asociación Renovables de Nicaragua | http://www.renovables.org.ni/ | National organization | |||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | 4/20/2015 16:40:27 | Lina Dabbagh | Climate Action Network | http://www.climatenetwork.org/ | International organization | http://www.climatenetwork.org/publication/can-briefing-paper-measuring-what-matters-climate-change-sdg http://www.climatenetwork.org/publication/can-briefing-paper-measuring-what-matters-energy-sdg | ||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | 4/21/2015 12:14:19 | Fiona Bradley | International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions | http://www.ifla.org | International organization | We have primarily focused on indicators related to target 16.10, 9c and 17.8 in our response however we would also support indicators which reflect the contribution and measurement of access to information as a cross-cutting means to achieve the goals. 16.10: The proposed indicators 16.10.1 and 16.10.2 are not appropriate as they do not capture the intention of target 16.10 nor address access to information. As outlined in the Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development, to fully realise access to information, everyone needs access and skills to effectively use information. We suggest the following indicators for 16.10: Literacy rate of Youth and Adults, urban and rural literacy rate o Literacy is a basic requirement to access information in all formats. o Collected annually by UNESCO Institute for Statistics. • Existence of a comprehensive law and legal regime that ensures the right of access to information from public bodies, based on international standards. o Collected by UNESCO, with support from UNDP, UNODC, OHCHR • Media and Information (MIL) competencies o Data from the Global MIL Assessment Framework developed by UNESCO 9.c: IFLA supports indicators 9.c.1 and 9.c.2, together with additional indicators to recognise the essential role of public access to ensure that 9.c can be achieved: Number of broadband subscriptions (per 100 people) • Collected annually by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Cost of fixed broadband subscriptions as a percentage of monthly Gross National Income (GNI) • Collected annually by International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and UN Broadband Commission Proportion of public libraries with broadband Internet access • Data collected in relation to WSIS Statistical Indicators for Target 4 (‘Connect all public libraries, museums, post offices and national archives with ICTs’), Indicator 4.1 Proportion of public libraries providing public Internet access. • Data collected in relation to WSIS Statistical Indicators 17.8: IFLA supports indicators 17.8.1, 17.8.2, but they need to be more nuanced to adequately measure access to ICT: Numbers of individuals using the Internet • Collected annually by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Numbers of individuals owning a mobile phone • Collected annually by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) | Access to Information: Measuring Goals and Targets http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/topics/libraries-development/documents/libraries-post-2015-development-agenda.pdf Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development http://www.lyondeclaration.org/ Libraries and the post-2015 development agenda (commentary on 16.10, 9c, 17.8) http://www.ifla.org/node/9392 | |||||||||||||||||||||
36 | 4/22/2015 3:21:09 | Habiba Al Marashi | Emirates Environmental Group | http://eeg-uae.org/ | National organization | A data user | No | The report provides a useful summary of past and ongoing processes related to the development of an indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals. The shaping up of an integrated architecture for global/universal, regional and national indicators, although a task that will challenge resources and capacities, is a very important part of the process. It will decide how far the implementation of SDGs will be monitored, tracked and adjusted against the targets at various levels. We look forward to being consistently updated about the progress of work on the indicator framework. | ||||||||||||||||||||
37 | 4/22/2015 6:08:17 | Professor David Durrheim | Chair Regional Measles Elimination Verification Commission, Western Pacific | http://www.newcastle.edu.au/ | International organization | Both | Yes | All countries in the Western Pacific ie 37 countries. All of the indicators, including epidemiological, surveillance and immunity, required to demonstrate achievement and progress towards measles elimination at national and Regional level. | Inadequate specificity regarding immunisation, the principal measure that has reduced childhood morbidity and mortality in recent decades. It would be appropriate to include "achievement of the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2020 goals" as a specific indicator. This particularly to include the vaccine-preventable disease elimination and eradication goals. | |||||||||||||||||||
38 | 4/22/2015 13:07:30 | Andrew Griffiths | Sightsavers | http://www.sightsavers.org/ | International organization | Both | No | Sightsavers welcomes the opportunity to comment. We believe that: the targets need to be measured in full; data should be disaggregated, beyond age and sex, and should enable progress for persons with disability to be assessed; there should be internationally comparable indicators in order to track global progress; and all countries should use the agreed indicators. For Sightsavers, this means that: 1. To ensure no target is considered met until met by all groups, indicators need to be disaggregated by disability across the indicator framework: Indicators will need specific reference to persons with disabilities on the targets on poverty eradication; Governments must report on social as well as economic equity in poverty eradication; and unless a clear rationale can be established, all indicators should be disaggregated by gender, disability, age and income quintile – this should be a progressive agenda for statistical analysis in line with the principles of a data revolution 2. Universal Health Coverage targets should have indicators on protection from impoverishment and catastrophic expenditure, and an indicator on ensuring equity in service coverage: all UHC indicators should be disaggregated by disability, as well as age, sex and other important denominators 3. The agreed WHO indicator on NTDs should be used for Target 3.3: number of people at risk for NTDs Under specific targets: 1.3. We welcome the inclusion of disability in these indicators. We need to see this level of disaggregation across the board, and especially in Target 1.2 3.3. It is essential there is an indicator measuring progress on NTDs 3.8. The indicators here are currently not representative of UHC, only measuring financial risk protection and indicators on access to services should be included 4.5. Disabilities should specifically referenced in the indicators, as it is mentioned in the target. More broadly, the goal is for “inclusive” education, so all the indicators will need disaggregation by disability. 8.5. We welcome the specific mention of disaggregation by disability Goal 10 will need full disaggregation, including by disability, if it is to measure inequality 11.2. At present not disaggregated despite the target specifically mentioning disability 11.7. In order to assess “accessible” public spaces, indicators under this target will need to be disaggregated 17.18. This target should have an indicator on the ability of national statistical offices to successfully disaggregate data | ||||||||||||||||||||
39 | 4/22/2015 13:50:06 | David R. Curry | Center for Vaccine Ethics and Policy/NYU | http://centerforvaccineethicsandpolicy.net/ | International organization | Both | No | Technical Report Omission of SDG Indicators on Immunization and Vaccines While the Technical Report’s member state survey included a rich array of 300+ preliminary SDG indicators, there was conspicuous omission of indicators around immunization and vaccines. We note that: :: the MDGs included a specific immunization indicator – Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Indicator 4.3 – Proportion of children in the appropriate age group who received at least one dose of measles-containing vaccine, 2000 and 2012 (Percentage) :: the Synthesis report of the Secretary-General on the post-2015 sustainable development agenda argues in [70] that the SDG agenda must “ensure immunization coverage”, :: a number of current SDGs goals (most notably Goal 3) are anchored in health, and many of the targets across the SDGs will depend on immunization and vaccines for their achievement, :: SMART immunization indicators are well-established globally and part of the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020 (GVAP) endorsed by the 194 Member States of the World Health Assembly in May 2012, :: candidate immunization indicators were put forward at the Expert Group Meeting on The indicator framework for the post-2015 development, 25-26 February 2015 via this interagency background note (p.11,19). Mindful of the above, we request that the IAEG-SDGs, the UN Statistical Commission, and member states assure inclusion of indicators on immunization and vaccines in the final SDG Indicator Framework. We specifically recommend that such SDG immunization indicators measure coverage for all WHO recommended routine immunizations as relevant to age, country and specific health contexts, aligned with the GVAP’s focus on equitable access to immunization across the life course and minimum coverage metrics at national and district levels. We provide below an example of a viable, single indicator around immunization reflecting the thinking above: [Current] Target 3.8 - Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all [Draft] Indicator 3.8.3. – Percentage immunization coverage for all WHO recommended routine immunizations as relevant to age, locale, and health condition, with target populations reaching at least 90% national vaccination coverage and minimum recommended percentage coverage for specific vaccines in every district or equivalent administrative unit. | ||||||||||||||||||||
40 | 4/22/2015 16:41:41 | Ryan Kaminski | United Nations Association of the USA | http://www.unausa.org/ | Subnational organization | Both | No | Goal 16 has exigent relevance for the attainment of all the SDGs as improvements in rule of law have the potential to reduce private investment risk and cost, ultimately catalyzing trillions in new investment flows. This presents a key opportunity to empower billions by building sound, mutually-reinforcing regulatory and fiscal environments that can channel new investments while also reducing capital costs. “An economy with an efficient bureaucracy and rules of governance that facilitates entrepreneurship and creativity among individuals, and provides an enabling atmosphere for people to realize their full potential, can enhance living standards and promote growth and shared prosperity,” confirms the World Bank Group. Acknowledging the preliminary efforts of the UN Statistical Commission technical report on the indicators, the follow guiding principles should inform the development of indicators under Goal 16 moving forward: -Identifying indicators that measure the economic dimensions of Goal 16 and particularly, Target 16.3; -Aligning the ambition of the Open Working Group outcome document, including Goal 16, with a feasible, suitable, and relevant measurement framework; -Leveraging existing global-level, robust knowledge and data platforms relevant to Goal 16; and -Identifying Goal 16 indicators with crosscutting value for Goals 16, 17, and other proposed SDGs. Three proposed indicators,explained in detail in the attached UNA-USA global indicator submission paper, for 16.3 employing this criteria include: -World Bank’s Doing Business “Ease of Doing Business” aggregate annual score. -Derived aggregate score of the World Bank’s Investing Across Borders (IAB) annual scores. -Rate of compliance with binding resultant judgments of bilateral and multilateral investment treaty disputes. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzczdMJCJD7LWVVwbFNObENqS3c/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||
41 | 4/22/2015 16:54:50 | Eva Sandis | NGO Committee on Migration | http://ngo-migration.org/ | International organization | Both | No | We endorse the formation of the Indicators as a technical process to be handled by the Statts Com and the IAEG--with input at all stages from Civil Society. We strongly urge adoption of the provisional or similar global Indicators for Targets 5.2, 8.8, 10.7, 10c, and 16.2 (all migration related). We urge consideration of Indicator Indexes. for example for 10.7 (safe, orderly, regular migration). We call for the disaggregation of Indicators by migratory status. We support the adoption of additional Indicators for regional, national, and thematic monitoring. | ||||||||||||||||||||
42 | 4/23/2015 7:13:15 | Dr. Tofail Ahmed and Abdulla Al Mamun | Manusher Jonno Foundation (MJF) | http://www.manusherjonno.org/ | National organization | Both | Yes | We (MJF) works in 64 districts of Bangladesh through partnership with CSO/NGOs on Good Governance and Human Rights issues. MJF produces regular data on its programme and also uses data from other sources on respective issues. Here we have attached a document that has identified the indicators and data relevant to MJF work in Bangladesh. Our website also portrays a snapshot of our works. | No Comment | Title: SDGs Indicators review in Bangladesh Context https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6ceIzbbZLhONW9fMWZSdUtGZ3M/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||
43 | 4/23/2015 9:15:11 | Fabio Palacio | International Movement ATD Fourth World | http://www.atd-fourthworld.org/ | International organization | Both | No | Please See Paper | http://4thworldmovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ATD-Response-to-Indicator-Framework-Long.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||
44 | 4/23/2015 11:47:40 | Elinor Milne | Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children | http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org | International organization | Both | Yes | We have undertaken comprehensive research on the legal status of corporal punishment of children in all states and territories worldwide, and make this available in the form of detailed reports on each state and territory and global and regional progress tables summarising the information (see our paper below for an example). The reports and tables detail the legality of corporal punishment in the family home, alternative care settings, day care, schools, penal institutions and as a sentence for crime. Through this detailed research, which is constantly updated, we monitor which states have fulfilled their obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other treaties to prohibit all corporal punishment in all settings of children's lives including the family home. | We suggest that indicators on prohibition and elimination of violent punishment of children be included under target 16.2 (“End abuse, exploitations, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children”) of the proposed Sustainable Development Goals. We suggest these two indicators: 1. Number of countries which have prohibited all corporal punishment of children, including in the family home. 2. Percentage of children aged 1-14 years who experienced any physical punishment by caregivers in the past month. Violent punishment of children, in the family home and other settings of their lives, is the most common form of violence against children, and clear baselines for measuring progress towards its prohibition and elimination have been developed. These indicators are therefore both very relevant and easily feasible. Please see the paper linked to below for more detail. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw8hHssF1uCEUXM5U2JINkFzM3c/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||
45 | 4/23/2015 12:32:57 | Joanne Hemmings | The Girl Generation: Together to End FGM | Our feedback relates to the rating given to Indicator 5.3.2 (Percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C, by age group (for relevant countries only)) which received a rating of CBB. 'The Girl Generation: Together to End FGM' believes that this rating is inaccurate and strongly recommends an AAA rating. We do not believe that the ratings given by the countries who participated in the survey provide an accurate reflection of the feasibility, suitability and relevance of the indicator to the SDGs. Only four of the countries who participated in the survey have a high prevalence of FGM (Egypt, Kenya, Niger, Sudan). It is unlikely that statistical offices in countries that are not significantly affected by FGM will have enough knowledge about FGM to provide a well-informed rating relating to this indicator. We strongly believe that if more statistical offices in high-prevalence countries had participated in the survey, different results would have been obtained, as many of the most affected countries in Africa demonstrate high levels of commitment and political will to ending FGM. It is highly feasible to report on this indicator, as an established methodology exists, and reliable data are collected by regular MICS studies or similar household studies in 29 of the most highly-affected countries. In these countries, no additional data collection efforts would be required. The indicator is also strongly supported by civil society organisations and governments across the world. There is a growing global movement which recognises FGM as one of the most serious human rights violations of our age. It is often the first of a series of violations of girls rights, including early marriage and other forms of gender based violence. The United Nations General Assembly banned FGM internationally in 2012. The indicator is extremely relevant to target 5.3 (eliminate all harmful practices such as CEFM and FGM/C) and target 5.6 (ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | 4/23/2015 17:25:08 | Marielle Hart | International HIV/AIDS Alliance | http://www.aidsalliance.org/ | International organization | Both | Yes | The majority of the Alliance's Linking Organisations (LOs) are using indicators that have mostly been derived from UNGASS indicators, UNAIDS Global Indicator Registry as well as indicators globally standardised by PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Furthermore, 77% of the Alliance's LOs and the community-based organisations they support report the data they collect through these indicators to their national HIV and/or health authorities in accordance with national guidelines. The data source is the programmes and projects delivering services at community level in the countries we are working. Example: Indicator: Number of people from key populations reached with a defined package of targeted HIV prevention activities. What it measures: Number of people from MSM, transgender,sex worker, IDU communities reached by a package of minimum services. Total number of individuals reached from each of the 4 key population groups with a defined package of interventions. Packages will vary based on context. Frequency of collection: Quarterly at country level. Annually collected by the Alliance Secretariat from each Alliance LO. | The critical importance of addressing HIV-related stigma and discrimination, as a health and human rights imperative has long been recognized by all stakeholders concerned about the HIV response as crucial for ending AIDS. More than 30 years into the epidemic, stigma, discrimination and criminalisation still pose significant barriers to equal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support services including for women and girls, key populations and other most affected populations. Ending stigma, discrimination, and criminalisation are therefore both a condition and a goal in ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030. For this reason, it is crucial that the ending AIDS target 3.3) and/or the Universal Health coverage target (3.8) includes an anti-stigma and anti-discrimination type indicator, for example: Percentage of PLHIV, key populations and other affected populations reporting access to quality health services without experiencing stigma, discrimination, harassment, or any form of violence. Or Percentage of PLHIV, key populations and other affected populations citing stigma as reason for not seeking health and HIV prevention, treatment, care and support services and HIV-related legal assistance. Or Percentage of PLHIV, key populations and other affected populations reporting denial of health services because of real or perceived HIV status and/or discriminatory attitudes from service providers. In addition, the proposed indicator under target 10.2, indicator 10.2.1 which reads "measure the progressive reduction of inequality gaps over time, disaggregated by groups as defined above, for selected social, economic, political and environmental SDG targets (at least one target per goal where relevant should be monitored using this approach) should be included as an approach to monitor the Universal Health Coverage target (3.8). to ensure that marginalized and excluded groups including PLHIV and key populations are equally covered by health services and are not left behind. Finally,target 3.c requires specific mentioning of the role of community-based health workers and community-based organisations in the provision of health services and care, in particular to marginalized and hard-to-reach groups, and the need to substantially increase the strengthening and capacity building of community-based organizations. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwDV1_biBlNgYl9VeXVVUDhMZjQ/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||
47 | 4/23/2015 17:57:34 | Arjan van Houwelingen | World Animal Protection | http://www.worldanimalprotection.org | International organization | Both | No | World Animal Protection have been active in the deliberations around a Post-2015 development agenda for many years now, always showing why sustainable development for humans can best be achieved if animals are part of the solution. As the process for choosing indicators for measuring the achievement of 17 goals and 169 targets is now delegated to a still to be formed Inter-Agency Expert Group on the SDGs, we urge that the IAEG/SDGs apply the following three considerations to their process: Sustainability: The Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals seeks to inspire a new approach to global development that embeds all three dimensions of sustainability: economic growth, social progress and environmental protection. We are concerned that the proposed preliminary list of indicators fails to capture the essence of sustainability and is too much based on the more traditional approach to development and largely focused on measuring the economic or social dimensions in isolation from each other. We hope that you will be able to suggest indicators that fully capture or at least hint at the concept of sustainability. Integrated approach: The debate around the Sustainable Development Goals has emphasized that a sustainable development approach should lead to the eradication of a strictly sectoral or ‘silo’ approach to development. We would strongly urge you to favour indicators that cut across targets and where possible cut across goals. Policy coherence: 2015 will see the culmination of multiple global policy frameworks that seek to influence global strategic policy. The UN Member States have rightly insisted that all efforts be undertaken to ensure that there is coherence in terms of the policies promoted by these various frameworks. In this regard, we strongly urge you to take the outcomes of the Sendai conference on the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction into account during your considerations. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3qLzppTM6pCOWJmeEI2a2tWd3M/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3qLzppTM6pCXzlhei1zNW1Mb00/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||
48 | 4/24/2015 4:00:27 | Rita Poppe | Hivos | https://www.hivos.org/ | International organization | A data user | No | The post-2015 framework must be transformative , which requires indicators that are robust . They must ensure that progress can be tracked through clear milestones. Regarding Energy SDG 7, Target 7.1 on access, new ways of defining and measuring energy access are crucial if this target is to result in poverty reduction and development benefits. Communities require a range of energy services for their development, from household services, community services and energy for productive activities. Current binary definitions of energy access (e.g. having or not having a household electricity connection) do not tell if communities have energy services that are good quality, reliable, affordable and safe enough to be usable. The Global Tracking Framework developed for the SE4ALL-initiative takes an innovative multi-tier approach to defining access and has been designed to measure progress across the range of usable energy service, including quality, affordability, safety and reliability. For this reason, the indicators for target 7.1 should support adoption of the multi-tier approach. This means that the equity dimension of access can be tracked, ensuring that “no-one is left behind”. In addition, any target for universal access must include a minimum level of meaningful access so that progress can be measured towards this target. For household, productive and community uses, GTF tier 3 should act as the minimum level of access that can produce real development impact1. GTF tier 4 should be the minimum level of access for cooking, given new evidence from the World Health Organisation on the devastating health impacts of indoor air pollution from cooking. Our suggestions of indicators for Target 7.1 are as follow: • Indicator 1: Percentage of population (%) with access to electricity of at least Tier 3 of the Global Tracking Framework. • Indicator 2: Percentage of population (%) with access to clean and efficient cooking fuels and technology of at least Tier 4 of the Global Tracking Framework. Regarding the renewables and energy efficiency targets (7.2 & 7.3 respectively) these must incentivise sufficient action by 2030 on climate change to prevent dangerous global warming, and support the global transition to socially inclusive, low carbon development. Our suggestions for Target 7.2 are therefore: • Indicator 1: Renewable energy share (%) in the total energy final energy consumption. • Indicator 2: % change from last year, collected at national level then aggregated. | Energy in the Post-2015 Development Paper https://www.hivos.org/sites/default/files/energy_in_post-2015.pdf Energy Sustainable Development Goals Indicators briefing Mar 2015 http://www.cafod.org.uk/Policy/Climate-and-energy | |||||||||||||||||||
49 | 4/24/2015 4:22:29 | Jordi Pascual, on behalf of the #Culture2015Goal campaign | Global Campaign #Culture2015Goal | http://www.culture2015goal.net | International organization | Both | Yes | Please see reference below to the #culture2015goal campaign document “Recognizing the role of culture to strengthen the un post-2015 development agenda: Proposals on Indicators”, February 2015. Available at http://www.culture2015goal.net/images/yootheme/culture2015/def/Indicators_ENG.pdf | 1.4.1: “Basic services” should include “cultural services and resources” 4.7.1 amounts to a limited understanding of sustainable development. In 4.7.2, a reference to “values and attitudes promoting... cultural diversity” should be added. 8.3: The target is long and complex. An accurate monitoring requires more than 2 indicators; this indicator could be added: “Percentage of persons engaged in cultural employment within the total employed population” 8.9: The two indicators proposed do not integrate the target’s focus on “sustainable tourism” and key promotion of “local culture and products”. The following indicator is suggested instead: “Percentage of national and local governments which have integrated a specific ‘cultural impact assessment’ as a prerequisite of all tourism development plans” 9.b: The following indicator could be added: “Number of countries which have implemented a national strategy for the development of the creative industries” 11.4: We support indicator 11.4.1 as currently formulated. On indicator 11.4.2, we believe that the “Percentage of urban area” is not at all suitable to the purpose of the target. We would suggest replacing 11.4.2. with the following: “Cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants that implement a cultural policy strategy, including measures for the protection of historical/cultural sites and other measures enabling access to culture for all citizens.” 12.b: Explicit reference to cultural aspects should be included in at least one of the indicators, as expressed in the target. Indicator 12.b.1 could be replaced by the following: “Percentage of national and local sustainable tourism development strategies that integrate a cultural chapter” 13.2. A new indicator, 13.2.2, could be added, as follows: “Percentage of national and local climate change strategies that consider the role of cultural aspects in the promotion of environmental sustainability.” 16.10. We suggest the following indicators for this target: “Literacy rate of youth and adults; including urban and rural literacy rate”; “Existence of a comprehensive law and legal regime that ensures the right of access to information from public bodies, based on international standards”; and “Media and Information (MIL) competencies” Please refer to the document in the link below for further details on the motivation and sources for the indicators suggested. | Culture2015goal campaign: “Recognizing the role of culture to strengthen the un post-2015 development agenda: Proposals on Indicators”, February 2015. Available at http://www.culture2015goal.net/images/yootheme/culture2015/def/Indicators_ENG.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||
