A new voice has emerged in support of having an access to information “indicator” to measure implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Although the goals include access to information (ATI), SDG 16.10, no parallel indicator has been included so far by the UN body drafting the list of measurement tools. The process of selecting these indicators is nearing a crucial moment.
ATI activists gained support for their position in a report by the conveners of conference held Jan. 28-29 in Oslo, Norway. The conveners were the UN Development Programme’s Oslo Governance Center (OGC) and the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). “The meeting was attended by 78 representatives from National Statistical Offices (NSOs), governments, multilateral agencies, research and policy institutions, and civil society organizations.”
The summary section of the report by the convenors says:
16.10 is a critical enabling condition for the implementation of all 17 SDGs.
Therefore, the Conveners suggest the inclusion of an indicator measuring the: adoption and implementation of constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information (Tier 1). UNESCO and OHCHR already collect information on the adoption and implementation of national legislation on the Right to Information, and this could be officially submitted by NSOs after validation at the country level.
Supporters of an ATI indicator hope, but are not optimistic, that an ATI indicator will be included in a forthcoming report by the UN’s Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDGs (IAEG-SDG), which has been developing an indicators package for about year. The working group is expected to release its recommendations in mid-February for consideration in the early March meeting of the UN Statistical Commission. The working group, however, will continue deliberating (a meeting in scheduled in late March), suggesting that the additional tweaks to the Commission’s recommendations could occur before September, when the UN General Assembly is scheduled to expected to consider approving the indicators.
Two Ideas in 16.10; One indicator
To date, an ATI indicator has been squeezed out.
There are 17 overall goals and 169 specific “targets” in the overall plan designed to wipe out poverty, fight inequality and tackle climate change over the next 15 years. The final number of indictors is expected to be about 230 and there has been pressure to hold down that number.
Goal 16.10 includes two components — freedom of expression and freedom of information — leading to calls for dual indicators.
The draft list of indicators developed in mid-12015, however, only contained one indicator: a controversial proposal to measure freedom of expression by tallying the numbers of journalists, trade unionists and human rights advocates killed annually.
An alternative to this approach was discussed at the Oslo meeting. “There was support” for an an indicator measuring the percentage of population who believe they can express political opinion without fear, according to the report. But there was “no agreement on whether it should be alternate or additional” to the indicator based on killings.
Support for ATI Indicator
Having two indicators for 16.10 has been endorsed by UNESCO, other UN bodies, the World Bank and a consortium of some 180 nongovernmental organizations represented by the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD). “This dual-indicator approach is, to varying degrees, supported by FAO, UNEP, seven African IAEG members, the USA, Canada, and others,” according to the UNESCO submission in late 2015.
Earlier in 2015, however, when pressed by the Statistical Commission to support only one indicator for 16.10, UNESCO backed an indicator for its top priority, freedom of expression. The UN Development Programme previously has not backed the ATI indicator, instead supporting the retaliation indicator now included and a measure of budget transparency.
In another favorable signal for an ATI indicator, one of the co-chairs of the 28-member expert working group, Enrique Ordaz from Mexico, told FreedomInfo.org recently via e-mail that that “there will be a discussion on alternative indicators to select an additional one to this target.”
The convenors of the Oslo meeting also discussed an alternative indicator on freedom of expression: “We suggest the inclusion of an indicator measuring the: percentage of population who believe they can express political opinion without fear (by age, sex, civic involvement and population groups).”
In recent months, the outward signs did not appear good for inclusion of a separate ATI indicator. (See previous FreedomInfo.org report.)
The committee has been meeting deliberating virtually and privately to prepare the report for the Statistical Commission, which is scheduled to meet March 8-11 in New York.
Text of Relevant Portion of Report
Concerning the 16.10 indicator, the report from the Oslo meeting states (full text):
Target 16.10 Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements
Target 16.10 refers to two conceptually distinct yet mutually reinforcing commitments —namely ‘access to information’ and ‘fundamental freedoms’ — and as such requires indicators that capture both aspects to be consistent with the intent of the target.
16.10.1* Number of verified cases of killing, kidnapping, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture of journalists, associated media personnel, trade unionists and human rights advocates in the previous 12 months (Tier II)
Strength of the indicator: It will directly measure violations against some of those who exercise their fundamental freedoms.
Methodologically feasible: Information on the number of violations committed against human rights defenders is compiled annually by OHCHR from national sources submitted to its human rights mechanisms and through its field offices. Information on the number of journalists killed is compiled annually by UNESCO from data collected from press reports, monitoring groups, direct reports, and information from UNESCO field offices and other UN bodies. Information on trade unionists killed, disappeared and detained is compiled by: 1) ILO through submissions made to their regular system of supervision of International Labour Standards and through complaints submitted to the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association; 2) International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) through reports submitted by national and regional trade union organizations on an annual basis for the ITUC Annual Survey on the violation of trade union rights; and 3) International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) through submissions made by national independent trade unions of journalists. Building on these existing methodologies, OHCHR, UNESCO and ILO, possibly coordinated by the Praia Group, could propose to the IAEG-SDG a methodology for this indicator that would ensure harmonization of data sources.
Leveraging national sources while ensuring triangulation with third-party data: While primary data sources for this indicator would be national, including cases compiled by national human rights institutions, non-governmental organizations, trade unions and other relevant entities, triangulation methods drawing from multiple sources, including international sources, could then be applied to cross-check and verify national data.
There was also support for the following indicator, but no agreement on whether it should be alternate or additional to the above: Percentage of population who believe they can express political opinion without fear (by age, sex, civic involvement and population groups) (Tier II)
Meets the ambition of the target: Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom, and this indicator, by asking people about their lived experience of this principle in their daily life, would measure the ‘positive’ outcome of the target (i.e. freedom of expression), thus providing an important complement to the other indicator measuring the negative outcomes (i.e. cases of abuse).
Methodologically feasible: At the regional level, the SHaSA survey on Governance, Peace and Security conducted in twelve African countries has demonstrated the feasibility of this indicator when surveys are conducted by NSOs. Likewise, the regional multi-country Barometers include a similar item. The Praia Group could draw on this experience to develop a harmonized method for collecting this indicator.
Statistical effect: When investigated statistically using close proxy perception variables, drawn from the World Justice Project or Afrobarometer, this indicator correlates well with the overall Goal 16 outcome.
Participants also suggested the following indicator to capture the breadth of the target:
Adoption and implementation of constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information (some aspects are Tier 1)
Meets the ambition of the target: This option provides an indicator on access to information, so is consistent with the intent of the target.
Universally relevant: As of 2015, more than 100 of 193 member states have adopted access to information laws or mechanisms – up from 13 in 1990 — and even while adoption of national legislation is not yet universal, all member states have endorsed this principle. Practical implementation of this legislation, however, has been uneven.
Critically relevant to the entire SDG Agenda: The Conveners believe that Target 16.10 and its focus on access to information is a critical enabling condition for the implementation of all 17 SDGs: goals will not be achieved unless people are able to freely access information about these goals. Access to information is also catalytic for the achievement of Goal 16 as a whole, particularly in regards to target 16.7: meaningful participation in democratic processes requires informed participants with access to a broad range of information.
Methodologically feasible: Information on the adoption and implementation of national legislation on the Right to Information is already being collected by UNESCO and the World Bank, and could be officially submitted by NSOs after due consideration and validation of this data at country level.
Disadvantages: This indicator is mostly static. Furthermore, adoption of laws does not reflect implementation and peoples’ lived experience. This warrants discussion about a possible alternative indicator on access to information. The expert meeting did not have time to delve deeper into that issue.
Filed under: What's New