50 | 4/24/2015 4:41:00 | Jordi Pascual | Culture Committee, United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) | http://www.agenda21culture.net | International organization | Both | Yes | In March 2015, the UCLG Culture Summit held in Bilbao adopted a document entitled “Culture 21 Actions”, which provides guidance for the evaluation and guidance of cultural policies concerned with local sustainable development. This document is available at http://www.agenda21culture.net/images/a21c/nueva-A21C/C21A/C21_015_en.pdf On the other hand, as a member of the #culture2015goal campaign, the UCLG Culture Committee has been involved in the document “Recognizing the role of culture to strengthen the un post-2015 development agenda: Proposals on Indicators”, February 2015. Available at http://www.culture2015goal.net/images/yootheme/culture2015/def/Indicators_ENG.pdf | 1.4.1: “Basic services” should include “cultural services and resources” 4.7.1 amounts to a limited understanding of sustainable development. In 4.7.2, a reference to “values and attitudes promoting... cultural diversity” should be added. 8.3: The target is long and complex. An accurate monitoring requires more than 2 indicators; this indicator could be added: “Percentage of persons engaged in cultural employment within the total employed population” 8.9: The two indicators proposed do not integrate the target’s focus on “sustainable tourism” and key promotion of “local culture and products”. The following indicator is suggested instead: “Percentage of national and local governments which have integrated a specific ‘cultural impact assessment’ as a prerequisite of all tourism development plans” 9.b: The following indicator could be added: “Number of countries which have implemented a national strategy for the development of the creative industries” 11.4: We support indicator 11.4.1 as currently formulated. On indicator 11.4.2, we believe that the “Percentage of urban area” is not at all suitable to the purpose of the target. We would suggest replacing 11.4.2. with the following: “Cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants that implement a cultural policy strategy, including measures for the protection of historical/cultural sites and other measures enabling access to culture for all citizens.” 12.b: Explicit reference to cultural aspects should be included in at least one of the indicators, as expressed in the target. Indicator 12.b.1 could be replaced by the following: “Percentage of national and local sustainable tourism development strategies that integrate a cultural chapter” 13.2. A new indicator, 13.2.2, could be added, as follows: “Percentage of national and local climate change strategies that consider the role of cultural aspects in the promotion of environmental sustainability.” 16.10. We suggest the following indicators for this target: “Literacy rate of youth and adults; including urban and rural literacy rate”; “Existence of a comprehensive law and legal regime that ensures the right of access to information from public bodies, based on international standards”; and “Media and Information (MIL) competencies” Please refer to the document in the link below for further details on the motivation and sources for the indicators suggested. | Culture2015goal campaign: “Recognizing the role of culture to strengthen the un post-2015 development agenda: Proposals on Indicators”, February 2015. Available at http://www.culture2015goal.net/images/yootheme/culture2015/def/Indicators_ENG.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||
51 | 4/24/2015 5:37:02 | Patricia Carvalho | Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) | https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx | International organization | Both | Yes | As the leading global standard-setter in sustainability reporting, GRI is well positioned to contribute to the global monitoring of the indicator 12.6.2 – Number or % of companies that produce sustainability reports is aligned with the practice of thousands of companies worldwide – due to the wealth of information and data that it aggregates on sustainability reporting worldwide. As a potential data producer for this indicator, GRI would like to offer its Sustainability Disclosure Database (http://database.globalreporting.org/) to track this indicator. The database includes more than 24,000 sustainability reports collected since 1999 from over 90 countries and territories, and is continuously growing. The database is 100% free for the general public and provides users access to all types of sustainability reports, whether GRI-based or otherwise, together with relevant information related to the reporting organizations. It also offers an option to disaggregate data per sector, size and several other characteristics. GRI would be able to modify the database to accommodate the specific needs of the indicator. | GRI would like to provide the following comments on the proposed indicators for target 12.6: - On indicator 12.6.1, GRI believes there is a need to quantify the term “the world’s largest companies.” The indicator needs to be clear in regards to what qualifies a ‘large’ company (e.g. the N100, the top 100 companies per capitalization in each country). - In regards to indicator 12.6.2, GRI has expressed its availability to support the monitoring of this indicator in the previous question. - GRI would also like to suggest an additional indicator as a part of target 12.6, to track the number of national policies, regulations, or frameworks that encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycles. Policy and regulation are complimentary and strong mechanisms to voluntary reporting practices that can be implemented by governments to increase the uptake of sustainability reporting. By tracking the number of these policies and regulations, greater insights would be gained into the sustainability reporting landscape worldwide. | |||||||||||||||||||
52 | 4/24/2015 6:11:24 | Lucy Walker | The Orchid Project (a charity working to end FGM/C) | http://orchidproject.org/ | International organization | A data user | No | Orchid Project are pleased to have the opportunity to contribute feedback on the technical report and also support the call from civil society for participation in the IAEG. Indicator 5.3.2 (referred to elsewhere as indicator 41), the 'percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C by age group (for relevant countries only)', was given a rating of CBB. Orchid Project strongly disagrees with this and recommends a rating of AAA. Determining the percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM/C is easily feasible; reliable data is available for 29 countries in Africa and the Middle East. The methodology for collecting data already exists: DHS and MICS household surveys. For practising countries not currently measured (at least 17 that are known, including Indonesia, India and Iran), questions on FGM/C could easily be included in existing household surveys. Furthermore, data on prevalence is needed in all countries as diaspora groups that practice FGM/C live throughout the world. It is therefore recommended that 'for relevant countries only' is removed. Indicator 5.3.2 is suitable and supported by civil society organisations and political will, as demonstrated by The Girl Summit 2014 and International frameworks and communications, e.g. UNGA resolution Intensifying global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilation. The percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM/C is continually used by policy makers, academics and civil society, who rely on this data to understand varying prevalence of the practice. Expanding this dataset by measuring prevalence in more countries would make it even more useful. Finally, this indicator is very relevant to target 5.3 (eliminate all harmful practices such as CEFM and FGM/C) and target 5.6 (ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights). Unicef uses the percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM/C to produce statistical reports on FGM/C that are used worldwide in understanding the practice, influencing programmes and policy. Ultimately, indicator 5.3.2 is a universal indicator that should be measured by all countries in order to increase international understanding of where FGM/C happens, and on what scale. This will enable countries to be fully supported to implement national action plans to end FGM/C - in practising countries in Africa, South America, the Middle East and Asia and in diaspora communities worldwide. | ||||||||||||||||||||
53 | 4/24/2015 6:51:22 | Marie Nazombe | SOS Children's Villages UK | http://www.soschildren.org/ | National organization | Both | Yes | We are a national organisation (UK), but also a member of an international federation (SOS Children's Villages International). The international federation gathers data on a wide range of indicators in selected locations within 125 countries worldwide. This data includes some regarding child rights, children in care, economic/material/health/educational status of caregivers, and FGM/C in a small selection of countries including The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and Ethiopia. | Broadly, we support many of the indicators. As an organisation working to reduce FGM/C (currently in The Gambia and Guinea-Bissau, in partnership with SOS federation members in those countries, and with other local partners), we disagree with the rating of CBB for indicator 5.3.2. We would rate indicator 5.3.2 as BAA. We would recommend considering removing 'for relevant countries only', due to the continued practice within diaspora communities worldwide. It would also be worth extending the age-range downwards, because many girls undergo FGM/C before even the age of five, and effects of efforts to reduce the practice will be more quickly and clearly seen when the women who have undergone FGM/C in the past are filtered out of the indicator. There is a growing global movement which recognises FGM/C as one of the most serious human rights violations of our age, as demonstrated by The Girl Summit 2014 and International frameworks and communications. It is often the first of a series of violations of girls rights, including early marriage and other forms of gender based violence. The indicator is very relevant to targets 5.3 and 5.6. The ratings given by the countries who participated in the survey do not provide an accurate reflection of the feasibility, suitability and relevance of the indicator to the SDGs, because only four of them have a high prevalence of FGM (Egypt, Kenya, Niger, Sudan). Countries such as The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and Ethiopia would undoubtedly have given it 'A' ratings for suitability and relevance. | |||||||||||||||||||
54 | 4/24/2015 7:03:41 | Paula Ferrari | No FGM Australia | https://nofgmoz.wordpress.com/ | National organization | Both | Yes | No FGM Australia has commissioned a report to identify the number of women and girls living in Australia who are likely to be either survivors of FGM or at risk of FGM, and how many girls are born to women who are likely to be FGM survivors. Executive Summary 1. Women born outside Australia Australia has over 83,000 women and girls who have migrated to the country and who are likely to be survivors of FGM or be at risk of FGM. •5,640 girls under the age of 15 – this group are at high risk of FGM •36,236 women of childbearing age (between the ages of 15 – 49) 2.Girls born in Australia • Women born outside Australia who are likely to be survivors of FGM are estimated to give birth to around 1100 girls every year – that’s around 3 per day. These girls are at high risk of FGM. • Stats are taken from 2011 Australian Bureau of Statistics showing how many women and girls from each of the countries where all types of FGM are known to be prevalent • UNICEF figures showing the prevalence of all types of FGM in most of the countries where all types of FGM are known to be prevalent have been applied to reach a number of women and girls who are likely to be survivors of or at risk of FGM in Australia. • Australian birth figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics by age group for women within child-bearing age (15 – 49) have been applied to the figures above to estimate how many girls will be born in Australia every day to women who are likely to be survivors of FGM. | It is disturbing that the act of subjecting a girl to torture in the form of female genital mutilation, which happens to one girl about every 10 seconds, should be up for any debate as a goal for the UN Sustainable Development goals, particularly considering the gains that are being made in countries such as Kenya. There are indications that unless efforts are increased the number of girls being subjected to this cruelty will increase exponentially. I strongly recommend, on behalf of No FGM Australia that the UN increase its efforts to eradicate female genital mutilation. There are serious physical, emotional, psychological, social, educational, and economic consequences which occur due to FGM. These have a flow on effect across the whole of a country. This is why efforts should not be reduced, but dramatically increased to make a difference to girls, families, societies and whole countries affected by FGM, both in grassroots and diaspora communities such as in Australia. | Female Genital Mutilation: A Growing Problem Australia 2014 https://nofgmoz.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/no-fgm-australia_-australian-statistics_-march-2014.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||
55 | 4/24/2015 7:06:13 | Mahesh Chandrasekar | Leonard Cheshire Disability | https://www.leonardcheshire.org/international#.VTohr9Kqqko | International organization | Both | No | Leonard Cheshire Disability’s feedback on the indicators for the SDGs in the Post-2015 Development Agenda We welcome the working draft of the Technical report by the Bureau of the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) on the process of the development of an indicator framework for the goals and targets of the post-2015 development agenda, particularly its commitment to the principle of ‘leave no one behind’. We acknowledge the constraint of limiting global level monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to a small number of indicators. However, in order to ensure the SDGs are inclusive of people with disabilities and truly transform the development agenda, Leonard Cheshire Disability calls for the final global indicator framework to: 1. Disaggregate data by disability across all goals and targets. To ensure that the SDGs are disability-inclusive and leave no one behind, the indicators that track progress should disaggregate data by disability, and other social or economic groupings. Disaggregating data by disability will provide greater certainty to activities designed to prevent or reduce inequalities between people with disabilities and their non-disabled counterparts. 2. Include additional indicators and more references to persons with disabilities in the global indicator framework, in order to monitor the impact of the SDGs on persons with disabilities. We recommend the inclusion of the following specific indicators: o Ratio of persons living on less than US$1.25 per day who are disabled. o The percentage of schools those are accessible to children with disabilities. o Proportion of children with disabilities in need of assistive devices, adapted curricula, and appropriate learning materials who have regular access to such resources. o The percentage of teachers receiving in-service training each year on inclusive education o Proportion of persons with disabilities who use government-supported health care as compared to total population Furthermore, as technical proofing of the indicators is completed we recommend additional references to persons with disabilities in the indicators regarding empowerment of women (including participation, access to sexual and reproductive health, and ending all forms of violence), poverty eradication and, health. 3. Ensure that all references to accessibility in the goals and targets are interpreted in line with the definition of access as elaborated in Article 9: Accessibility of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) | Please find below the link to Leonard Cheshire response on the indicators for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Post-2015 Development Agenda at https://www.leonardcheshire.org/sites/default/files/Feedback%20to%20SDG%20Indicators%20Leonard%20Cheshire.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||
56 | 4/24/2015 8:09:39 | Sarah Wykes | CAFOD | http://www.cafod.org.uk/ | International organization | A data user | No | The post-2015 framework requires sufficiently ambitious targets to bring about meaningful change and indicators that are fit for purpose and ensure progress is tracked through clear milestones. An inclusive consultation process on the indicators is needed. For the Energy SDG, current binary definitions of access (e.g. having/not having a household electricity connection; cooking with non-solid/solid fuels) do not tell us if communities have the range of household, community and productive services needed for development or if these services are good quality, reliable, affordable and safe enough to be usable. The Global Tracking Framework of the SE4ALL initiative is designed to measure progress across the range of energy service attributes including quality, affordability, safety and reliability. The 7.1 indicators should support such a multi-tier approach that will ensure “no-one is left behind”. In addition, any target must include a minimum level of meaningful access so that progress can be measured. For household, productive and community uses, GTF tier 3 should act as the minimum level of access. GTF tier 4 should be the minimum level of access for cooking, given new evidence from the WHO on the devastating health impacts of indoor air pollution from cooking. Our concrete suggestions of indicators for Target 7.1 are as follows: Indicator 1: Percentage of population (%) with access to electricity of at least Tier 3 of the Global Tracking Framework. Indicator 2: Percentage of population (%) with access to clean and efficient cooking fuels and technology of at least Tier 4 of the Global Tracking Framework. Regarding the renewables and energy efficiency targets (7.2 & 7.3) these must incentivise sufficient action by 2030 to prevent dangerous global warming and support the global transition to socially inclusive, low carbon development. Research indicates an annual global rate of improvement in energy intensity (energy/unit GDP) of at least 4.5% is required, along with at least 45% of final energy use globally coming from renewable energy. Target 7.2 must integrate this level of ambition and there must also be an indicator to track progress on meeting the target. Our suggestions of indicators for Target 7.2 are therefore as follows: Indicator 1: Renewable energy share (%) in the total energy final energy consumption. Indicator 2: % change from last year, collected at national level then aggregated. | "Measuring What Matters in the Energy SDG" - joint CSO briefing http://www.cafod.org.uk/Policy/Climate-and-energy | |||||||||||||||||||
57 | 4/24/2015 8:52:09 | Sabrina de Souza | Action Against Hunger | ACF International | http://www.actionagainsthunger.org.uk | International organization | Both | Yes | Action Against Hunger hosts, and is a members of, the Coverage Monitoring Network (CMN) - an inter-agency project to address these challenges and improve nutrition programmes through the promotion of quality coverage assessment tools, capacity building and information sharing. CMN measures the coverage of the community management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) programmes for the treatment of wasting in children. Programme coverage is one of the most useful and reliable indicators for measuring the performance of CMAM programmes. There are many indicators (e.g. cure rates, average length of stay, average weight gain) to measure effectiveness, but only coverage provides a reliable measure of impact by measuring the proportion of needs met by an intervention. We gather data on coverage using innovative coverage monitoring tools, including SQUEAC and SLEAC surveys. During the first phase of the project we had completed more than 100 coverage assessments across 25 countries by the start of 2014. The second phase of the project works to both measure and improve the coverage of CMAM programmes in nine priority countries: Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Pakistan and South Sudan. For more information: http://www.coverage-monitoring.org/ | Placing arbitrary limits on the total number of indicators, in the pursuit of a manageable number, can mean a reduction in the quality of the indicator framework. Having the smartest indicators to measure the progress towards the targets means addressing serious omissions in the technical report. A clear example is child undernutrition, which did not include an indicator on wasting under Target 2.2 – to achieve “by 2025 the international agreed targets on stunting and wasting.” Wasting in children under-five should be included as an indicator: • As an explicit target of the SDG framework a quantifiable wasting indicator is vital in order to monitor progress towards achieving Target 2.2. • The expert consensus is that wasting (measured by low-weight-for-height) and stunting (low-height-for-age) are superior measures to underweight (low weight-for-age), as they are able to capture the complexities and the multiple dimensions of undernutrition, as well as consequences for health and development. • A stunting indicator is insufficient on its own to provide a comprehensive overview on progress made on malnutrition as a whole. Although both stunting and wasting share similar causes, they manifest differently. Therefore, a stunting indicator is unable to measure the prevalence of wasting. A wasting indicator must be used along with stunting since the absence of stunting alone does not necessarily mean the absence of malnutrition. • An indicator on wasting meets all UN statistical criteria for indicator selection: relevance, methodological soundness, measurability and understandability. • Wasting is already a universally agreed indicator. In 2012, 194 Member States of the WHO agreed upon six global targets to improve nutrition. The selected indicators included one on wasting, which is measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound. • WHO and Rome-based UN agencies have called for wasting to be an indicator, stating the prevalence of wasting is an indicator of acute malnutrition that “should be used along with the stunting indicator.” • The process of gathering data on wasting is already established. Introducing a SDGs indicator on wasting would not add an additional burden in regards to establishing any new data collection process. The WHO is committed to supporting countries on this indicator, including in the SDG framework. We propose the inclusion of an indicator that measures the “prevalence of wasting (low-weight-for-height) in children under 5 years of age.” | |||||||||||||||||||
58 | 4/24/2015 9:26:37 | Hekate Papadaki | Rosa Fund | http://rosauk.org/ | National organization | Both | No | Indicator 5.3.2 (referred to elsewhere as indicator 41): The 'percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C by age group (for relevant countries only)'. This was given a rating of CBB. Rosa Fund disagrees with this rating. We recommend an AAA rating as this is a highly feasible indicator. Feasibility – reliable data collection methodologies already exist and is readily available for 29 countries in Africa and Asia. A methodology for collecting data already exists through DHS and MICS household surveys. In these countries, no additional data collection efforts would be required. For practising countries not currently measured (at least 17 that are known, including Indonesia, India and Iran), questions on FGM could easily be included in existing household surveys. Diaspora groups practice FGM throughout the world. As a result, data on prevalence is needed in all countries as diaspora groups that practice FGM live throughout the world. It is therefore recommended that 'for relevant countries only' is removed. Suitability – The indicator is directly suitable to civil society organisations and political will There is a growing global movement which recognises FGM as one of the most serious human rights violations of our age. The UN General Assembly banned FGM internationally in 2012, including a resolution Intensifying global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilation. The percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM is used by policy makers, academics and civil society, who rely on this data to understand varying prevalence of the practice. Relevance – essential to increasing understanding of how to end FGM in different contexts. The indicator is very relevant to target 5.3 (eliminate all harmful practices such as CEFM and FGM/C) and target 5.6 (ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights). UNICEF uses the percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM to produce statistical reports on FGM that are used worldwide in understanding the practice, influencing programmes and policy. This will enable countries to implement national action plans to end FGM/C - in practising countries in Africa, South America, the Middle East and Asia and in diaspora communities worldwide. Inadequate Survey responses do not reflect highest prevalence countries. | ||||||||||||||||||||
59 | 4/24/2015 9:26:45 | Nicole Votruba | FundaMentalSDG | http://www.fundamentalsdg.org/ | Subnational organization | Both | Yes | Indicator 23: Suicide WHO indicates that suicide could be included/reported as a specific cause of mortality WHO 2014 World Suicide Report Annex 1 provides estimates of the number and rate of suicide in each UN member state for 2012 www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/world_report_2014/en/ Feasibility: WHO estimation process takes into account known under-reporting problems, and employs standard methods for extrapolation where vital registration data are missing. The quality of estimate for each country is scored accordingly (1-4, Annex 1 Suicide report). Out of 172 States for which estimates were made for the year 2012, 60 had good-quality vital registration data that could be used directly to estimate suicide rates www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/mortality_data_quality/en/ Indicator 28: Service coverage for severe mental disorders Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020 Appendix 1 provides information on definition of each indicator & means of verification www.who.int/mental_health/publications/action_plan/en/ Feasibility: Within 2014 mental health ATLAS survey, WHO requested information on the number of persons with (severe & any) mental disorder who received mental health care in the last year, ie. numerator of coverage indicator. Disaggregated information was requested for specific diagnostic categories. To date, WHO obtained coverage data from more than 50 States, including source of estimates. This indicates the global viability of this indicator. | With regards to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) UN STATs has evaluated and rated the indicators in its March 2015 Technical Report. Evaluation criteria are feasibility, suitability and relevance. Out of the 304 proposed provisional indicators, 50 indicators (16 per cent) were evaluated as feasible, suitable and very relevant (rating AAA). We respectfully request UN Stats to consider the evidence of feasibility, suitability and relevance of two additional indicators. We have evidence of feasibility, suitability and relevance of the following indicators, which were suggested by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (UNSDSN), and are fully aligned with the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2030: Indicator 23: Probability of dying between exact ages 30 and 70 from any of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, or suicide Indicator 28: Proportion of persons with a severe mental disorder (psychosis, bipolar affective disorder, or moderate-severe depression) who are using services While physical health is a distinct goal in the draft SDGs, people with mental illnesses are yet to be strongly represented. This has been stressed in November 2014 by Kofi Annan: “As the world is thinking about a development framework to build on the Millennium Development Goals, we need to place mental health in general and depression in particular within the post-2015 agenda.” A strong international consortium has formed to support the above proposals, called FundaMentalSDG. The initiative is building momentum: Support has been expressed by several UN nations’ governments, by numerous international organisations (e.g. WMA), and on 26 November in the UK Parliament, the All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPG) on Global Health and Mental Health launched the report 'Mental Health for Sustainable Development'. The report contains only 4 recommendations - one of which is the target for the Sustainable Development Goals, as proposed by FundaMentalSDG. FundaMentalSDG respectfully requests UN Stats to reconsider, and acknowledge the evidence of feasibility, suitability and relevance of the suggested indicators, and the growing body of international opinion to include these 2 specific indicators in the in final version of the SDG indicators. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4oOs1i7x_3fSU5qcF9teGhzV2s/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||
60 | 4/24/2015 9:27:20 | Edgardo Bilsky | United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) | http://www.uclg.org/ | International organization | Both | Yes | To complet the International Monetary Fund Government Finance Statistics, UCLG collect information on subnational governements expenditures and revenues and we produce an indicator that measures (i) the percentage of revenues that are either raised by, or allocated to, sub-national governments (regional and local governments) as a proportion of general government revenue; and (ii) the percentage of total public expenditure undertaken by sub-national levels of government as a proportion of general government spending (excluding social security funds and public corporations). Currently this work will be done in partnership with OECD to build a Global Observatory on Subnational Finances. | Local and regional authorities support the indicators proposed by the UNSC for Goal 11. Goal 11 is the only goal with a clear spatial dimension. Beyond age and sex, disaggregation should take into account geographic/territorial dimensions in order to identify specific urban challenges. We propose the following rates for each indicator: Indicator 11.1.1: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city/municipality, cf. UN Habitat) Indicator 11.1.2: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city/municipality) Indicator 11.2.1: BBA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city of more than 500,000 inhabitants) Indicator 11.2.2: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city of more than 500,000 inhabitants) Indicator 11.3.1: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (urban, rural, city of more than 100,000 inhabitants) Indicator 11.3.2: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city of more than 100,000 inhabitants) Indicator 11.4.1: BBA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (urban, rural, city/municipality) Indicator 11.4.2 (Alternative): “Cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants that implement a cultural policy strategy, including measures for the protection of historical/cultural sites and other measures enabling access to culture for all citizens.” Indicator 11.5.1: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (urban, rural, city/municipality) Indicator 11.5.2: BBA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (urban, rural, city/municipality) Indicator 11.6.1: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city/municipality) Indicator 11.6.2: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city/municipality) Indicator 11.7.1: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city/municipality) Indicator 11.7.2: BBA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city/municipality) Indicator 11.a.1: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city of more than 100,000 inhabitants) Indicator 11.a.2: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city/municipality) Indicator 11.b.1: BAA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city/municipality) Indicator 11.b.2: BBA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city/municipality) Indicator 11.c.1: CBA + B - disaggregation by geographic area (city/municipality) Indicator 11.c.2: BAA + B - disaggregation by level of governments. This indicator is critical and is collected annually by the International Monetary Fund, Government Finance Statistics Yearbook (cf for 2012 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=25989.0 ) | Post-2015 - How to localize targets and indicators? http://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/urban_sdg_campaign_bangalore_outcome_document_goal_11_targets_and_indicators_jan_27_2015.pdf Second Urban Sustainable Development Goal Campaign Consultation on Targets and Indicators: Bangalore Outcome Document http://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/localization_targets_indicator_web.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||
61 | 4/24/2015 9:35:38 | Nicole Votruba | FundaMentalSDG | http://www.fundamentalsdg.org/ | Subnational organization | Both | Yes | Indicator 23: Suicide WHO indicates that suicide could be included/reported as a specific cause of mortality WHO 2014 World Suicide Report Annex 1 provides estimates of the number and rate of suicide in each UN member state for 2012 www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/world_report_2014/en/ Feasibility: WHO estimation process takes into account known under-reporting problems, and employs standard methods for extrapolation where vital registration data are missing. The quality of estimate for each country is scored accordingly (1-4, Annex 1 Suicide report). Out of 172 States for which estimates were made for the year 2012, 60 had good-quality vital registration data that could be used directly to estimate suicide rates www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/mortality_data_quality/en/ Indicator 28: Service coverage for severe mental disorders Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020 Appendix 1 provides information on definition of each indicator & means of verification www.who.int/mental_health/publications/action_plan/en/ Feasibility: Within 2014 mental health ATLAS survey, WHO requested information on the number of persons with (severe & any) mental disorder who received mental health care in the last year, ie. numerator of coverage indicator. Disaggregated information was requested for specific diagnostic categories. To date, WHO obtained coverage data from more than 50 States, including source of estimates. This indicates the global viability of this indicator. | With regards to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) UN STATs has evaluated and rated the indicators in its March 2015 Technical Report. Evaluation criteria are feasibility, suitability and relevance. Out of the 304 proposed provisional indicators, 50 indicators (16 per cent) were evaluated as feasible, suitable and very relevant (rating AAA). We respectfully request UN Stats to consider the evidence of feasibility, suitability and relevance of two additional indicators. We have evidence of feasibility, suitability and relevance of the following indicators, which were suggested by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (UNSDSN), and are fully aligned with the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2030: Indicator 23: Probability of dying between exact ages 30 and 70 from any of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, or suicide Indicator 28: Proportion of persons with a severe mental disorder (psychosis, bipolar affective disorder, or moderate-severe depression) who are using services While physical health is a distinct goal in the draft SDGs, people with mental illnesses are yet to be strongly represented. This has been stressed in November 2014 by Kofi Annan: “As the world is thinking about a development framework to build on the Millennium Development Goals, we need to place mental health in general and depression in particular within the post-2015 agenda.” A strong international consortium has formed to support the above proposals, called FundaMentalSDG. The initiative is building momentum: Support has been expressed by several UN nations’ governments, by numerous international organisations (e.g. WMA), and on 26 November in the UK Parliament, the All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPG) on Global Health and Mental Health launched the report 'Mental Health for Sustainable Development'. The report contains only 4 recommendations - one of which is the target for the Sustainable Development Goals, as proposed by FundaMentalSDG. FundaMentalSDG respectfully requests UN Stats to reconsider, and acknowledge the evidence of feasibility, suitability and relevance of the suggested indicators, and the growing body of international opinion to include these 2 specific indicators in the in final version of the SDG indicators. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4oOs1i7x_3fSU5qcF9teGhzV2s/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||
62 | 4/24/2015 9:42:17 | Kate Shea Baird | Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments | http://www.gtf2016.org/ | International organization | A data user | No | We strongly support: Indicator 6.1.2 (added): Percentage of urban population with access to safely drinking water services with piped water on their premises with regular services. [disaggregated by city district/municipality] Indicator 10.2.3. (added): Percentage of national budget transferred to poor regions and municipalities within the country through equalization mechanisms to reduce basic services and infrastructures gaps between rich and poor regions (measured against the benchmark or average to be defined at national level) Indicator 12.7.1 (amended): Number of countries implementing Sustainable Public Procurement policies and action plans at all government levels (national and local) Indicator 13.2.1 (amended): % of countries which have formally communicated the establishment of integrated low-carbon, climate-resilient, disaster risk reduction development strategies at different levels of government (e.g. a national and local adaptation plan process) Indicator 13.2.2 (added): Total amount of GHC/CO2 emissions per capita /CO2 intensity (and by sector) – (disaggregated by geographic area). Indicator 16.6.1 (alternative): Percentage of people saying that they trust/have confidence in national and sub-national governments (disaggregated by different levels of government) Indicator 16.6.2 (amended): Proportion of population satisfied with the quality of public services, disaggregated by service and by level of government Indicator 16.7.1 (amended): Diversity in representation in key decision-making bodies at all levels (legislature, executive, judiciary) Indicator 16.7.3 (added): Number of countries with legislation that promote citizen participatory mechanisms within local governments (e.g. participatory budget, referendum, open consultations, etc) Indicator 17.1.3 (added): Local governments’ revenues and expenditures as % of total government revenues and expenditures (Source International Monetary Fund, GFSY database). Indicator 17.2.2 (amended): Proportion of total bilateral, sector-allocable ODA of OECD/DAC donors to basic social services (basic education, primary health care, nutrition, safe water and sanitation) to support the “localization” of the SDGs. Indicator 17.9.1 (amended): Number (share) of national and local plans to implement SDGs approved by governments by end of 2016 compared to by 2020. Indicator 17.18.2 (amended): Number of countries that have formal institutional arrangements for the coordination of the compilation of official statistics (at international, regional, national, subnational and level) | Post-2015- How to Localize Targets and Indicators? http://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/localization_targets_indicator_web.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||
63 | 4/24/2015 10:06:40 | Gabriele Weigt | German NGOs and DPOs | http://www.bezev.de | International organization | Both | No | See document "Assessment of the Draft Indicators" under the link: http://www.bezev.de/fileadmin/Neuer_Ordner/Post2015/Assessment_Indicators.pdf | http://www.bezev.de/fileadmin/Neuer_Ordner/Post2015/Assessment_Indicators.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||
64 | 4/24/2015 10:14:18 | Jennifer Thompson | International Coalition for Advocacy on Nutrition | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzVf6C5dqAAeRzZjX1dMV2FuZFE/view?usp=sharing | International organization | A data user | No | Some members of the International Coalition for Advocacy on Nutrition have produced data, but the coalition is a data user. | The rushed mechanical process and a premature limiting of indicators to a fixed number meant that the proposed indicators had serious omissions which now need to be addressed, including on nutrition. The need for a manageable number of indicators overall should not jeopardise having the best indicators. / The most stark omission is on child undernutrition with no indicator on wasting in the technical report. Wasting is in the Goal 2 target (“achieve the World Health Assembly (WHA) 2025 Global Nutrition Targets on stunting and wasting”) and therefore should be an indicator (Rome based agencies have said ‘the prevalence of wasting is an indicator of acute malnutrition that “should be used along with the stunting indicator”). ‘Prevalence of wasting (low weight-for-height) in children under 5’ should be included from now. / In addition to stunting and wasting, there is wide consensus that all 6 WHA targets are needed to address maternal, infant and child nutrition. These indicators are a priority countries have endorsed as a set and are committed to report on. As WHO states ‘including them in the SDG Framework would be the logical step and not create additional reporting burdens. WHO already provides methodological support including reporting on progress ’. / The provisional indicator list only had 2 of 6 Global Nutrition target indicators – ‘Prevalence of Stunting (low height-for-age) in children under 5’ and ‘Proportion of overweight children under 5’. / To end malnutrition in all its forms we recommend adopting the 6 WHA global targets on maternal & child nutrition i.e. including wasting and also: % of children < 6 months old who are fed breast milk alone (Goal 2 Target 2.1 or Goal 3, 3.2) / % of women of reproductive age (15-49) with anemia (Goal 2 Target 2.2 or Goal 3, 3.1) / % of infants born low birth weight (Goal 2, Target 2.2 or Goal 3, 3.2) / We also recommend indicators on both dietary diversity & budget allocation for nutrition (MoI). / On dietary diversity (Goal 2 Target 2.1): ‘The proportion of women, 15-49 years of age, who access and consume at least 5 out of 10 defined food groups’. / On MoI (Goal 2 Target 2.2a): ‘% of national budget allocated to nutrition’. / The UN Standing Committee on Nutrition supports all above 8 indicators. There are additional nutrition indicators of significance. We recommend a WASH indicator: ‘Incidence of diarrhoea in children under 5, caused by water-borne diseases, poor sanitation, and poor hygiene practices’. | Nutrition Indicators in the Post-2015 Agenda: International Coalition on Advocacy for Nutrition (February 2015) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzVf6C5dqAAeamRuUV8wY0dUUlE/edit | ||||||||||||||||||
65 | 4/24/2015 10:40:57 | Eve de la Mothe Karoubi | UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network | http://unsdsn.org/ | International organization | Both | Yes | The SDSN helps monitor and produce data on happiness - a beyond GDP measure of development. Our World Happiness Report is a landmark survey of the state of global happiness. The first report was published in 2012, the second in 2013, and the third on April 23, 2015. Leading experts across fields – economics, psychology, survey analysis, national statistics, health, public policy and more – describe how measurements of well-being can be used effectively to assess the progress of nations. The reports review the state of happiness in the world today and show how the new science of happiness explains personal and national variations in happiness. They reflect a new worldwide demand for more attention to happiness as a criteria for government policy. | SDSN supports many of the important conclusions from the UNSC report, namely the call for a concise indicator framework. SDSN has been working to develop an integrated, comprehensive set of SDG indicators for more than 18 months. Our proposal, "Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the SDGs", was informed by two global public consultations, as well as extensive dialogue with leading experts from National Statistical Offices (NSOs) UN agencies, as well as academics, civil society, and private sector representatives. During this process, we moved from an initial long-list of over 900 indicators to a concise set of 100 global monitoring indicators, which can comprehensively track all 169 OWG targets. In addition, the UNSC report provided recommendations on a roadmap for developing indicators and recommended the establishment of a multi-stakeholder process, via an Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs). As outlined in the report, we urge the IAEG to engage a broad range of civil society, academia, and experts, from outside of the UN system. | Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for Sustainable Development Goals: Launching a data revolution for the SDGs http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/indicators/ | ||||||||||||||||||
66 | 4/24/2015 11:13:23 | Julie Barton | Action for Women and Children (AWCC) | http://www.awccsomalia.org | International organization | A data user | No | One item in Action for Women and Children (AWCC)'s mission is to end FGM in Somalia. I am the new executive director in the United States and we are in the process of setting up a 501(c)3 in the United States although AWCC has been doing NGO work in Somalia since 2008. Indicator 5.3.2 (referred to elsewhere as indicator 41): The 'percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C by age group (for relevant countries only)'. This was given a rating of CBB. AWCC strongly disagrees with this rating. We recommend an AAA rating as this is a highly feasible indicator. Feasibility – reliable data collection methodologies already exist. There is reliable data on the percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM readily available for 29 countries in Africa and Asia. Additionally, methodology for collecting data already exists through DHS and MICS household surveys. In these countries, no additional data collection efforts would be required. There is a growing global movement to end FGM. The indicator is directly suitable to civil society organizations and political will. The growing global movement recognizes FGM as one of the most serious human rights violations of our age as demonstrated by The Girl Summit 2014 and International frameworks and communications. It is often the first of a series of violations of girls rights, including early marriage and other forms of gender based violence. The United Nations General Assembly banned FGM internationally in 2012, including a resolution Intensifying global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilation. The percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM/C is used by policy makers, academics and civil society, who rely on this data to understand varying prevalence of the practice. Measuring prevalence in more countries would expand the dataset, and make it even more useful. The indicator is also strongly supported by civil society organizations and governments across the world. There is a growing global movement which recognizes FGM as one of the most serious human rights violations of our age. UNICEF uses the percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM/C to produce statistical reports on FGM/C that are used worldwide in understanding the practice, influencing programs and policy. •Indicator 5.3.2 is a universal indicator that should be measured by all countries in order to increase international understanding of where FGM/C happens, and on what scale. | ||||||||||||||||||||
67 | 4/24/2015 11:22:44 | Beth Fredrick | Advance Family Planning, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for Population and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health | http://www.advancefamilyplanning.org | International organization | Both | Yes | Through advocacy Advance Family Planning and its partners aim to increase financial and political support for family planning. We monitor family planning funding and expenditures at national and subnational levels in nine countries (Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania and Uganda) and through two networks (the African Women Leaders Network for Reproductive Health and Family Planning and Partners in Population and Development, Africa Regional Office). | While the post-2015 indicator framework must capitalize on existing measurement systems and existing data, new indicators will be needed. There is a need for investment in new data collection and indicators development to fill critical gaps and to ensure rights-based measurements that will make a difference in people’s lives and draw connections among various goals and targets. The indicator framework should not be perceived as a discrete agreement to be adopted at a single point in time; there must be scope for further elaboration of it in the coming years. Civil society should also be included in Global Monitoring Groups and funding should be made available to ensure adequate representation from the Global South. Transparency One of the experiences and lessons learned from Advance Family Planning is that it is very difficult to monitor resources and progress as governments currently do not publicly report on investments in pursuit of the goals, and how these resources were raised and expended. Without this data, we cannot analyze whether development goals, such as the SDGs, are well planned, monitored and achieved. The success of national frameworks based on the SDGs depend on the active engagement and accountability of subnational governments. Focusing on the national level alone ignores the roles and resources of regional and provincial government leaders. By addressing the devolution of governance, the SDGs can set a firmer foundation for long-term sustainability of development policies and programs. Indicators At a minimum, data should be disaggregated on the basis of age, sex, gender, geography, income, disability, race and ethnicity and other factors as relevant including to monitor inequalities. The number of indicators should not be arbitrarily limited. All targets require indicators and may require multiple indicators. Making data freely accessible, transparent, and user-friendly will be essential for implementers and advocates at national and local levels. Budgetary and expenditure data are crucial for developing effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels. They are also vital for ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels, including subnational levels. The table in the link below provides suggestions on existing indicators as well as a new one for Target 3.7. It also includes general comments on the indicators process and the role of civil society. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzocWXSMyEwHMVFvMU9HNFdHak0/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||
68 | 4/24/2015 11:29:59 | Astou DIOUF | No Peace Without Justice | http://www.npwj.org | International organization | Both | No | We dont have it | NO | |||||||||||||||||||
69 | 4/24/2015 11:31:04 | Kerry Smith | Plan UK | http://www.plan-uk.org/ | International organization | A data user | No | Plan is a global children’s charity. We work with children in the world’s poorest countries to help them build a better future. We have a specific focus on girls’ rights, as Plan’s 76-year history has shown us that worldwide, no-one bears the brunt of poverty more than girls. We work with communities to raise awareness of harmful practices and support action on ending them; with key ‘agents of change’, including young people, community leaders, practitioners and the media; with governments to develop and enforce laws against FGM; and with a range of partners to create social change at grassroots level. Plan UK is making this submission, as we consider an indicator on FGM/C highly feasible, as well as suitable and relevant. Indicator 5.3.2 (referred to elsewhere as indicator 41): the 'percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C by age group (for relevant countries only)' was given a rating of CBB. Plan UK disagrees with this rating and recommends an AAA rating as this is a highly feasible indicator with reliable data collection methodologies already in place. Plan UK suggests the removal of the wording 'for relevant countries only', as data on prevalence is needed in all countries as diaspora groups that practice FGM/C live throughout the world. For example, it is estimated that 65,000 girls are at risk each year in the UK. The indicator is directly suitable to civil society organisations and political will. There is a growing global movement which recognises FGM as one of the most serious human rights violations of our age as demonstrated by The Girl Summit 2014 and International frameworks and communications. It is often the first of a series of violations of girls’ rights, including child marriage and other forms of gender based violence. Furthermore, the indicator is very relevant to target 5.3 (eliminate all harmful practices such as CEFM and FGM/C) and target 5.6 (ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights). | ||||||||||||||||||||
70 | 4/24/2015 11:39:19 | Kimberly DeRose | Child and Youth Finance International | http://childfinanceinternational.org/ | International organization | Both | No | Child and Youth Finance International (CYFI) is an international organization focusing on the economic citizenship of children and youth worldwide. As such, CYFI is pleased to see a number of Sustainable Development Goals in place that are directly in line with the vision of CYFI: to empower children and youth as young economic citizens. Specifically, CYFI is enthused by the emphasis placed on the following goals: - Goal 1: End poverty in all forms everywhere - Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all - Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls - Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all - Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. These goals do indeed compliment a number of the core elements that CYFI places importance on as an international organization working with and for children and young people. However, as an organization, CYFI sees a number of opportunities for indicators that could and should be included into the Sustainable Development working documents in order to promote a more finically literate and included population in order to help the financial futures not only of the children and youth themselves, but for the global economy as a whole. The indicators that CYFI would like to see included to the relevant goals can be found here: http://goo.gl/uKKlNz | Please find Google Doc with CYFI's proposed sustainable indicators here: http://goo.gl/uKKlNz | |||||||||||||||||||
71 | 4/24/2015 11:42:11 | Miriam Jerotich | Africa Coordinating Centre for the Abandonment of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (ACCAF) | http://accaf.uonbi.ac.ke | International organization | Both | Yes | ACCAF developed an indicators template for monitoring female genital mutilation abandonment activities in Africa.Methodology. The scope of activities considered essential in abandonment of this practice include the medical, legal, socio-cultural, socio-economic and psychosexual impact or effects of this practice. These are the parameters considered by ACCAF as key for monitoring FGM/C activities and as evidence of the FGM/C abandonment process. The indicators under review are predicated upon the results based management framework. The template is organized to include: risk indicators - assumptions made for success of the project/programme activities, input indicators, process indicators, output indicators - results that arise during the project and are quantifiable, outcome indicators, and impact indicators. The checklist developed is a generic one that is expected to be customized by organizations campaigning against FGM/C. It will enable different participating agencies in anti FGM/C activities to have a yardstick in implementing their activities. | ACCAF coordinates research, training and advocacy on FGM/C to accelerate abandonment of the practice in Africa and beyond within one generation. We write in response to the rating that given to Indicator 5.3.2 " The percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C by age group (for relevant countries only)". We strongly disagree with rating CBB given, and recommend a rating of AAA. The indicator provides research and civil organizations and governments important data on FGM/C trends in practicing countries. It has been used in both DHS and MICS household surveys, showing that a methodology is present. Differences in the percentages across age groups provide relevant data on the effectiveness of interventions to discourage FGM/C. For example, preliminary results on this indicator from the Kenya DHS shows that only 11.4% of women aged 15-19 have undergone FGM/C against 40.9% of women aged 44-49. The indicator is also crucial to the global movement to end FGM/C. It is important in ensuring that the human rights, and sexual and reproductive rights of women are not violated. The international convention, CEDAW, requires states to modify discriminatory customary practices (Article 5), ensure girls equal rights to education (Article 10) and ensure women health (Article 12). The international Convention on the Rights of the Child outlaws all forms of physical and mental violence against persons under the age of 18. Omitting this indicator would grossly undermine efforts that countries and organizations have put in discourage the practice. Furthermore, FGM/C is a multifaceted practice that affects women and girls culturally, physically, and psychosocially.Hence, it is relevant to targets 5.3 "eliminate all harmful practices such as CEFM and FGM/C" and 5.6 "ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights". Given that FGM/C prevalence varies worldwide, not all countries will have had sufficient knowledge or experience to given an informed rating. Only 3 countries with high to moderate prevalence participated in the survey: Egypt (91.1%), Sudan (87.6%) and Kenya (27.1%). The survey did not include other countries with high FGM/C prevalence such as Burkina Faso (75.8%), Gambia (76.3%), Djibouti (93.1%), Somalia (97.9%), and Mali (88.5%). Hence, a CBB rating is not an accurate reflection, and only serves to significantly undermine commitment and political goodwill to ending FGM/C. For the above reasons, we once again recommend that Indicator 5.3.2 be given a rating of AAA. | |||||||||||||||||||
72 | 4/24/2015 11:49:14 | Asenath Nkatha Mwithigah | Guardian News and Media Ltd | http://www.theguardian.com/society/video/2015/feb/06/highlights-of-the-guardians-global-media-campaign-to-help-end-fgm | International organization | A data user | No | I disagree on the indicator 5.3.2 on the ' Percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C by age group (for relevant countries only) rated as CBB AND recommend a AAA rating similar to 5.3.1. FGM is one of the most serious human rights violations as indicated by international conventions and protocols. Civil Society Organizations have committed to advocacy and provision of legal aid in countries where legal frameworks have been adopted to fight FGM. Tremendous political goodwill exists in order to end FGM because it is the first process leading to other forms of GBV including Early Marriage. Reliable data is readily available on the percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM/C for 29 countries in Africa and Asia. This is through a well-defined methodology of data collection that already exists in the Demographics and Health Survey (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) household surveys. With this data, no additional data collection efforts are required. In the case of Kenya for example, recent Kenya DHS 2014 indicates 21% prevalence of FGM/C, indicating a decline in the prevalence rate comparing with the 2008/09 KDHS of 27% prevalence. Link: http://statistics.knbs.or.ke/nada/index.php/catalog/74 For countries that practise the act not measured- including Iran, India and Indonesia-questions of FGM/C could easily be included in their household surveys. Kindly remove "for relevant countries only" reason being that there are diaspora groups that practice FGM therefore data on FGM/C is from countries throughout the world. It is not about the countries but individuals in those countries who practice the act. This indicator informs, target 5.3 (eliminate all harmful practices such as CEFM and FGM/C) and target 5.6 (ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights). UNICEF uses the percentages of women and girls who have undergone FGM/C to produce statistical reports on FGM/C which are used globally for understanding the practice and also serves as part of informing policy and programming. Therefore this indicator is a universal indicator that should be measured across the world in order to increase the international understanding on FGM/C, where it is practised and on what percentages. UNGA banned internationally FGM in 2012 and made a resolution A/RES/67/146 of intensifying global efforts for the elimination of FGM; this indicator provides measures the realization of this resolution. | ||||||||||||||||||||
73 | 4/24/2015 12:01:52 | Kekeli Kpognon | FORWARD-Foundation for Women's health, Research and Development | http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/ | International organization | Both | Yes | FORWARD collects data in indicator 5.3.2 : percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C by age group (for relevant countries only) in our work in the UK, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and Ghana through baseline assessment and PEER (Participatory Ethnographic Evaluation and Research) to collect quantitative and qualitative data. | FORWARD (Foundation for Women’s Health Research and Development) is committed to gender equality and safeguarding the rights of African girls and women. We are a leading African diaspora women’s campaign and support organisation founded in 1983. We work through partnerships in the UK, Europe and Africa to transform lives, tackling discriminatory practices that affect the dignity and wellbeing of girls and women. Our focus is on female genital mutilation (FGM), Child Marriage and Obstetric Fistula. Although current the indicator 5.3.2 : the percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C by age group (for relevant countries only) recevived a CBB rating, FORWARD believes this rating should be AAA Feasability: A: - In countries collecting data through methodology DHS and MICS household surveys, no additional data collection efforts would be required. - The restriction on "relevant countries only" should be removed as Diaspora groups affected by FGM are present throughout the world therefore data on prevalence is needed globally: in countries of origin as well as host countries in the global North. Suitability: A - The percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM is used by policy makers and academics to understand varying prevalence of the practice and Civil Society Organisations are using the indicator 5.3.2 throughout the world to campaign and advocate for the end of FGM. - The Girl Summit held in the UK in 2014 and International frameworks and communications show there is a growing global movement that recognises FGM as a serious human rights violations, often the first of a series of violations of girls rights, including early marriage and other forms of gender based violence. Relevance: A - Indicator 5.3.2 is crucial to target 5.3 (eliminate all harmful practices such as CEFM and FGM/C) and target 5.6 (ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights). - The indicator also is also used by various UN agencies including UNICEF which uses this data to produce statistical reports on FGM that are used worldwide in understanding the practice, influencing programmes and policy. - Indicator 5.3.2 is should be measured by all countries in order to increase international understanding of the scale of FGM and is a tool that will enable the implementation of national action plans to end FGM in affected countries in Africa, South America, the Middle East and Asia and in diaspora communities worldwide. | |||||||||||||||||||
74 | 4/24/2015 12:16:13 | Rachel Cooper | Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists | http://www.rcog.org.uk/ | International organization | A data user | No | The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists would like to proposed that Indicator 5.3.2 should be upgraded to AAA as it is important that UN continues collecting data on FGM. We understand that at present there are only 17 additional countries that needs to be added to the existing survey. This data is vital for civil society organisations to pressure politicians to make FGM a serious human rights violation. It is our view that diaspora groups coming from countries where FGM is common continue to be at risk of having this procedure forced upon them so this is not just a selected country issue but a worldwide issue. | RCOG is part of Intercollegiate group in the UK which made a joint statement of recommending how to identify, record and report FGM in the UK. The group has identified gaps in the responsiveness of the health and social care system in addressing FGM. RCOG has produced a Green Top guideline that reviews the evidence on FGM and provides guidance for clinicians involved in the care of women who have undergone FGM. This Guideline is being revised, with publication anticipated late 2016. | |||||||||||||||||||
75 | 4/24/2015 13:06:47 | Angela Peabody | Global Woman P.E.A.C.E. Foundation | http://www.globalwomanpeacefoundation.org | International organization | A data user | No | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||||||||||
76 | 4/24/2015 13:11:57 | Claudia Arisi | SOS Children's Villages | http://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/what-we-do/childrens-rights/post-2015-hub-page | International organization | Both | Yes | SOS Children's Villages' Programme Monitoring Database measures and monitors the situation of children deprived of parental care or at risk of losing it, and the quality of responses and systems in place to ensure they are provided with appropriate care – mainly through family strengthening programmes or alternative care arrangements. At the moment, it contains information on hundreds of thousands of children in our programmes in almost 100 countries since 2011. We are currently revising indicators and methodologies to make the database more accessible and share information with partners globally. For more detailed information, please email us. | Sustainable development starts with protecting childhood. International human rights frameworks grant children special attention, recognizing their special vulnerability. However, in the technical report there is a very weak focus on children. While we invite you to consider our proposal of indicators (see submitted link) for greater focus on children, here we note: Indicators for T. 1.2: Half of the world's population living in poverty is under 18. Poverty creates irreversible damages to children's ability to reach their full potential. We ask IAEG-SDGs, the UNSC, and UN member states to commit to a standalone goal on child poverty, and/or to measuring individual-level child poverty for MPI through additional modules. Indicators for T. 1.3: Many children live outside of the household worldwide. They are among the poorest and forgotten. To make sure they are covered too, we suggest next to indicator 1.3.1 a measure of the number (or %) of children receiving support from the social protection system when the parents are unable to care for them. Indicators for T. 3.4: The part on mental health and well-being is worryingly overlooked. Please consider including an indicator of access to psycho-social support and mental health services. Indicators for T. 4.2: We support inclusion of UNESCO and SDSN's indicator: % of children under 5 experiencing stimulating parenting in safe environments Indicator 4.3.1: Enrolment ratios don't measure educational outcomes. It is relevant to know % of young adults who are in employment related to their vocational or tertiary education. Indicators for T. 16.2: We ask to monitor the yearly reduction in the number of children who are separated from their families because of violence, abuse or neglect. Indicator 4.5.1: Consider instead: number of children out of school, disaggregated as mentioned below. The conclusions of the Expert Group Meeting about the need to ensure disaggregation and that no one is left behind are not fully reflected in this report. Please consider the following disaggregation for all indicators affecting children (mentioned above and 4.5.1, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.4.1): not only by age and sex, but also by care status of the child, meaning whether s/he lives with 1 or 2 parents, or in alternative care, or in child-headed households, etc. This allows determining different degrees and types of vulnerability, with better language than orphan children (10.4.1). | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4tJLqQXCz6xbGcxemh4SW9JS0U/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||
77 | 4/24/2015 13:29:05 | Natalie Kontoulis | END FGM European Network | http://www.endfgm.eu/en/ | International organization | A data user | No | The End FGM European network (END FGM) is a European umbrella organisation set up by 11 national European NGOs to ensure sustainable European action to end FGM. Indicator 5.3.2 on the 'percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C by age group (for relevant countries only)' was given a rating of CBB. The End FGM European Network does not agree with this rating. We recommend an AAA rating, as this is a highly feasible indicator; reliable data collection methodologies already exist. Reliable data on the percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM/ C is readily available for 29 countries in Africa and Asia. Diaspora groups practice FGM/ C throughout the world. As a result, data collection on prevalence using a common methodology is needed in all countries, as diaspora groups that practice FGM live throughout the world. We therefore recommend that 'for relevant countries only' is removed. Suitability There is a growing global movement which recognises FGM as one of the most serious human rights violations, as demonstrated by The Girl Summit 2014 and International frameworks and communications. It is often the first of a series of violations of girls rights, including early marriage and other forms of gender based violence. The United Nations General Assembly banned FGM internationally in 2012, including a resolution Intensifying global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilation. The percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM is used by policy makers, academics and civil society, who rely on this data to understand varying prevalence of the practice. Measuring prevalence in more countries would expand the dataset, and make it even more useful. The indicator is also strongly supported by civil society organisations and governments across the world. There is a growing global movement which recognises FGM as one of the most serious human rights violations of our age. Relevance The indicator is very relevant to target 5.3 (eliminate all harmful practices such as CEFM and FGM/C) and target 5.6 (ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights). Indicator 5.3.2 is a universal indicator that should be measured by all countries in order to increase international understanding of where FGM happens, and on what scale. This will enable countries to implement national action plans to end FGM - in practising countries in Africa, South America, the Middle East and Asia and in diaspora communities worldwide. | ||||||||||||||||||||
78 | 4/24/2015 13:44:56 | Zoe Gray | International Agency for Prevention of Blindness | http://www.iapb.org/ | International organization | Both | No | International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness (IAPB) welcomes the consultation on the Technical Report. The indicators will need more work and development if they are to measure success in line with ‘goals and targets will only be considered met if met for all groups’ and thus avoid repeating the mistake of the Millennium Development Goals. This will require disaggregation across the targets and significantly bolstering statistical capacity at country level to adequately disaggregate for groups at risk of exclusion, including persons with disabilities. IAPB commends the inclusion of disability in the indicator on social protection (1.3), and in the indicator on full and productive employment and work (8.5). However, there are a number of indicators described which don’t adequately capture the substance or intent of the Goals and Targets: To ensure no one is left behind the indicators to capture poverty reduction must be disaggregated to account for groups at risk of exclusion in poverty reduction and development, including persons with disabilities. (3.3) must include an indicator on Neglected Tropical Diseases in keeping with the agreed target. The indicator (4.5.1) on gender parity and access to education must also be disaggregated by disabilities, in order to adequately measure the target. Further other indicators under the Goal on education including (4.a.1) should reflect the stated intent of capturing inclusiveness and accessibility. Indicators under the Goal and targets related to cities and human settlements (11.2, 11.7) do not currently capture accessibility for persons with disability in line with respective targets, and inclusive focus of the Goal. Finally, the Universal Health Coverage target and accompanying indicators (3.8) must extend to access to services, and it is also essential that a composite indicator of access reflect the whole health continuum from promotion, prevention through to treatment and rehabilitation. IAPB proposes the addition of an indicator on cataract surgical coverage (see attached paper alongside which shows how it fits the criteria for a tracer indicator and would strengthen the aggregate focus). Further to ensure the UHC target emphasises universality in practice, measurement of equity must go beyond income and incorporate attention to poor and marginalised groups, including comparing access to health for persons with disabilities. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByNrusvkCGCLWWVKdTVOZE9NYVk/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||
79 | 4/24/2015 14:17:05 | Renaude Gregoire | SSA Social Justice Office | http://www.ssacong.org | International organization | A data user | No | The indicators will have to support a universal and transformative agenda post-2015. They have to ensure the accurate monitoring of progress. We suggest adding these indicators (see attachment) : Goal 1 Policies and programs to overcome poverty developed in consultations with Indigenous peoples. Goal 2 We need more strong indicators: Percentage of total areas for sustainable agriculture (rural/urban) Percentage of farmers who have rights to use, sell, save and exchange farm- saved seeds. Goal 4 We support this indicator: "Early Child Dvelopment Index" (SDSN, Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the SDGs, Revised working draft (Version 7), March 20, 2015, p. 26) Goal 5 We suggest to add these indicators Percent of national budget for a campaign on gender equality and the empower all women and girls Percentage of schools with separate and adequate facilities for boys and girls (UNICEF) with prevention of all form of violence (See longer paper for more) | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7TLMC1RI0uZZ0lnZ281Q2ttb2s/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||
80 | 4/24/2015 16:14:54 | Naiara Costa | Beyond 2015 | https://www.beyond2015.org | International organization | Both | No | • Several references to the post-2015 agenda as only a “development” agenda. It must be clear that this is a sustainable development agenda and the elaboration of indicators must take this seriously into account. • Positive that disaggregation was described as “feasible with strong effort” and the need to “ensure disaggregation of indicators and to include a human rights dimension to the indicator framework. • The categories of disaggregation are not developed. The IEAG-SDGs should start from the categories proposed in the Open Working Group report, target 17.18. • The report focuses very much on the feasibility, relevance and suitability of indicators but makes no mention to the principle of non-regression. • The approach for a limited number of indicators must support, not undermine, the interdependency between Sustainable Development Goal areas. • The report did not properly emphasize the need for broader measures of progress beyond GDP. • Unless availability, accessibility, “shareability” and inclusivity of data is also understood to refer to citizens this does not live up to the ambitions that the ‘data revolution’ can contribute to accountability towards people on the ground. • The inclusion of qualitative indicators is also crucial to allow for reaching out to the most vulnerable and marginalized. • We welcome the commitment to a universal set of indicators but we are concerned that the indicators proposed so far do not capture the entirety of the ambition of the SDGs. • The report is not clear on how civil society and non-governmental experts could be able to engage on the development of the national-level indicators either. • T However, there is no clarity about how society will engage in the work of the IAEG. • The ‘bottom up’ approach to data is missing from the report, excluding the voices of the poor and marginalized. • We were concerned that feasibility was considered based on the current resources and expertise only of national statistical offices rather than national statistical capacities. We should not only be pushing for what we can monitor today, but what we want to be monitoring comprehensively by 2030. • The final set of global indicators will need to be proofed from a universality perspective. • Participation is critical – the ambition of the post-2015 data revolution will only be achieved if the capacities of the NSOs are supplemented with the collaboration with other actors, including civil society organizations. | http://beyond2015.org/sites/default/files/Final%20-%20B2015%20key%20comments%20to%20the%20UNSC%20Report%20-%20March%2023%202015.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||
81 | 4/24/2015 16:38:23 | Thomas Elmqvist | Stockholm Resilience Center | http://www.stockholmresilience.su.se | National organization | Both | Yes | We are currently developing ideas around indicators to capture resilience of social-ecological systems including estimates of diversity, modularity and connectedness | Stockholm Resilience Centre and SwedBio would like to highlight a few important aspects to consider in the development of indicators. 1. Scalability. There is a need to develop indicators that are scalable, i.e. are of relevance at the local scale but possible to aggregate to national scales and further. This is necessary for many reasons; it is an efficient way by which people e.g. in urban areas, local and indigenous people and their organisations can actually make crucial contribution to the collection of data and to get feedback on actions and engage in the endeavour of fulfilling the SDGs until 2030. 2. Continuity and synergies with existing processes and reporting systems. Avoid double work by synchronize the indicators with existing indicators developed in already existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Aichi Targets. These are indicators that countries already report on why it is important not to create parallel reporting and cause increased workload. 3. Indicators that are of integrated character develop indicators that capture more than just one issue. It could for instance be indicators of social-ecological character that capture both social and ecological aspects. An example of an indicator the fulfil several of these criteria’s is Soil Organic Matter, a crucial factor and precondition for food production. Many countries have data series of soil organic matter, data could easily be collected at local levels, and it signals clearly development from both an environmental (trend of the healthiness of the soil) and a social aspects (what is the trend of food production). | |||||||||||||||||||
82 | 4/24/2015 17:30:13 | Kate Donald | Center for Economic & Social Rights | http://www.cesr.org | International organization | Both | No | Unfortunately, many of the indicators rated low for 'feasibility' by NSOs are for precisely those areas that are most vital to human rights enjoyment. And in fact many of these indicators are not at all unfeasible; they are already being measured by civil society groups and/or official bodies (e.g. debt relief, illicit financial flows, women's unpaid care work). The report illustrates starkly why the involvement of civil society organisations (including human rights organisations) in the process of setting post-2015 indicators is so vital. As discussed at a UN side-event organized by the Post-2015 Human Rights Caucus in April (see http://cesr.org/article.php?id=1692) human rights enjoyment is measureable, and human rights organizations (and international organizations like the OHCHR) have long experience of human rights monitoring which must be taken into account. CESR and Christian Aid published a working paper responding to the preliminary list of indicators produced by the UN Statistics Division, suggesting improved indicators and flagging existing relevant data sources and methodologies. Many of these show that indicators rated by NSOs as unfeasible are in fact already being used and measured in innovative ways. http://cesr.org/article.php?id=1686 We call for ambition in the design and selection of the indicators, with transformative potential, relevance and human rights impact as the guiding principles, not 'feasibility' as narrowly judged by NSOs. | http://cesr.org/downloads/CA_CESR_indicators_UNstats.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||
83 | 4/25/2015 2:33:15 | Param Maragatham nyparam@gmail.com | ESF | http://www.google.com | International organization | A data user | No | Elevate Indicator 2.1.2, 2.3.1, 2.b.1 as they address key points that will resolve difficulties with consuming nutritious food and enable sustainability and self-sufficiency among farmers. Elevate Indicator 3.8.2 as it accounts for unpredictable events in the world. It helps to create a more fair milieu that encourages equality and optimal health. Elevate Indicator 5.3.2 as it creates a fair society that protects young girls from FGM, preserves dignity, happiness and human rights. Elevate Indicator 5.4.1 to show empathy and an appreciation of people. This addresses the empathy gap that Ban Ki-Moon referenced in the Tolerance event this week. By paying people for their labor they will be respected and treat each other with kindness and understanding. It teaches loving and caring for people; the cause of many world problems. We are all extensions of each other and if we do not consider each other, then we exacerbate, not resolve these problems. Elevate Indicator 6.3.2 to protect the environment, blue gold (water) and health. This protects and preserves the earth we have. If we do not care for earth, then we will not be able to do anything. We will not be able to breathe. It is key to not jeopardize our future by ignorantly consuming resources. Water is essential for many body processes. Cellular respiration in humanity cannot occur if there is no water to break down glucose to absorb and capitalize on the ATP within glucose. Photosynthesis in plants, which releases the oxygen we need to survive will not be able to occur if there is no water powering the Krebbs cycle and creation of glycogen. Elevate Indicator 7.3.2, Indicator 10.7.2, Target 8.8, Indicator 16.b.1 as it keeps all parties accountable, ensures compliance with the indicators, and the ability to live on earth harmoniously while enforcing human rights. Elevate Indicator 9.b.1 to catalyze true sustainable development. Technological advancements ensure that SDGS as a whole are reached as well as sustaining/protecting earth. Elevate Indicator 10.3.1 to create a more inclusive society that values humanity, not misuse it. Elevate All targets and indicators of Goal 12, 14, 15 to ensure nutritious food is delivered to humanity, wastage is eliminated, and earth lives longer. Elevate Target 17.4 and 17.5 to resolve inequality gap. Elevate Target 17.15 to promote accountability. Elevate Indicator 17.19.2 to keep smiles on our faces. | ||||||||||||||||||||
84 | 4/25/2015 3:16:28 | HITESH BHATT | To eradicate corrupt practices from the system & improve living standard of people from WATER & Senitation in India.& whole WORLD. | https://drive.google.com | International organization | Both | Yes | The rejection of paying bribes has led me to destruction of family life, enormous mental & physical torture, disturbance in professional life, disturbance in education for my daughter. __ and all these acts can be considered as the inhuman, unpardonable & heinous acts which cannot be forgotten or forgiven in any way. All these 11-12 years I have lost all my precious time & energy to fight for the cause ___ &, you know time once lost cannot be redeemed. The water resource should be made available to all irrespective of person's, consumer's, caste, creed, race, religion & origin & this can be done by enactment of law. I, my self domestic water connection at home being the effect of my own efforts through the recourse of available administrative support after toiling hard for 11-12 years. Half the job is accomplished still I am to get all other civic amenities. Other then domestic Water connection & domestic electricity after 11-12 years due to all corrupt officials of the whole systems in India. The illustration as done above is based on the experience I have had for not being able to get basic civic amenities like water connection, sewerage drainage line, street light, cleanliness area, leading approached road as town planning etc.. That too in an urban area & the city in which I am living has a population of 30 lakhs & is known to be one of the most literate, cultural, historical & moral ethics citizen cities of India. | In nutshell to view & implement these practices in larger perspective your feedback is of more importance so as to enable me to set the guiding principle to set the ball on rolling to eradicate corruption. Innovation in any form is always welcomed without which the change is impossible & the desired results in a stipulated time period are not expected. It is always said & firmly believed by the intellectuals in India & world level that all those natural resources which are needed to up-lift the living standards of any community --- all these resources are amply available in India. However, due to high scale of corrupt practices in bureaucracy administration, judiciary & in most lethargic ill-literate political system, the state India has still remained backward in all walks of life. The systems prevailing in India need to be revamped so as to instill the sense of accountability in the minds of custodians. And for this the contribution of people is also needed along with the honest & literate participation of political WILL. There for I Hitesh Bhatt---- as an individual, openly declare my participation to change the course of corrupt & lethargic & crippled administration & judiciary systems norms. The problems being faced by me is mainly attributed to not succumbing to malicious tactics of the officials leading to corruption. As said above I need an empowerment & a forum to undertake activities to bring about the solutions in the area of social inequalities, right to have basic civic amenities like drinking water connection, house hold domestic electricity connection, cleanliness surrounding resident area, sewerage sanitation line, street light, etc…, social-economic up-liftman of poor & needy, education to all, poverty alleviation, democratic rights to all in real sense etc…… I, the claimant, am facing the problems related to not being able to enjoy the basic civic amenities for the past 11-12 years in spite of falling eligible with respect to my individuality. | As the corrupt motivated practices in all systems have really deprived me from enjoying all these civic amenities like drinking water connection, house hold domestic electricity connection, cleanliness surrounding resident area, sewerage sanitation line, street light, etc…, non enjoying all these civic amenities. Moreover, I have the experience of grass root level of how a common is forced to pay the price (bribe) when he does not succumb to malicious wrong practices adopted by the systems & their officials. To a larger extent the communities affected immensely over the years will benefit a lot. The new ideas & practices, which will be adopted, will usher in a new era & a precedent will automatically get set for India & world. Revenue generation can come through only when the appropriate forum is allocated. By implementing new ideas finally the corruption level will definitely go down, &, the money being saved in stopping corruption that save money can be utilized in developing infrastructure & improving overall good governance. The environmental problems have arisen due to abuse of official power, abuse of humanely values. And once the values of humanity are restored the environmental problems will vanish in the short period of time. The systems have also grossly failed to notice the environmental problems as well. I am better equipped to address problems at least in the area in which I am living in India. A collective effort is required the problems being faced by the communities cannot be redressed or sorted out by any individuals, or any organizations. It needs participation from the bodies such as UN, UNO, NGOS, Heads of states; individuals, world banks, world-renowned celebrities, intellectuals etc…… can be assessed in appropriate forum. In today's fast growing world the issue of corruption has not been properly addressed due to this reason many developing countries have remained socio-economically poorest of the poor there for the basic socio-economic needs are yet to be made available to the people. Unless & until the political heads of all the countries focus & concentrate on this social menace the corrupt practices will not vanish from this earth. As the need of the hour is to understand, design & implement the practices, which can lead to annihilate the demon called corruption. | ||||||||||||||||||
85 | 4/25/2015 3:46:33 | Marion Schaefer | Excision parlons-en! | http://www.excisionparlonsen.org/ | International organization | A data producer | Yes | Please consider Female Genital Mutilations in your sustainable development goals indicators. | ||||||||||||||||||||
86 | 4/25/2015 6:43:12 | Under proposed Target 17.17, in relation to encouraging and promoting “effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resource strategies of partnerships,” it would be relevant to measure the existence of enabling policies and practices with regard to civil society participation in legislative and official decision making processes. The current emphasis on measuring the number of public-private partnerships (PPPs) does not evaluate the quality of official engagement with civil society. | Centre for Socio-Eco-Nomic Development (CSEND), Geneva | http://www.csend.org | International organization | Both | No | Deficiencies of Indicators for of Goal 17: Suggestions for improvement 17.1.1/17.1.2 Cannot be used to estimate whether a tax system is fair and equitable, if taxes are paid as levied or if the tax system has changed. Indicators do not monitor the support effort Find composite indicator which captures tax equity and good governance Measure the support effort 17.2.1/17.2.2 Appropriate use and impact of the assistance should also be monitored Determine ODA targets aligned to Busan Declaration and its fit with national conditions Monitor the decision making process and fulfillment of ODA targets 17.3.1/2 Reducing the cost of remittances does not suffice to ease overseas transfers Determine other means that remove blockage for funds transfers 17.4.1/2 The HIPC Initiative is nearly completed Explore means to prevent HIPCs from falling into debt traps again 17.5.1/2 Including SD orientated targets and changing investment policies may still conceal institutional deficiencies and other SD policy weaknesses Connect SD targets to targets that monitor institutional capacities and development 17.6.1/2 Technology proliferation needs absorptive capacity and experimental spaces; if they are missing, exchange programs will fail Measure absorptive capacity and progression on institutional readiness 17.7.1/2 STEM investment as a percentage of GDP or per capita may not reveal whether sufficient innovative entrepreneurial conditions exist Indicators to include innovation-commercialization linkage and supportive mechanisms 17.8.1/2 ICT is fundamental for economic efficiency and productivity but only produces value if integrated into workforce Indicators to include information technology literacy and workplace adoption 17.13.1/2 Can GDP really measure global economic stability and policy coherence? Indicators to include good governance, system risk and resilience 17.14/1/2 The indicators just score the number of countries which joined agreements Indicators to include how the agreements are implemented and whether enforcement mechanism is deployed 17.15/1/2 The indicators are given a non-feasibility ranking; this demonstrates a wrong view on how international fiscal cooperation effects SD More explication is needed on the issue which might revert the rating of the indicators 17.18.1/2 What is missing is an approach that relates macro-level indexes to the micro level Develop macro-micro linkages in SD indexes and incorporate disaggregated data at regional / national level and connect this to public goods usage | Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Sustainable Development Goals through System Theory Perspectives: Recommendations for the Post 2015 Targets by Roland Bardy, Raymond Saner and Lichia Yiu CSEND Working Paper No. 1/2015, April 2015, Geneva http://bardy.eeurope.de/cms/filemaster/publications/Sytem_Perspective_on_SDG_Indicators.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||
87 | 4/25/2015 8:47:04 | Alimatu Dimonekene | ProjectACEi - Group founded by FGM Survivors for Survivors Empower and Inspire change to eliminate violence, harmful practices and suppport women & girls affected. | http://www.projectacei.org/ | National organization | Both | No | We are an organisation working closely with survivors and victims of FGM in the UK. Supporting women and their families come to terms with the lifelong consequences of FGM. Educating women on the risks associated with the practice and empowering women to be very confident in themselves. | ||||||||||||||||||||
88 | 4/25/2015 10:19:38 | Lisa Zimmermann | Integrate Bristol | http://integratebristol.org.uk/ | Subnational organization | A data user | No | Indicator 5.3.2 (referred to elsewhere as indicator 41): The 'percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C by age group (for relevant countries only)'. This was given a rating of CBB. Integrate Bristol disagrees with this rating. We recommend an AAA rating as this is a highly feasible indicator. We are a small charity with limited capacity, we endorse the reasons given by Rosa Fund copied here for clarity Feasibility – reliable data collection methodologies already exist and is readily available for 29 countries in Africa and Asia. A methodology for collecting data already exists through DHS and MICS household surveys. In these countries, no additional data collection efforts would be required. For practising countries not currently measured (at least 17 that are known, including Indonesia, India and Iran), questions on FGM could easily be included in existing household surveys. Diaspora groups practice FGM throughout the world. As a result, data on prevalence is needed in all countries as diaspora groups that practice FGM live throughout the world. It is therefore recommended that 'for relevant countries only' is removed. Suitability – The indicator is directly suitable to civil society organisations and political will There is a growing global movement which recognises FGM as one of the most serious human rights violations of our age. The UN General Assembly banned FGM internationally in 2012, including a resolution Intensifying global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilation. The percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM is used by policy makers, academics and civil society, who rely on this data to understand varying prevalence of the practice. Relevance – essential to increasing understanding of how to end FGM in different contexts. The indicator is very relevant to target 5.3 (eliminate all harmful practices such as CEFM and FGM/C) and target 5.6 (ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights). UNICEF uses the percentage of girls and women who have undergone FGM to produce statistical reports on FGM that are used worldwide in understanding the practice, influencing programmes and policy. This will enable countries to implement national action plans to end FGM/C - in practising countries in Africa, South America, the Middle East and Asia and in diaspora communities worldwide. Inadequate Survey responses do not reflect highest prevalence countries. | ||||||||||||||||||||
89 | 4/25/2015 11:01:45 | Arthur Lyon Dahl | International Environment Forum | http://iefworld.org | International organization | A data user | No | The technical report reflects the present capacity of national statistical services to respond to the aspirations of the SDGs, and they already have the challenge to disaggregate and to speed up reporting, so it is impractical to ask them to take on more immediately. Other proposals like SDSN have gone much further, and these also should be encouraged. A comparison of indicators for ocean and coastal issues from the technical report, SDSN and Global Ocean Commission (Dahl 2015 cited below) shows little overlap between indicator sets and a large potential for new policy-relevant indicators that is beyond the present capacity of national statistical services. This gap should be filled with other processes to develop and test indicators that might ultimately be integrated into the SDG set. The UN should organize a process with UN task managers for each SDG, as was done for Agenda 21 after UNCED, to improve existing indicators and fill gaps in the targets covered. Other partners (UN agencies, OECD, CSOs) could be responsible for indicators in their areas of competence that are beyond the capacity of national statisticians or need further development. Some international NGOs (Transparency International, etc.) and research centers (Earth Institute etc) already produce useful indicators in complement to official indicators. For higher level integration, UNDP could harmonize all economic indicators, UNEP EMG environmental indicators and the World Bank social indicators. The highest integration would be in the Sustainable Development Report. A broader stakeholder process should encourage complementary indicators at national and local levels, so that the top-down SDG process is supported by a bottom-up response of local communities and the public to the SDGs. The statisticians cannot do it all by themselves. Indicators are also needed to assess development at the individual level and the role of governments and other institutions in facilitating individual progress and well-being (Dahl 2014). This also would capture the ethical dimensions of justice and equity more effectively than national averages. Such indicators would complement the collective measures in the SDG indicators and give the process a more human face. | Dahl, Arthur Lyon. 2015. Resource efficiency improvements and marine resources management in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Paper presented at the International Resource Panel Scoping Workshop on Marine Resources, UNEP, Paris, 14-15 April 2015. http://yabaha.net/dahl/papers/Dahl2015d.html Dahl, Arthur Lyon. 2014. "Putting the Individual at the Centre of Development: Indicators of Well-being for a New Social Contract". Chapter 8, pp. 83-103, In François Mancebo and Ignacy Sachs (eds), Transitions to Sustainability. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9532-6_8 http://yabaha.net/dahl/papers/2014i_chpt8.pdf and http://iefworld.org/ddahl13a | |||||||||||||||||||
90 | 4/25/2015 14:02:53 | Øystein Bakke | Global Alcohol Policy Alliance | http://www.globalgapa.org | International organization | A data user | No | The two proposed indicators related to target 3.5 are not well designed to be a useful tool in following the development in preventing and treating substance abuse in the context of development. Indicator 3.5.1 Coverage of opioid substitution therapy among opioid dependent drug users Indicator 3.5.2 Coverage of interventions for the prevention of substance abuse interventions among people under 25 GAPA will propose as an alternative the inclusion of an indicator measuring total per capita alcohol consumption. There is strong epidemiological evidence to suggest that a reduction in per capita alcohol consumption will reduce social and health problems caused by alcohol in a population. “Per capita consumption of litres of pure alcohol among persons aged 15+” is a good indicator where data is available and being collected by the World Health Organization. | ||||||||||||||||||||
91 | 4/25/2015 13:54:44 | Isatou Touray | GAMCOTRAP | http://www.gamcotrap.gm | National organization | Both | Yes | As a national NGO working on FGM we have produced systematic data reporting on the number of public declarations made by communities and the number of circumcisers that have abandoned FGM in the Gambia. Currently 900 communities and 128 circumcisers have made public declarations in four regions of the Gambia. These are indicators of change in perception and practice. The methodology for collecting these process indicators are based on tools that are culturally relevant. As far as we know the Gambia is among the countries that have produced indicators of change to end FGM. The MICS and DHS Survey also carry indicators with regards to FGM data for countries that have them. Given the sensitive nature of the issue countries are faced with methodological procedures in capturing the data related to FGM and sometimes the data does not reflect the real situation on the ground hence the importance of the need to focus on this rather than wiping it from the development agenda. This will be catastrophic. | We support many of the indicators that provide the gender dimensions of development. As an organisation working to reduce FGM/C in The Gambia in partnership with other local partners, we disagree with the rating of CBB for indicator 5.3.2. We would rate indicator 5.3.2 as AAA. We would recommend considering removing 'for relevant countries only', due to the continued practice within diaspora communities worldwide. It would also be worth extending the age-range downwards, because many girls undergo FGM two weeks after birth and before age of five, and effects of efforts to reduce the practice will be more quickly and clearly seen when the women who have undergone FGM in the past are filtered out of the indicator. There is a growing global movement which recognises FGM as one of the most serious human rights violations of our age, as demonstrated by The Girl Summit 2014, The IAC and International frameworks and communications. It is often the first of a series of violations of girls rights, including early marriage and other forms of gender based violence. The indicator is very relevant to targets 5.3 and 5.6. The ratings given by the countries who participated in the survey do not provide an accurate reflection of the feasibility, suitability and relevance of the indicator to the SDGs. The Gambia among others would give A rating | |||||||||||||||||||
92 | 4/25/2015 18:21:35 | Jane Lindsay-Mak | The Girl Generation | http://www.equalitynow.org/the_girl_generation_together_to_end_fgm | Subnational organization | A data user | No | It is a sexist barbaric practice. Even one is one too many. | ||||||||||||||||||||
93 | 4/25/2015 19:59:06 | Tui Shortland | Nga Tirairaka o Ngati Hine | http://www.ngatihine.iwi.nz/ | Subnational organization | Both | Yes | Community based monitoring and information systems for biodiversity within our territories with a focus on cultural and traditional knowledge indicators. | The indicators lack recognition and importance of indigenous peoples. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxr-D96hXf-YdTdkdy12MjhiZGM/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxr-D96hXf-YeDJ4aTBjWXRiSVk/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||
94 | 4/26/2015 3:24:44 | http://www.kothowain.org | Subnational organization | Both | No | its a appreciative initiative that create greater access in all over the world. | Thanks for given opportunity us. GABRIEL Tripura Executive Director KOTHOWAIN (Vulnerable Peoples Development Organization) Bandaran Hill Tract BANGLADESH Tel: 0088-0361-62783 cel: 0088-01556561400, 0088-01846506927 Email: gabriel.tripura@gmail.com executivedirector@kothowain.org info@kothowain.org kothowainbd@gmail.com web: kothowain.org skype: gabriel.kalaghata Europe Aid ID: BD-2014-FIC-2503072228 Executive Member, Bangladesh National Youth Council, Dhaka Member, Red Crescent, Bandarban Chapter and Vice Chairman Bangladesh Tripura Kallyan Sangsad Bandarban Hill Tract BANGLADESH | |||||||||||||||||||||
95 | 4/26/2015 3:35:03 | Jeremy Liddle | G20 Young Entrepreneurs Alliance | http://www.g20yea.com | International organization | Both | Yes | In collaboration with partners Ernst & Young, Accenture, Global Entrepreneurship Week and Global Entrepreneurship Index, there is ongoing data collection. Each partner has a different format of data collection, generally surveying entrepreneurs and young entrepreneurs. Each partner has their own researchers & methodology, therefore consultation and feedback would be required directly with them. | Indicators Number of high growth enterprises measured by employees by OECD definition of 10+ employees and >20% employee growth for >3 years Share of graduates with science/engineering degree. Number (and occupancy rates) of science parks, technology hubs & incubators. Share of technology-intensive start-ups in total start-ups. Share of technology-intensive start-ups with venture-capital funding. Results of opinion/attitudinal surveys and evaluations following awareness campaigns. Number of business associations devoted to women, youth, rural entrepreneurs, SMEs etc. Labour impact indicators: Employment of women (and comparable pay), youth and of disadvantaged groups Skills upgrading, training provided Health and safety effects, occupational injuries Social impact indicators: Expansion of goods and services offered, access to and affordability of basic goods and services Environmental impact indicators: Enterprise development in eco-sectors (e.g. eco-tourism, renewable energy…) Development impact indicators: Development of local entrepreneurs and integration in pro-poor value chains Technology exchange (proxied above by job skill levels and capital intensity) Business linkages Entrepreneurship Policy Institutional framework: Existence of a national entrepreneurship strategy and policy implementation plan Designation of a responsible institution in charge of coordination and implementation process Inclusive and participatory policy dialogue Entrepreneurs, including women, youth and from disadvantaged groups are participating in policy dialogue processes Job creation and skills development Employment (number): Total number of jobs generated by start-ups and SMEs Entrepreneurial education: Share of primary and secondary schools offering entrepreneurship programmes/extra-curricular activities (both technical and soft skills development) Number of entrepreneurship programmes targeted specifically at youth, women and/or disadvantaged groups Share of university professors trained in teaching entrepreneurship in total university professors Share of universities offering entrepreneurship courses and/or programmes Access to Inclusive finance Share of microfinance/SME loans in total business loans Share of microfinance/SME loans to women in total microfinance/SME loans Share of microfinance/SME loans to youth in total microfinance/SME loans Total VC invested in SMEs owned by women and youth out of totally VC invested in SMEs Credit bureau coverage in rural and out of capital areas | https://www.dropbox.com/s/3jbhijam6rp2c8a/2015-01%20G20%20YEA%20%26%20Y20%20Entrepreneurships%20Critical%20Role%202-4-15.pdf?dl=0 Link in google drive https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxPHu9mqvBStbW5uRFB5bzB2cGlxbENZMnJVUGh3NGdLZmYw/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||
96 | 4/26/2015 5:27:41 | Maria Vlahakis | Voluntary Services Overseas (VSO) | http://www.vsointernational.org/ | International organization | Both | Yes | Through our programme work, VSO collects data on indicators in the countries where we operate. In addition, VSO in partnership with Womankind and Saferworld, commissioned in-depth research into the indicators and proxies currently used to measure women’s participation and influence in public and political life. This research examined 26 data-collection and measurement initiatives, including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s Gender Inequality Index (GII), regional measurement tools such as the African Gender and Development Index (AGDI), initiatives focused specifically on measuring attitudes and perceptions such as the Gallup World Poll, Pew’s Global Attitudes Project and the World Values Survey (WVS), and issue-specific measurement tools such as the Women’s Economic Opportunity Index (WEO). Based on this research and our evidence from our programme work we have suggested a short list of indicators which are feasible, relevant and suitable and will support transformative change in this area, allowing for a degree of local variation. Please see our Women in Power report for further details http://www.vso.org.uk/sites/vso_uk/files/women_in_power_report_final_26feb2014_ic14008.pdf VSO is also involved in work to develop indicators that recognise the vital role that volunteers will play in supporting the implementation of the SDGs. These indicators will help governments to measure that contribution and, in the long term, show how and where volunteers can be better integrated into national policies and strategies. | • Although we recognise that setting indicators should be a technical process, it is critical that they allow us to track the political will and vision expressed in goals and targets. SDG indicators should not be less ambitious than the agreed targets or previously agreed indicators. • The identification of indicators should be driven by experts of poverty, inequality and environmental sustainability. We recommend the IAEG-SDGs clearly set out a way of engaging with civil society experts over the next 12 months. • Indicators must enable us to measure what we need to know, as opposed to what is currently possible to measure. Relevance and suitability of the indicators should be prioritised. • Better use and consideration of existing data (such as that being collected to track the Education for All goals internationally) is also needed when developing indicators and monitoring mechanisms over the coming 15 years. • Resolve the ‘shape of indicators’ architecture so that it includes the global, regional and national levels. Clarifying the relationship between levels is critical to avoid creating multiple measuring and reporting lines. It will also address the bias towards quantitative indicators which might be led by the need for global aggregation, potentially creating space for more qualitative indicators. Global indicators need to be truly universal to ensure they do not promote negative incentives in different contexts. • To better address capacity issues of member states, Financing for Development and MOI conversations must look at increasing investment in data gathering, analysis and prioritising capacity building of national statistical offices to deliver on an ambitious SDG agenda. Skilled, professional volunteers for development can enhance and develop existing expertise. • Indicators must recognise the important role that civil society, including volunteers and women’s organisations, can play in collecting and analysing data. Making data freely accessible, transparent and user-friendly will be essential for implementers and national and local level accountability. • All data should be disaggregated by age, disability, socio economic status, gender, ethnicity, geography and minority status. SDGs must propel actions focused on marginalised groups and those most likely to suffer poverty and inequalities, where data is often missing. There needs to be a common minimum standard for data disaggregation agreed at the global level. • See attached paper for comments on specific proposed indicators. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Z8A0T20FQ_aXhvdTh1NllKNkk/view | ||||||||||||||||||
97 | 4/26/2015 6:13:24 | Prabha S Chandra | International Association of Women's Mental Health | http://iawmh.org/ | International organization | A data user | No | We are an International Organisation that focuses on women's mental health and has members from 28 countries including several LAMI countries. In our recent congress in March, 2015 we discussed the SDGs as part of a plenary session and the in the general body and executive meetings and would like to propose the following indicators, in addition to what has already been proposed by the UN. We respectfully request that mental health indicators be included in the final version within Goal 3. We recommend the inclusion of suicide as one of the indicators in the mortality indicators. Indicator 3.4.1 Probability of dying of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease and suicide between ages 30 and 70 Indicator 3.5.3 Coverage of interventions for persons with mental health problems Being an organisation that focuses on women's mental health, we would also like to recommend additions to Goal 5 which indicate specific psycho social services for women that help them feel stronger and empowered - Goal 5- Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. For this we would like to suggest Two Indicators for target 5.2 - Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation. Indicator 1- 5.2.3 Proportion of Health Facilities providing specific services for psycho social support to women facing violence Indicator 2- 5.2.4 Proportion of Health Facilities providing psycho social support services for women in conflict and war zones We feel data on both these indicators are feasible to collect and will inform need for specific interventions related to the goal and target. | ||||||||||||||||||||
98 | 4/26/2015 6:14:34 | Serre-Combe | Osez le féminisme ! | http://www.osezlefeminisme.fr | National organization | A data user | No | Osez le féminisme ! is a French organization that works with other NGOs based in Africa for instance, where thousands of young girls are still victims of genital mutilations. This is something that cannot be tolerated anymore in 2015. This is not a question of cultural specific features. This is a question of human dignity. No country shall allow nor tolerate FGM. Put an end to FGM shall remain a goal and an indicator for the UN Development Agenda. I also warn you that the indicator 5.6.1, about sexual and reproductive rights, is a very important one. Illegal abortions kill 47000 women each year. Sexual and reproductive rights are fundamental rights that are the alpha and the omega of equality between men and women. Millions of women expect that the UN will consider and fight against the violences they live every day, everywhere. I thank you in advance for all of them. | ||||||||||||||||||||
99 | 4/26/2015 9:26:52 | Mari Ullmann | Plan International | http://plan-international.org | International organization | Both | Yes | Plan tracks the well-being of sponsored children in a number of areas longitudinally. We also conduct perceptions-based surveys through social accountability tools on a number of indicators, including in education, gender equality, and violence, in approximately 40 countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. | Plan International welcomes the opportunity to respond to the UN Statistical Commission’s technical report on indicators. We urge the Commission to be more ambitious in its recommendations for what can be achieved by 2030, go beyond what is being measured currently. Many of the indicators proposed in the technical report seem to address the most expedient concepts of complex SDG targets, rather than the most transformative aspects. In other cases, the indicators simply do not address critical concepts within the targets. The ratings compiled in the report do not necessarily reflect the feasibility of measurement or the many indicators that are already being measured by a variety of organizations and institutions worldwide. Instead of relying solely on official experiences, the discussion on indicators should take advantage of a broader range of global expertise and capacity, and engage statistical experts drawn from academia and civil society. In order to achieve a transformative post-2015 agenda for all, especially boys and girls, adolescents, and young people, Plan makes the following recommendations. • To ensure that the rights and interests of children and young people are represented in the post-2015 agenda, all relevant indicators should be disaggregated by sex, age (including age ranges 10-14, 15-19), location/region, income and disability at a minimum. We find in general that the indicators proposed are too often ‘age-blind,’ failing to take into account global demographic realities and the significant role for children, young women, and young men in achieving the SDGs. • The number of indicators selected for global tracking should not be limited arbitrarily. Indicators selected for global tracking should be the most transformative and indicative of progress toward the relevant target. • Qualitative indicators must be incorporated, including structural, process, and outcome indicators. • Despite low ratings in the survey, the targets proposed under Goal 16 are measurable. Indicator mapping exercises demonstrate that official and third-party data do exist today for Goal 16 which allow for global-level monitoring of country progress on these targets. • The indicators should facilitate people on the ground to directly participate in the process of measurement of progress, from design, collection of data, and analysis and communication of the results. • The IAEG-SDG should include seats for representatives of civil society, with opportunities to contribute substantively in decision-making processes. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzjjbGqEnI5yLWxjcWVOd19WdFk/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||
100 | 4/26/2015 11:18:34 | Zia Uddin Molla | THE CRUPDA "The Coastal Rural And Urban Poor Development Association" | https://www.crupda.org | Subnational organization | Both | Yes | www.hope87bd.com/efood.html www.agire.it/filemanager/cms.../AGIRE_Final_Technical_Report.pdf | N/A | www.hope87bd.com/efood.html www.agire.it/filemanager/cms.../AGIRE_Final_Technical_Report.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||
101 | 4/26/2015 12:51:17 | Mandeep Tiwana | CIVICUS | http://civicus.org/index.php/en/ | International organization | Both | Yes | CIVICUS uses several methodologies to assess the enabling environment for civil society. These include the Enabling Environment Index (EEI) which examines the conditions within which civil society work. Using secondary statistical data, the EEI has ranked the governance, socio-cultural and socio-economic environments for civil society using 17 sub-dimensions and 53 indicators in 109 countries. The EEI seeks to measure the long-term conditions that affect the potential of citizens to participate in civil society. CIVICUS is currently piloting the Civic Space Monitor (CSM) which represents an advancement over the EEI. The CSM seeks to evaluate the level of civic space in national environments using both secondary and primary sources of information. It is currently being piloted in 14 countries in southern Africa and plans are afoot to replicate the study in south Asia with the ambition to ultimately rate civic space in all the 193 UN member states along five categories: OPEN, NARROWED, OBSTRUCTED, REPRESSED AND CLOSED. The CSM relies on research reports by well-respected human rights groups as well as CIVICUS’ own monitoring through its networks. Notably, the CSM relies on current media reports and CIVICUS brings the voices of members, partners and other activists on the ground into the analysis through regular consultations. media; online surveys and email. | In relation to proposed Target 16.10, with its focus on protecting “fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements,” it would be worthy to also measure the existence of enabling policies and practices with regard to the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly. The current emphasis on attacks on journalists, associated media personnel and human rights advocates needs to be buttressed by an evaluation of legislation and official policies dealing with registration of civil society organisations, their ability to organize public meetings, raise resources from domestic and international sources and operate freely in general. Under proposed Target 17.17, in relation to encouraging and promoting “effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resource strategies of partnerships,” it would be relevant to measure the existence of enabling policies and practices with regard to civil society participation in legislative and official decision making processes. The current emphasis on measuring the number of public-private partnerships (PPPs) does not evaluate the quality of official engagement with civil society. | http://civicus.org/eei/ | ||||||||||||||||||
102 | 4/26/2015 13:04:30 | Tetet Lauron | CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) | http://www.csopartnership.org | International organization | Both | Yes | The CPDE monitors progress in the implementation of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. In particular, it monitors the enabling environment for CSOs focusing on three core areas and essential dimensions. The first core area covers universally accepted human rights and freedoms affecting CSOs including recognition of rights and freedoms affecting CSOs; the legal and regulatory environment, implementing rights and freedoms affecting CSOs; and the rights of specific groups. The second core area covers policy influencing of CSOs including spaces for dialogue and policy influencing; and access to information. The third core area covers donor – CSO relationships. In 2014 it produced a report synthesizing evidence on the current state of enabling conditions for CSOs using the above framework. The evidence is derived from a number of sources ten primary country-level research and CSO consultations undertaken by CPDE members; recently published research reports by think tanks and donor-sponsored evaluations, based on country analysis; and assessments of conditions and indicators relating to the freedoms of association, assembly and expression made by other CSOs and human rights groups. The report is available here: http://www.csopartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Synthesis_eng_ebook.pdf | Statistics are political acts. They matter for those we choose to count. They matter even more for those we don’t count. The SDG indicators should pay attention to the relational dynamics between policy-making at the local, national, and international levels while offering pathways for alternatives that veer away from conventional development paradigms and that recentre human wellbeing, social equity, and environmental sustainability. The statistics we select should measure transformation. We can measure: - growing wealth inequalities between countries and between people; - how much of the world’s wealth sitting in offshore bank accounts; - whether a country provides living wages; - the ratio between labour share and profits. We could even measure the time it takes the world’s richest person to gain what a Bangladeshi garment worker will earn in a year We should measure policies, not just outcomes, such as - public investment in care services - military spending and compare it to versus public health spending; - taxes paid by corporations and by the wealthy; - interest in loans paid by developing countries; - how many trade agreements are subject to human rights and gender audits. This SDG indicators should also measure progress in the realization of the Right to Development, not just by monitoring progress within countries but in terms of the extra-territorial impacts of policies adopted by governments and the impacts international institutions and agreements at country level. For instance, how much do tax havens inhibit domestic resource mobilization in other countries? To what extent do free trade agreements undermine social and environmental goals. Civil society can and should play an essential role in monitoring the SDGs including through institutionalized participation at all levels, connecting local realities to global policy debates, and in promoting new paradigms for social transformation and development justice. Civil society and proportional representation from the G77 countries in the expert group is necessary and crucial. | |||||||||||||||||||
103 | 4/26/2015 14:02:41 | N. Paul Divakar | National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights | http://www.ncdhr.org.in/ | National organization | Both | Yes | For the Post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals and Targets, NCDHR has combined with other organizations in South Asia to produce the Dalit perspective for inclusive developmental model. Development for all could only be strengthen by values of governance mainly transparency, accountability and participation of all population without discrimination would address the issue of holistic and sustainable development successful. Addressing the goals, we have created various methods to monitor and evaluate the process and progress of each programs. NCDHR stands firmly for the ensuring the human values and rights of the Dalit population. As commonly abused community, physically and mentally, there are various kinds of atrocities inflicted on Dalits. We have introduced a online atrocities tracking system called Attrocities Tracking and Monitoring (ATM) in order to cater to the right to justice (Goal 16) for the Dalit and Adivasi population. NCDHR has state level volunteers who does interventions in case of any kind of discrimination is followed. The details and record could be found in our website. | The Sustainable development goals should be inclusive and focus on holistic development of people. Thus adding some important additions to the goals. 1.3 - by 2030 implement universal appropriate social protection measures including floors, with a focus on coverage of the poor, women, children, person with disabilities and those who are discriminated on the basis of caste, religion, ethinicity and sexuality. 1.6 (proposed)- by 2030 achieve equal access to productive employment and decent work with living wages for all including the poorest, women, person with disabilities and those discriminated on the basis of caste, religion, ethinicity and sexuality. Goal 4 (new) - End discrimination against the children of those excluded on the basis of religion, caste, ethinicity or sexuality in schools and institutions of higher education through stringent laws and by enforcing structural corrections. Goal 6.7 - by 2030 avoid manual scavenging and provide complete rehabilitation to millions of those engages in such degrading works. Goal 10.2 - by 2030 reduce economic, social and environmental inequalities of opportunity and outcome among social groups through reducing wealth inequality between richest 10% and poorest 40%. Goal 15.8 - defend peoples right to land and forest, safeguard forest and other natural resources from the private sector by promoting self rule, local planning, ownership and social audit. 16.1 - by 2030 reduce level of violence especially violence against women, children and socially excluded groups and halve related death rates everywhere. 16.3 - Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels, abolish all anti people, anti democratic laws, engage politically with conflict regions and initiate police and judicial reforms to uphold peace and human rights. Incorporate an 18th goal garnering political and resource commitment to end discrimination based on work and descent (caste) by 2030. | https://drive.google.com/a/ncdhr.org.in/file/d/0B26uftM42xzVNFRCSzFWZ28xemc/view?usp=sharing | ||||||||||||||||||
104 | 4/26/2015 14:21:38 | Peter Rorvik for Arterial Network and CULTURE2015GOAL CAMPAIGN | GLOBAL CAMPAIGN #CULTURE2015GOAL | HTTP://www.culture2015goal.net | International organization | Both | Yes | 1.4.1: “Basic services” to include “cultural services and resources” 4.7.1 In 4.7.2, add “values and attitudes promoting... cultural diversity” 8.3: Suggested:“Percentage of persons engaged in cultural employment within the total employed population” 8.9: Proposed indicators do not integrate the focus on “sustainable tourism” and “local culture and products”. Suggested indicator instead: “Percentage of national and local governments which have integrated a specific ‘cultural impact assessment’ as a prerequisite of all tourism development plans” 9.b: Suggested: “Number of countries which have implemented a national strategy for the development of the creative industries” 11.4: Indicator 11.4.1 good. Replace11.4.2 with “Cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants that implement a cultural policy strategy, including measures for the protection of historical/cultural sites and other measures enabling access to culture for all citizens.” 12.b: Include cultural aspects. Replace 12.b.1 with: “Percentage of national and local sustainable tourism development strategies that integrate a cultural chapter” 13.2. Suggested 13.2.2: “Percentage of national and local climate change strategies that consider the role of cultural aspects in promotion of environmental sustainability.” 16.10. Suggested: “Percentage of libraries that regularly provide specific training sessions on media and information literacy competencies to support users’ access to and use of information” See link below for detail | No comments. | Culture2015goal campaign: “Recognizing the role of culture to strengthen the un post-2015 development agenda: Proposals on Indicators”, February 2015. | ||||||||||||||||||
105 | 4/26/2015 16:09:33 | Faiza Shaheen | Save the Children | http://www.savethechildren.org | International organization | Both | No | See attached document | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1GAs2aA_AjDLXg1WjhHYjFnZ28/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||
106 | 4/26/2015 16:32:26 | Ben Hobbs | Generation Nutrition | http://www.generation-nutrition.org | International organization | A data user | No | Generation Nutrition is an international civil society campaign that is calling on governments to prioritise the fight against acute malnutrition (wasting) and save the lives of millions of children under the age of five. More than 60 non-governmental organisations and other civil society groups are participating in the campaign in 10 countries. Today, 52 million children under five around the world suffer from wasting. In the worst-affected countries in Asia and Africa the rate of wasting can be as high as 10% or 20% of the under-five population. Severe wasting is estimated to cause one million deaths every year in this age group. [Source: WHO, WFP, UN Standing Committee on Nutrition, UNICEF, 2007.] In the past 25 years, the decline in the global numbers of children with wasting has been extremely modest (11% between 1990 and 2012). Generation Nutrition is urging governments to do much more to both treat and prevent this life-threatening condition. Specific comments on UNSC’s Technical Report and the proposed set of indicators: • The purpose of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicators is to help measure progress towards the goals and targets of the SDGs. Wasting in under-fives has already been included at the target level (in proposed Target 2.2). Therefore, we are very surprised that wasting prevalence does not appear in the set of indicators proposed by the UNSC for Target 2.2. This is a major omission which should be rectified. It is crucially important that states are left in no doubt as to the necessity of measuring progress on this central element of Target 2.2. • Stunting should not be considered as a proxy measure of wasting rates; though there are links between the two, they are distinct types of undernutrition and many children who are wasted are not stunted and vice-versa. • Data on wasting prevalence is already being routinely collected by Ministries of Health and therefore its inclusion as an indicator would not pose any additional reporting burden on countries. • Acting on wasting will also have an impact on efforts to bring down under-five mortality generally and improve child health. Generation Nutrition is also in favour therefore of including an indicator – under Goal 3 on health - on access to treatment for children suffering from severe wasting. The Report does not propose any such indicator. If no such indicator is to be added under Goal 3, then it becomes doubly important to include a prevalence measure for wasting as an indicator under Target 2.2. | http://www.generation-nutrition.org/sites/default/files/post2015_childmalnutritiontargets_generationnutrition_sept2014_01_0.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||
107 | 4/26/2015 16:36:29 | Helen Dennis | Christian Aid | http://www.christianaid.org.uk/ | International organization | Both | Yes | I'm unable to provide a full answer to this question given the timescale but Christian Aid works in more than 40 countries around the world and gathers a lot of data for the purpose of reporting to DFID and other donors, and for evaluating our own programmes e.g. tools for measuring effective governance, community resilience etc. | We welcome this report as an initial contribution to the emerging discussion on indicators and we are pleased that it has not been constrained to a more limited overall number of indicators (e.g. 100) in the way that the SDSN report had been. It is our view that initial exploration of indicators, particularly given the complexity and multi-dimensional nature of some targets must be open to a number of different options and not reduced down, especially at such an early stage. It is likely that there will be a need for a range of different indicators - including those measuring perceptions and changes in social norms, and process indicators - and these should all be on the table at the outset. On the 'ABC' survey, we note that the 70 countries responded and therefore more work needs to be done to reach out beyond these member-states. Christian Aid would also like to stress that a low grading on feasibility should not be reason to exclude a proposal - these measures will guide development policy and practice for the next 15 years and it is important not to limit ambition at this stage. Finally, as a general point, we would also urge the UNSC to consider how methodologies which have been developed outside of the national statistical offices (e.g. by academics or NGOs - such as the Financial Secrecy Index) can be helpful for the SDGs. Christian Aid is particularly interested in indicators which will enhance environmental sustainability within the new development agenda, and have made specific recommendations on climate and energy (see joint paper below). We have also published a longer paper with CESR (see link below) to put forward appropriate indicators for fiscal policy targets in the SDGs. Finally, we are also undertaking further work on gender indicators which we hope to feed into the Commission's work. | http://cesr.org/downloads/CA_CESR_indicators_UNstats.pdf http://www.cafod.org.uk/content/download/24154/173542/file/Energy%20SDG%20Indicators%20briefing%20Mar%202015.pdf | ||||||||||||||||||
108 | 4/26/2015 16:48:09 | Ruth Davies | Beyond FGM | http://beyondfgm.co.uk/ | Subnational organization | Both | Yes | Qualitative (unpublished) study of women and girls accessing services at Ortum Mission Hospital, Pokot, Kenya, using interviews, indicating FGM rates in childbearing women over 90%, resulting in chronic ill health, genito-urinary problems, frequent premature births, higher than expected CS rate, psycho sexual problems. FGM almost always resulted in early marriage with consequent childbearing and end of schooling. Presented at International Day of the Midwife Virtual Conference 2014 https://webinar.nordu.net/p7mcyozwm0b/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal | Our organisation links midwives and other supporters in the UK with a grassroots group in Pokot, Kenya which has a very high rate of FGM. Using the Alternative Rite of Passage methodology we work with local partners to promote health and human rights education to the girls at risk and to the wider community, with a high rate of success. Our research and anecdotal experience shows that FGM is inextricably linked to the low status of women, and to the abandonment of education which in itself hinders development for the girl, her family, her community and ultimately the nation. It also places a burden on health systems as girls who survive FGM often have very poor reproductive and obstetric health. We believe that capturing rates of FGM will be no more challenging than collecting other data in developing countries and furthermore, attention needs to be paid to the status of girls in practicing diaspora groups also. In Kenya there is a growing public awareness and political will to end FGM. Including FGM in the next SDGs will add strength to this movement, and give status to groups working to end FGM in countries which have yet to tackle this abuse of human rights. In countries with a low prevalence of FGM it will motivate policy makers and energize civil society, and provide a means for the sharing of learning and good practice. | |||||||||||||||||||
109 | 4/26/2015 17:03:45 | Delphine Dorsi | Right to Education Project | http://www.right-to-education.org | International organization | A data user | No | According to the Right to Education Project, the post-2015 development agenda should incorporate a human rights perspective. Specially on the education agenda, the goal and targets that States will politically commit to should not undermine their existing legal commitments to realise the right to education under international human rights law. For this reason, we strongly encourages the use of right to education indicators to measure the progress made by States towards achieving the post-2015 education goal and targets, which give a much fuller account of the progress made by States. While traditional development indicators evaluate education as a basic human need to be checked against development goals, right to education indicators aim to measure the extent to which individuals (rights-holders) enjoy their rights and States (duty-bearers) fulfil their legal human rights obligations. The proposed indicators related to the education goal and targets are only outcome indicators. The inclusion of process and structural indicators to complement the proposed outcome indicators will give a fuller account of the actual progress made by States in achieving the post-2015 education goals. Moreover, structural and process indicators could help to measure difficult concepts – such as the quality of education, and to monitor global targets when national targets differ from country to country – such as specific measures to be adopted to target marginalised groups. For instance, measuring the achievement of minimum proficiency standards in reading and mathematics - as suggested - is not sufficient to measure the quality of education. An indicator that would look at the adoption of laws, policies and minimum standards on quality education or the existence of a national curriculum and assessment system that values diverse learning outcomes would enable to measure more comprehensively the quality of education. Generally, we suggest to include indicators that look at the laws and policies put in place to achieve the education goal and targets. For more details on the proposed right to education indicators related to each targets, see the paper referred below. | In January, we have published a paper on "Applying Right to Education Agenda to the Post-2015 Education Agenda" to contribute to the discussions to refine the formulation of the post-2015 education goal and targets and to identify related indicators to measure progress towards them. This paper has been initially submitted to the UIS consultation but it also looks at the indicators proposed for the SDGs. The paper argues that there is a need to introduce a human rights perspective to the post-2015 agenda and furthermore that right to education indicators can give a fuller account of the progress made by States towards achieving the post-2015 goals. Before proposing specific indicators to measure the post-2015 education goal and targets (VI), the paper underlines the importance of linking the post-2015 education agenda to the right to education (II), and demonstrates how the post-2015 education goal and targets are linked to the content of the right to education (III) and extant State obligations (IV). This paper then reflects on the added value and limitations of applying right to education indicators (V). The paper is available at: http://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/RTE_Applying_RTE_Indicators_to_the_Post_2015_Agenda_2015.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||
110 | 4/26/2015 17:08:03 | Adjmal Dulloo | Post-2015 Volunteering Working Group | http://www.volunteeractioncounts.org/en/post-mdg/stakeholder-engagement.html | International organization | Both | No | The volunteering organizations gathered in the Post-2015 Volunteering Working Group have read the technical report of the Bureau of the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) on the process of the development of an indicator framework for the goals and targets of the post-2015 development agenda with great interest and would like to make a few general statements on it : - The people-centred approach of the SDGs are not properly reflected in the technical report and we believe that there should be more focus on the means by which citizens contribute to sustainable development on a daily basis. As stated in the SG’s synthesis report, Volunteerism is a powerful and cross-cutting mean of implementation and as such we believe that the contribution of volunteers to the SDGs should be measured. - We know that the elaboration of the SDG indicators is a technical and political process. However, as the post-2015 development agenda aims to be universal and inclusive, we truly believe that civil society must be included, in their discussions and then in their implementation. Their concrete knowledge of sustainability and their experience in collecting and measuring data should be drawn upon, specifically their expertise in collecting dissagregated data. - We also believe that there is a need to go beyond what is easily measured. When measuring change, we should not only focus on numbers but even more so on the actual transformative change in communities. Attention should be paid to qualitative indicators which can show the transformative dimension of the framework, in particular the positive change of society (social wellbeing, social cohesion, etc), as we will not be able to truly assess progress without them. We should measure what is needed, so that we don’t fall into the trap of just doing what is measurable. | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YWNYdKSM6KYZ-Ne53LmGvrtZpGMrE__j5ZecJBb_kkY/edit?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||
111 | 4/26/2015 17:40:33 | Verity McGivern | HelpAge International (with contributions from Stakeholder Group on Ageing) | In 2013, HelpAge developed the Global AgeWatch Index. Recognising that existing indexes do not effectively capture the needs of ageing populations, HelpAge produced the Index to highlight the quality of life and wellbeing of older people around the world. The Global AgeWatch Index brings together a unique set of internationally comparable data based on older people’s income and health status, education, employment and aspects of the enabling environment, including physical safety and civic participation. These areas have been identified by older women and men as key enablers to their wellbeing. The Global AgeWatch Index includes data on 96 countries across the world, representing 91 per cent of people aged 60 and over. It illustrates their social and economic progress and where improvements can be made. Available data for all countries is presented on the Global AgeWatch website as a country report card, enabling users to access information on each specific indicator, at: www.globalagewatch.org The gaps in available data identified by the index can give directions for the data revolution that is needed to ensure that no one is left behind, and show where investment is needed. | This commitment to leave no one behind gives clear guidance for indicators which should be both based on existing data sets and on aspirational future sets reflecting the Commission’s recognition of possible “future refinements as data sources and methodologies improve”. There are key indicators where older people must be prioritised from the outset. These must include healthy life expectancy at 60 and social protection floors. For several of the proposed indicators, it is feasible to use or extend current internationally available data to ensure coverage for older people: •Goal 1 target 1.5 includes sex but not age; UNHCR Population statistics provides data on people of concern by age groups including age 60+ http://bit.ly/1J0ILDy •Goal 2 target 2.2 refers explicitly to older persons, but only has indicators on children <5; FAO Voices of the Hungry, Food insecurity among people of all ages http://bit.ly/1JsrQgz •Essential indicators for Goal 3 are missing. UN data exists for all countries on healthy life expectancy at 60. This must be included; Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 http://bit.ly/1HIVptJ •Indicators for Target 3.4 on NCDs excludes people 70+ despite this being the most affected group; Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 http://bit.ly/1E8HdpP •Goal 4 target 4.4 puts an age limit on education contradicting the stated goal of lifelong learning for all; EUROSTAT publishes participation rate in education and training among people age 25-64. •Goal 5 requires a number of indicators to make older women more visible; Gender Inequality Index includes 2 indicators that are disaggregated by age (including 60+). Gender gap can be estimated across all age groups. •Target 5.2’s are discriminatory and unacceptable. Women 49+ must be included in existing surveys. Considerations: 1.Linking indicators & targets Age disaggregation in the goals and targets is inconsistent despite age featuring in 9 proposed goals and numerous targets, alongside references to “for all”, “all” and “lifelong. 2. Determining achievement Current proposed indicators will not always show that target has been achieved. E.g. without disaggregation, Indicator 2.1.1 will not demonstrate if the target is being achieved. 3. Clarifying age It is insufficient to treat all people 65+ as one cohort. The UNDESA has recommended disaggregation as follows: 0-5 years; 6-14; 15-24; 25-59; and then in 5 year bands. Data must at least be disaggregated into age cohorts of 49-60, 60-70 & 70+. | Stakeholder group on ageing position paper: Indicators for SDGs – disaggregation of data by age: http://www.helpage.org/download/5511496228e28 Stakeholder group on ageing – preferred targets and suggested indicators: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzMz3_19XnxHcHVuVzU5eUVfcEU/view?usp=sharing Older People Count: Making Data Fit for Purpose: http://www.helpage.org/global-agewatch/reports/global-agewatch-policy-brief-4-older-people-count-making-data-fit-for-purpose/ A post 2015 framework for all ages: http://www.helpage.org/global-agewatch/reports/global-agewatch-brief-5-a-post2015-framework-for-all-ages-transforming-the-future-for-youth-and-older-people/ Global AgeWatch Index: www.globalagewatch.org Global Age Watch Index Methodology report 2013: http://www.helpage.org/download/52949b561453d/ Global Age Watch Index Methodology update 2014: http://www.helpage.org/download/542b0c4e2ea16 Disaster Risk and Age Index report and methodology: http://www.helpage.org/download/54ff812842639: Disaster Risk and Age Index datasheet: http://www.helpage.org/download/55070c545e0ca | ||||||||||||||||||||||
112 | 4/26/2015 17:42:53 | Vivienne Nathanson | British and World Medical Associations | http://www.wma.net/ | International organization | Both | No | The British Medical Association has convened a loose coalition of interested parties, on behalf of the World Medical Association. The Institute of Health Equity of UCL London is providing materials on the Social Determinants of Health. Further links will be provided in a subsequent communication | We are very pleased to be given the opportunity to comment on the suggested indicators for the Sustainable Development Goals. We note the comments of country representatives, which set out views on feasibility, suitability and relevance. We feel than an overarching theme would help countries seeking to produce data for the indicators, and to improve those indicators, understand how those goals fit together. The main disadvantage of the current goals and targets is that they exist in a series of silos. All of the areas under discussion can be considered under the rubric of Social Determinants of Health – all contribute to the health and wellbeing of populations and individuals. The Social Determinants of Health demonstrate a gradient within countries between the wealthiest, best educated and healthiest, down to the least educated and least financially well off. Those same gradients exist between countries. Access to health care does little to improve the global health and wellbeing expectation of those low on the gradient, but improving many of the other factors does. Action based on cooperation and collaboration between different sectors are essential. Indicators will help to measure improvements in health and wellbeing expectations. Measuring access to education for girls, also measures future health for the girls, and for the children they will carry and the families they will care for. It may be a marker of access to reproductive rights, the absence of child marriage, and child labour and an Indirect measure of access to potable water – girls are often removed from school to fetch water. An overall theme of improving the social determinants will improve many of the major goals and encourage cross silo working. It will focus on all people and is appropriate globally and not only in a minority of countries. Understanding the social determinants encourages innovation and collaboration between sectors which have historically worked separately. | We also recommend that some work be commissioned to develop the cross cutting linkages between different goals and target. This would encourage working that falls outside silos, reduces the number of indicators countries would be asked to gather, while increasing the understanding of the implications and effects of different policies and actions. Further information on our views will follow this formal submission | ||||||||||||||||||
113 | 4/26/2015 17:57:57 | www.Global2015.net | International organization | Both | Yes | We do not conduct primary research (data collection), but we created a composite indicator on 28 global challenges (including major MDG and SDG topics), trend estimates (such as annual rates of change), and levels of target achievement. This is based on publicly available data on deaths, lost DALYs (disability-adjusted life-years), affected people, affected natural resources, and economic losses from UN organizations and academia, such as the WHO Global Health Estimates 2014 and the IHME Global Burden of Disease study 2015. | Fact Sheet: Indicators for Selected Post-2015 Targets Global2015 recommends the following indicators to include. We focus on topics which are emerging from limited access to vital resources and show the highest impacts on human development in terms of mortality, health losses, affected natural resources, or economic losses. Target 2.1, Indicator 2.1.1 Prevalence of Food Inadequacy (FAO). This indicator refers to a “normal physical activity level” and is therefore more realistic and appropriate than the Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU) which assumes a “sedentary lifestyle”. “Many poor and hungry people are likely to have livelihoods involving arduous manual labor.” (FAO: The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012, p. 12 [box 1]) Therefore, the Prevalence of Food Inadequacy should replace PoU, or at least be used together with PoU. Rating: the same as PoU (BAA), or better (even more relevant). Data: FAO: Food Insecurity Indicators. 2014. (http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/foodsecurity/Food_Security_Indicators.xlsx). Further indicators are proposed below, or at www.Global2015.net/factsheets. | www.Global2015.net/factsheets | ||||||||||||||||||||
114 | 4/26/2015 18:02:41 | Lars Vogelsang | Global2015 | www.Global2015.net | International organization | Both | Yes | see our previous comment | Continuation of indicator proposals by Global2015: Target 2.1, Indicator 2.1.3 (new) Additional indicator: Number of deaths from undernutrition. This indicator shows the severity of undernourishment and therefore adds high relevance. Estimates of deaths due to undernutrition originating in childhood were released by the GBD study, Black et al. and the WHO. The GBD study provided data for 21 regions and will regularly provide updates, likely also for the country level. There is a collaboration between the WHO and the GBD study, which could be extended to deliver data for the UN SDG monitoring. However, so far no data is available on the health impacts of undernutrition which occurs in people from five years onwards. Rating: For above-mentioned reasons, the rating should be at least similar to Indicator 2.1.1 (BAA). Data: Black et al.: Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. In: The Lancet 2013, 382, pp. 433, 442 (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60937-X/fulltext); GBD study: S. S. Lim et al.: A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. In: The Lancet, Vol. 380, Issue 9859, p. 2238. (http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673612617668.pdf) [an update has been announced, probably providing data at country level]; WHO: Global Health Risks. 2009. (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHealthRisks_report_full.pdf). More at www.Global2015.net/factsheets. | www.Global2015.net/factsheets | ||||||||||||||||||
115 | 4/26/2015 19:34:35 | Erica Higbie | The Working Group on Girls | http://www.girlsrights.org | International organization | A data user | No | WGG Indicator Response | https://drive.google.com/drive/my-drive | |||||||||||||||||||
116 | 4/26/2015 19:37:52 | Dr Nick Chapman | Policy Cures; Global Health Technologies Coalition (GHTC); PATH; TB Alliance; International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI); Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV); Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND); and Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) | http://www.policycures.org/www.ghtcoalition.org/www.path.org/www.mmv.org/www.finddiagnostics.org/www.cohred.org | International organization | Both | Yes | One of the organisations responsible for this submission (Policy Cures) collects and reports data on global investments into research and development (R&D) for the health needs of developing countries. The G-FINDER reports are the most comprehensive global dataset available on investment in this area. See: http://policycures.org/gfinder.html Primary investment data is collected directly from funders and recipients. Data is collected and reported annually each December (for the preceding financial year) and is able to be disaggregated by sector (public, private and philanthropic). In the most recent G-FINDER report, data was reported on funders from 42 countries. Policy Cures has reported data on investment in R&D for neglected diseases (infectious diseases which disproportionately affect developing countries) annually since 2008. In 2014, Policy Cures reported for the first time on investment in R&D for the reproductive health needs of developing countries. | The technical report omits critical indicators relating to global health research & development We commend the work of the UN Statistical Commission in developing this technical report. However, we note with concern that it omits indicators relating to research and development (R&D) for global health, which will be critical to the success of the SDGs. We note that: :: A number of current SDGs health targets – for example, ending the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria (Target 3.3), ending preventable deaths in children and newborns (Target 3.2) and significantly reducing the number of women dying in childbirth (Target 3.1) – will be almost impossible to achieve without new health technologies. :: The Lancet Commission on Investing in Health has outlined an investment framework for achieving the dramatic health gains envisioned for the post-2015 agenda, setting out the need for greater investment in global health R&D by all countries to close the health gap between high-, middle- and low-income countries within a generation. It highlights investment in R&D for global health as the most effective form of international collective action to help achieve this convergence. :: In this context, it is essential that the health goal within the post-2015 development agenda includes targets and indicators relating to global health R&D and innovation. :: The SDGs as proposed by the Open Working Group include a specific target related to R&D of new health technologies for the health needs of developing countries: Target 3.b – Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, [and] provide access to affordable […] medicines for all. :: The list of 304 proposed provisional indicators considered by national statistical offices in the initial technical assessment did not include any proposed indicator for Target 3.b. :: No other indicators in the list of 304 could be used to adequately measure progress towards this aim. Mindful of the above, we request that the IAEG-SDGs, the UN Statistical Commission, and member states assure inclusion of indicators relating to global health R&D in the final SDG indicator framework. We are currently undertaking a detailed analysis of indicators suitable for inclusion in the SDG indicator framework. We ask that this be drawn to the attention of the IAEG-SDGs, and that they consider the results of this work in their indicator development efforts. | A detailed analysis of indicators suitable for inclusion in the SDG indicator framework is currently under development. It will include analysis of the feasibility, suitability and relevance of each indicator, and incorporate the results of a broad stakeholder consultation process. A working draft will be completed in early June 2015, and the final report will be available in July. | ||||||||||||||||||
117 | 4/26/2015 19:39:53 | Polly Meeks | ADD International | http://www.add.org.uk/ | International organization | A data user | No | ADD International welcomes the opportunity to comment on the UN Statistical Commission's technical report. We agree with the points made by Sightsavers in their submission, and would particularly pick out the following: 1. We welcome the indicators on disability that the Statistical Commission has proposed, and we also welcome the proposal to disaggregate data. 2. We consider it particularly important that disability be included throughout Goal 1, in particular Targets 1.1. and 1.2. People with disabilities are recognised to be over-represented among the chronically poor (see, for example, DFID's recent Disability Framework); and to be under-served by poverty reduction efforts (see e.g. Groce N, Disability and the Millennium Development Goals, UN, New York, 2011).. 3. We call for indicators to be disaggregated by disability throughout the indicator framework, in line with the principle that no target should be considered met unless it is met for all groups, and in line with the goals of the data revolution. 4. Below we have attached a copy of the statement that our Director of Policy and Influencing delivered at the Third Inter-Governmental Negotiation. Thank you for considering our feedback. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2TazeXmX5bFczV4d0VHMHdLNk0/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||
118 | 4/26/2015 20:24:01 | Insert (Add to Target 13.2)- # of countries which have formally reviewed their nationally policies, strategies and planning in order to mainstream and indicate climate change measures. Insert (Add to Target 13.3)- # of countries which have integrated climate change education in their community civic education, media and nationally orientation Insert (Add to Target 16.1)- # of countries which have enacted and strengthened the enforcement of laws addressing and punishing all forms of violence including gender based violence. # of countries which have set up monitoring mechanism against all forms of violence. Insert (Add to Target 16.3)- # of countries which have laws and policy in place to promote the independence and impartiality of the judiciary Insert (Add to Target 16.4)- # of countries which have put in place and strengthened independent institutions and agencies responsible for preventing illicit financial flows. Insert (Add to Target 16.5)- # of countries which have open budget sufficient for the public to access national budget information. | Insert (Add to Target 13.2)- # of countries which have formally reviewed their nationally policies, strategies and planning in order to mainstream and indicate climate change measures. Insert (Add to Target 13.3)- # of countries which have integrated climate change education in their community civic education, media and nationally orientation Insert (Add to Target 16.1)- # of countries which have enacted and strengthened the enforcement of laws addressing and punishing all forms of violence including gender based violence. # of countries which have set up monitoring mechanism against all forms of violence. Insert (Add to Target 16.3)- # of countries which have laws and policy in place to promote the independence and impartiality of the judiciary Insert (Add to Target 16.4)- # of countries which have put in place and strengthened independent institutions and agencies responsible for preventing illicit financial flows. Insert (Add to Target 16.5)- # of countries which have open budget sufficient for the public to access national budget information. | Stilled being developed and will be shared on completion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
119 | 4/26/2015 20:50:21 | Klaus Lehn Christensen | Nonviolence International | http://nonviolenceinternational.net/ | International organization | Both | No | Our overall assessment of the survey responses from some Member States, not all, included in the Statistical Commission’s report, is that it is unnecessarily negative, not taking into account existing capacities for measuring the proposed indicators. Our message is that Goal 16 is measurable. On a global scale we already have plenty of experience of measuring these issues that we think should be included in the indicator framework. In the following, we present and support indicators already effectively in use, such as the ones applied by Global Peace Index, Small Arms Survey, SIPRI, and Saferworld. However, we still see plenty of gaps related to measuring progress on the Goal 16 Targets. We also present new indicator proposals in the following. They also include qualitative indicators based on surveys that reflect how local people on the ground feel. While recognizing the multidimensionality of policy goals, we argue that it should not imply that we should be aggregating fundamentally different things as it may produce questionable result. At this early stage of the indicator framework, we advocate that there is a need for developing additional indicators that can help decision makers, not least National Statistical Offices (NSOs), decide on a qualified, comprehensive indicator framework. To that end, we strongly encourage stakeholders to actively use the PoA for a Culture of Peace as a guideline for your work with developing Indicators. | Position paper on SDG Indicator framework & Comments on the UN Statistical Commission's report on draft indidactors framework https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2pF9xzLTkYZNFhWV1pPa0FKS0U/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||
120 | 4/26/2015 21:01:42 | Jennifer Rigg | 1,000 Days | http://www.thousanddays.org/ | International organization | A data user | No | Nutrition sets the foundation for human health and sustainable development, yet levels of malnutrition remain unacceptably high. One out of every two people on the planet is undernourished, micronutrient deficient, obese or some combination of all three. Malnutrition is also a serious drain to economic productivity and an enormous impediment to human progress as the impacts of poor nutrition are far- reaching, cutting across generations. There is broad consensus around a set of priority nutrition indicators for the new SDG framework. First, the SDG framework should include—at a minimum—indicators measuring all six global nutrition targets that were unanimously endorsed as priorities for action by 194 Member States as part of the 65th World Health Assembly (WHA). The WHA targets are based on strong scientific evidence and reflect a universal agenda to address multiple, interconnected forms of malnutrition. Second, an indicator on women’s minimum dietary diversity provides a much-needed, scientifically validated, measurement of diet quality and food consumption, reflecting the role of agriculture and food systems in promoting the health and wellbeing of people. Finally, as noted in the Global Nutrition Report, ensuring strong accountability in this area requires the measurement of national budget spending on nutrition. We applaud the inclusion of nutrition in 17.2.2, stunting as 2.2.1 and overweight <5 as 2.2.2, however, it is imperative to add: Percentage of children less than six months old who are fed breast milk alone (no other liquids or food) Prevalence of wasting (low weight-for-height) in children under 5 Percentage of women of reproductive age (15-49), including pregnant women, with anaemia Percentage of infants born low birth weight (< 2,500 g or 5.5 lbs) Percentage of women, 15-49 years of age, who consume at least 5 out of 10 defined food groups Percentage of national budget allocated to nutrition | http://www.thousanddays.org/resource/priority-nutrition-indicators-for-the-post-2015-sustainable-development-framework/ | |||||||||||||||||||
121 | 4/26/2015 23:09:06 | Brendan Guy | Natural Resources Defense Council | http://www.nrdc.org/ | International organization | Both | Yes | Proposed indicators for target 17.16 should include the establishment and resourcing of a multi-stakeholder partnership platform at the national level. | ||||||||||||||||||||
122 | 4/26/2015 23:40:22 | The World Youth Alliance is a global coalition of young people with over 80,000 individual members and a million more through affiliated organizations. We are committed to the promotion and protection of human dignity at the local, national and international levels. We have a particular interest in the Sustainable Development Goals, as we will be the inheritors of the future we build through these goals. We support strongly person-centered development. rneil@swinitiative.com | Sustainable World Initiative | The Sustainable World Initiative (SWI) is an organization dedicated to educating political leaders and the public about the global sustainability challenge and making policy recommendations for balancing human development with sustainable use of natural resources. SWI welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Technical Report by the Bureau of the UN Statistical Commission. The success of the SDGs will depend, in part, on how well countries can monitor their progress towards achieving environmental sustainability. None of the proposed indicators thus far is an accurate and complete measure of sustainability. Our comments and recommendations on relevant indicators are as follows. Target 8.4: While improving the resource intensity of their economic activities is an important goal for all nations, statistics on material efficiency alone will not inform policymakers and the public whether they are making progress towards absolute decoupling of economic growth and environmental degradation. Target 12.2: Indicators that measure the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources should include data on a country’s domestic consumption and overall footprint. However, this information is only a meaningful indicator of progress if it is paired with data on the country’s supply of natural resources. Target 15.1: Data on protected areas and forest area as a percentage of total land area, while useful, is not an adequate indicator of sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems. A comparison of the rate of extraction with the regenerative capacity of these ecosystems is necessary to determine whether a country’s demands for ecosystem services are sustainable. Recommendations: Each country has a quantifiable supply of renewable resources (such as fresh water, arable land and forests) and non-renewable resources (such as fossil fuels, metals and minerals) within its sovereign territory. The only way to determine whether a country has enough natural resources to sustain its economy and achieve its development aspirations is to conduct an assessment of the country’s natural resources which compares the country’s water footprint, energy demands and ecological footprint with the country’s corresponding resource capacity. If the ratio of demand to supply exceeds 1.0, the demand for resources is unsustainable. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
123 | 4/26/2015 23:41:54 | Nadja Wolfe | World Youth Alliance | http://www.wya.net | International organization | A data user | No | The World Youth Alliance is a global coalition of young people with over 80,000 individual members and a million more through affiliated organizations. We are committed to the promotion and protection of human dignity at the local, national and international levels. We have a particular interest in the Sustainable Development Goals, as we will be the inheritors of the future we build through these goals. We support strongly person-centered development. We note with particular concern the problems gathering data for the Report. As stated in the Report itself, there are concerns that it may be unduly optimistic as it was made available with only a short time frame and only in English. We agree with the Report that this is problematic, as those countries most in need of assistance are also those most likely to lack resources for quick turnaround and translation. The importance of the participation of developing countries in the development process cannot be overstated. For development to be truly successful, it must be driven by those it is designed to benefit. Approximately half of Member States participated in the survey, and developed countries are over-represented in the list (Annex 3). While all Member States have an important role to play, the targets and indicators matter most where the need is greatest. Therefore, we ask that before the list is finalized, additional efforts are made to seek input from developing nations, including additional time and translation to facilitate their full participation. We share also the concerns of some Member States regarding two particular targets. Targets 3.7 and 5.6 both advance policies that are not the subject of consensus and promote controversial policies as rights when they are not. The issues with these targets bleed into the indicators. Indicator 3.7.2 states that demand for modern contraceptive should satisfied, but no current statistics indicate what the demand is, only the lack of use, without accounting for individuals’ reasons for the lack of use. Indicators 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 not only advance policies many people, including many women, find objectionable, but, as indicated by their scores (CBB and BBB, respectively), are facile at best. The needs of women are better served by goals that truly reflect their needs and priorities rather than the policies of only some Member States. | ||||||||||||||||||||
124 | 4/27/2015 1:39:01 | Aashish Khullar | Major Group for Children and Youth- Children and Youth International | http://childrenyouth.org | International organization | A data user | No | None of the in goal 8, goal 9 or goal 12 incorporate the environmental or social dimensions in the indicators. This is not in line the there pillars of sustainable development. | https://childrenyouth.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/youth-targets-indicators_across-the-sdgs.pdf https://childrenyouth.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/chldren-and-youth-specefic-sdg-indicators-mapping.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||
125 | 4/27/2015 2:00:52 | Caribbean Policy Development Centre | Caribbean Policy Development Centre | http://www.cpdcngo.org/cpdc/ | International organization | Both | No | CPDC welcomes the technical report, while also noting the limitations. We note as well that some Member States are calling for a limited number of indicators. We agree however, with an approach at this stage which seeks to carefully map out all that is required as opposed to setting an artificial limit at this juncture. We do however note that the indicators must be sensitive to national and regional specificities of countries, particularly SIDS where data collection is an going challenging and the subject of ongoing capacity building. 1. Indicator 13.a.1 should be edited to indicate that USD 100 billion is to be mobilized by 2020 NOT after 2020. 2. Indicator 13.a.2 should be edited to indicated committed funds as opposed to only national resources which once again places the burden on developing countries 3.Generally indicators relating to target 17.17 needs to be enhanced - The only suggested indicator is the number of PPP projects. This reduces the goal to a promotion of private sector involvement in development activities. This does not express the idea of Goal 17;17. The present indicator will not measure civil society partnerships. Moreover, it completely ignores the need to measure the effectiveness of partnerships. Effectiveness can be measured by sustainability and also an indication can be formulated which examines the number of civil society partnerships established. Similarly, the indicators related to target 17.18 do not sufficiently measure the target. Measuring institutional arrangements will not measure a significant increase in availability. An indicator which measures increases in the production of publicly available statistics by SIDS, developing countries and least developed countries; disaggregated as described in the target. Additionally, there has to be an indicator measures the increase in capacity building resources available to these countries. | ||||||||||||||||||||
126 | 4/27/2015 2:10:55 | Aashish Khullar | Major Group for Children and Youth- Children and Youth International | http://childrenyouth.org | International organization | A data user | No | Already mentioned in the previous comment | ||||||||||||||||||||
127 | 4/27/2015 2:49:53 | Indra-Jeet Mistry | WWF | http://wwf.panda.org/ | International organization | Both | Yes | Yes, for example at the subnational level, WWF through its Earth Hour City Challenge project (www.panda.org/ehcc), in partnership with ICLEI - local governments for sustainability (www.iclei.org), has for the past three years worked with cities across the globe to report data related to their climate and sustainability performance. Last year the EHCC worked with 166 cities from 17 countries, assisting them to report data on for example, emissions reductions, climate targets, budgets, timelines and emissions reductions potentials allocated for individual sustainability actions. For more information see ww.panda.org/ehcc. | Increase the number of indicators that link outcomes in different goal areas, to actively drive interdisciplinary, inter-ministerial collaboration for systems-based approaches to national development planning, implementation and monitoring. For example, Target 1.4, Proposed Indicator 2 is important and should be reformulated to measure the percentage of women, men, indigenous peoples, and local communities (IPLCs) with secure rights to land, property, and natural resources. This formulation more clearly recognizes the direct link for many vulnerable populations between multi-dimensional poverty and access to natural resources. Enhance creative clustering across traditional sectors within the IAEG-SDG to foster systems-based perspectives and approaches. The Post-2015 monitoring framework must break new ground with some new indicators and strategically placed indicators that make explicit the interlinkages between environmental, social and economic outcomes. For instance, twenty-five of the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP) indicators, which measure progress towards the global Aichi Biodiversity Targets (and were adopted by 194 CBD Parties), are crosscutting in nature and could be used as indicators of progress across the SDGs framework. Balance measures of efficiency with sustainable ecological burden: Numerous indicators are proposed to measure the efficiency of resource use (e.g. water). However, experience has shown that a focus on efficiency is not enough to ensure that resource use stays within ecologically sustainable boundaries. Indicators for the Post-2015 agenda must strike a balance between combining efficiency with sustainable ecological burden at relevant levels (e.g. watershed, river basin, resource stock, total pollutant load). Make some space for innovation: Recognising the significant data challenges SDG monitoring will pose, the Post-2015 agenda indicator architecture has real potential to take a long stride forward towards a new way of measuring development progress. More investment is needed in designing indicators for measuring progress beyond GDP to include equally important measures of progress such as wellbeing and healthy ecosystems. Indicators that incorporate natural capital accounting and biodiversity data into national strategies and assessments of national economic performances would help in this regard. | |||||||||||||||||||
128 | 4/27/2015 4:31:09 | Magdalena Streijffert | Fairtrade in Sweden | http://fairtrade.se/ | National organization | A data producer | Yes | • On sustainable consumption: goal 12, targets 12.1 – indicator could be: o Option a) “Market share of goods and services certified by independently verified sustainability labelling schemes”. o Option b) “Market share of goods and services certified by independently verified Fair Trade and sustainability labelling schemes” • On sustainable procurement: goal 12, target 12.7 – indicator could be “Percentage of public procurement products and services that are certified by independently verified Fair Trade and sustainability labelling schemes” Our local authorities do have data for this in every city and region in Sweden and Fairtrade Sweden collect in those cities who are a Fairtrade Town. • On Public Private Partnerships (goal 17 target 17.17) “Number of PPP projects that include small farmers and Small and Medium Enterprises as equal partners” | We think that some of the indicators - especially regarding suistanible consumtion, there is a lack of indicatiors regarding reducing poverty. | |||||||||||||||||||
129 | 4/27/2015 6:35:21 | Anjela Taneja | Global Campaign For Education | http://campaignforeducation.org/ | International organization | Both | No | We feel that the report made a good effort towards identification of indicators for the full framework. Furthermore, the process of obtaining feedback from the National Statistics Commissions was a very good step that would ensure greater ownership over the data and help with implementation. In terms of the specific feedback, 1. Indicator development should drive national action, not just provide for international benchmarking: It is essential to prioritize indicators that are understandable by finance ministers and have the potential to drive decisions to finance the implementation of policies that will contribute to achievement of SDG targets. 2. Should not reduce the framework by focussing on only a narrow subset of the overall goal- eg. partnerships having only indicators of PPPs with private sector. 3. Process of indicator development provide for clear official space for participation of concerned thematic civil society in the processes of development of indicators, not just the stats wings of the UN agencies responsible for the specific goals. 3. Need for approproate segregation of data to ensure all categories recognized by the indicators are included. We also provide alternative formulation of indicators enclosed in the shared drive attached.. | https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_hsIz0eh3vRRGY2aDhueTFMaEU/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||
130 | 4/27/2015 8:27:26 | Peter Chapman | Open Society Justice Initiative | http://www.justiceinitiative.org/ | International organization | Both | Yes | Open Society Foundations is supporting civil society and governments in ten countries to experiment with approaches to measure and implement goal 16. These efforts are contextually specific, but all include a common objective of advancing productive government and civil society partnership in development planning. We look forward to discussing these efforts with the Commission and the Interagency Expert Group. | The UN Statistical Commission should evaluate the feasibility, suitability and relevance of individual indicators as well as how global indicators can work together—along with national measures—to present holistic pictures of progress. The technical report looked at specific indicators in isolation and did not base ratings on how indicators could work together. Particularly for Goal 16, we would encourage the Statistical Commission to explore the use of baskets of indicators. Progress towards justice and safety themes can be non-linear and difficult to track through administrative data alone. The framework should try to measure progress through administrative, experiential or perception and objective or structural indicators: • Administrative data: Improving access to justice and safety requires sustained government effort. Indicators which are based on administrative data will be important in presenting government effort and inputs. • Experiential data: Concrete improvements in the lives of the most vulnerable lies at the heart of the ambition for the SDGs. The framework can begin to respond to this by incorporating experience and perception indicators that capture real experiences of people. Through such tools, people’s experience can be central to overall assessments of progress. • Objective and structural data: Government effort does not always translate to immediate outcomes. Instead, progress can be measured by indicators designed to capture objective assessments of progress towards justice targets. Finally, civil society has an important role to play in assessing progress and the framework should elevate their, and people’s, experiences. Baskets of indicators will be a helpful tool to elevate people’s experiences and perspectives. We share the negotiator’s desire to avoid overburdening states with data collection, but baskets of indicators across targets and Goal 16 offer the opportunity to capture varied experiences. These indicators should draw on existing sources of data while simultaneously encouraging NSOs, other government agencies and civil society to use, and strengthen the collection and use of, new sources of data. Data collected for each indicator should be disaggregated as much as possible to help governments to design better policies, identify inequalities, and focus development efforts on those who need them most. | |||||||||||||||||||
131 | 4/27/2015 9:42:19 | Kristina Sperkova | IOGT International | http://www.iogt.org | International organization | A data user | No | We consider the two indicators for target 3.5 ineffective and not well-chosen as they won't be useful for following up actual developments of prevention and treatment of substance abuse. Indicator 3.5.2 Coverage of interventions for the prevention of substance abuse interventions among people under 25 This indicator unfortunately does not provide any relevant information related to the goal as prevention interventions are very often the least effective tools especially if other effective measures (effective alcohol control policies) are missing. Another reason would be a problem of measurement of this indicator. Therefore, IOGT International would like to propose an indicator that would measure total per capita alcohol consumption. The main reason for our suggestion is strong evidence of effective population approaches that suggest that a reduction in per capita alcohol consumption will reduce both health and social problems caused by alcohol use. Moreover many countries already measure the total alcohol consumption per capita. IOGT International therefore suggest the following indicator: Per capita consumption of litres of pure alcohol among persons aged 15+ | ||||||||||||||||||||
132 | 4/27/2015 12:38:54 | Lori Johnston | Southeast Indigenous Peoples' Center | http://www.southeastpeoples.org | International organization | Both | Yes | food production, incarceration rates, health impacts, ecosystem health with Indigenous Peoples in the Americas, benchmarking after the MDGs. Data compiled directly from Indigenous Peoples for use by Indigenous Peoples with Free Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples. | There is a dearth of data for Indigenous Peoples, especially for indigenous women. 'Disaggregation of data' implies that the data exists. Indigenous Peoples, due to safety, language, cultural, and political issues, are not necessarily represented in government or NGO surveys. The MPI and other indices are inadequate because of lack of relevance to indigenous concepts of development and non-financial development methods. The UN Statistical Commission's report failed to mention Indigenous Peoples or indigenous issues in their report. Indigenous Peoples are included in the document only where mentioned in the SDGs. 2.3 means Indigenous Peoples will be defined and colonized by colonial entities who come in, take our land and enslave us on their farms so they can double production 4.5 means our girls are forced to be indoctrinated with colonial language and concepts. The opportunity exists for a different outcome than the one currently proposed by the UN. If data is contributed by Indigenous Peoples, with our Free Prior and Informed Consent, from our own databases, gathered through our own methodology, translated into non-financial frameworks for relevant SDG financial equivalents, Indigenous Peoples can be participants in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, instead of the victims of SDGs we are now invited to be. | https://sites.google.com/a/southeastpeoples.org/home/education/research/indicators | ||||||||||||||||||
133 | 4/28/2015 9:25:54 | Aisha Dasgupta | Marie Stopes International | http://mariestopes.org/ | International organization | Both | No | We would recommend inclusion of modern Contraceptive Prevalence Rate. Although it is not a perfect indicator, it is a good indicator of the success of family planning programmes. | ||||||||||||||||||||
134 | 4/29/2015 15:59:54 | Corann Okorodudu | Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues | http://www.spssi.org | International organization | Both | No | The indicators provided by the first report of the UN Statistical Commission has begun the work. However, significant expansion and inclusiveness are needed to assess progress on the goals and targets in various social groups beyond age and sex/gender, especially in vulnerable groups identified on the basis of race/ethnicity, indigenous status, national origin etc. | Integrating the Reduction of Inequalities due to Racism into the Framework of the UN Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda: Recommendations from Civil Society https://drive.google.com/a/students.rowan.edu/file/d/0B497AOt1SEyTMjNkMi1wQmU0eUE/view?usp=sharing | |||||||||||||||||||
135 | 5/12/2015 11:35:50 | Stuart Butchart | BirdLife International | http://www.birdlife.org | International organization | A data producer | Yes | 1. Red List Index - for methods see: Butchart et al 2004 PLoS Biology 2(12): e383. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383. Butchart et al 2007 PLoS One 2(1): e140. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0000140 Butchart et al 2010 Science 328: 1164-1168 Data available for all countries 1980s onwards. 2. Protected Area coverage of biodiversity For methods see Butchart et al 2015 Cons. Lett. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12158. and Butchart et al. 2012 PLoS ONE 7(3): e32529. Data available for all countries from 1900 onwards. | Indicator 14.52 "Coverage of protected areas" focuses solely on numeric coverage, but this is a poor measure of whether the most important places for biodiversity are protected. Suggest rewording as "Coverage by protected areas of marine extent and marine sites of particular importance for biodiversity", using Key Biodiversity Areas as one way of identifying the latter. Indicator 15.1.1 "Coverage of protected areas broken down by ecosystem type". Coverage by ecosystems is more useful than coverage alone (see comments on indicator 14.52 above), but much better to use "Coverage by protected areas of ecosystems and important sites for biodiversity" as the latter are the precise locations where effective conservation is needed to "halt the decline in biodiversity" [See Butchart et al PLoS ONE 7(3): e32529]. Indicator 15.4.1 Coverage of protected areas. See comments for 14.52. Suggest rewording as "Coverage by protected areas of mountain ecosystems and important sites for montane biodiversity" Indicator 15.5.1 Red List Index. The score of B indicates that some countries think that it is challenging to implement. However, an indicator based on a relevant disaggregation of the global RLI is easy to produce. IUCN and BirdLife are facilitating this by working on making it easy to download the national RLI and data from the IUCN Red List and BirdLife websites. This comment also applies to Indicators 15.7.1 and 15.8.2. [For info, note that the name "Red List Index" should not be taken to imply that the indicator is produced by aggregating a number of disparate metrics, in the same way that the Ocean Health Index or Multidimensional Poverty Index is compiled. Instead the RLI is an indicator of trends in species' extinction risk, as measured using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, and is compiled from data on changes over time in the Red List Category for each species, excluding any changes driven by improved knowledge or revised taxonomy.] Indicator 15.8.2 RLI for birds showing trends driven by invasive alien species. Note that this does not need to be restricted to birds. We have produced this index for mammals and amphibians too, so you can delete "for birds" from the title, making this consistent with Indicators 14.52.15.51 and 15.71. We support the inclusion of this indicator as one of the few global metrics illustrating the impact of invasive alien species on native biodiversity. | |||||||||||||||||||
136 | 6/2/2015 19:13:43 | Andrew Potts | ICOMOS | http://www.icomos.org/en/ | International organization | Both | No | We are writing to give feedback regarding Target 11.4. We feel strongly that Target 11.4 needs a strong, primary indicator. We propose the following: By 2030, significantly increase the percentage of urban areas supported by sustainable development policies, programs and funding at the national and local levels that include explicit cultural, natural and historic elements. | ||||||||||||||||||||
137 | 9/8/2015 23:57:03 | HITESH BHATT | To eradicate corrupt practices from the system & improve living standard of people from WATER & Senitation in India./world. | https://www.google.com/url | International organization | Both | Yes | In nutshell to view & implement these practices in larger perspective your feedback is of more importance so as to enable me to set the guiding principle to set the ball on rolling to eradicate corruption. The systems prevailing in India need to be revamped so as to instill the sense of accountability in the minds of custodians. And for this the contribution of people is also needed along with the honest & literate participation of political WILL. There for I Hitesh Bhatt---- as an individual, openly declare my participation to change the course of corrupt & lethargic & crippled administration & judiciary systems norms. The problems being faced by me is mainly attributed to not succumbing to malicious tactics of the officials leading to corruption. As said above I need an empowerment & a forum to undertake activities to bring about the solutions in the area of social inequalities, right to have basic civic amenities like drinking water connection, house hold domestic electricity connection, cleanliness surrounding resident area, sewerage sanitation line, street light, etc…, social-economic up-liftman of poor & needy, education to all, poverty alleviation, democratic rights to all in real sense etc…… I, the claimant, am facing the problems related to not being able to enjoy the basic civic amenities for the past 11-12 years in spite of falling eligible with respect to my individuality. | Reforms relating to administrative system & judiciary system should be done later; firstly the department should stringently ask the officiating concerned department to redress the grievance with immediate effect. The authorities concerned should note that the future correspondence, if any, to be done on the address as mentioned below for I take the actions taken/will & is – Hitesh H Bhatt. 35/C, Dahiba nager society, Opp: Shreyas School, Manjal pur Naka, Vadodara-390 011. Gujarat. India. The area in which I am residing & the wrong & delay practices adopted by the local politicians including all elected & non elected member of all stages like parliament, vidhanshabha, District pachayat, Taluka pachayat, municipal councilor & bureaucrats working in civic body, all are involved in committing wrongful acts involving illegal possession of land owned by the government. The so called politicians have always assured & attracted the electorate, when the elections are held, by raising issues pertaining to development of area. Be it an election for electing municipal councilors, be it a vidhan sabha or be it an election of Lok sabha. | As Individuals who contribute positively to improving the living environment.& WATER SOLUTION-2015. Kindly be informed of the replies for the points you have raised. please below mentioned information in the word format, to complete my as an individual nomination form. I want to keep my identity in the close circuit as I do not want myself to be exposed my region as India Pride Awards jury member unless it is necessary. Written communication & prompt replies on the action taken or to be taken help of any kind. 1) Your Designation: An individual fighting & defending against the corrupt practices being adopted in Govt. departments/Government of India/government of Gujarat/Gujarat Electricity Board, now, MGVCL/ Vadodara Municipal Corporation, now, VMSS.& whole administration/Judiciary system. 2) Current Employment: I am defining & designing true kind of culture for the systems prevailing in BHARAT. 3) Current Organization: I am a whistle blower & to raise a voice of truth I do not think one should have any organization. 4) Reason why nominee deserves an award ( Upto 5 points): All my findings are ___________ _ empirical. _ achieved on my own. _ based on having personal interactions & exchange of views with the officials concerned in the systems.( whole in India). _ based on pains, trauma, mental & physical torture & above all threat of life mine & my family member. _ no support of any kind from any government body, Judiciary, administration, media, & political system. |