More than 160 organizations have challenged the transparency of the process being used by the United Nations to develop the indicators that will be used to measure progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals.

The groups sent a “open letter” Feb. 19 to the chairman of the UN Statistical Commission and the chairs of the Interagency Expert Working Group on the DGS.

The groups raise concerns about “the extent to which inputs from stakeholders have been taken into consideration.” The letter states: “Whilst we have been providing inputs on a regular basis, we are concerned that there is a disconnect between our inputs and the proposed indicators. We feel that many of our contributions are not being taken into consideration and adequately reflected in the report.”

The working group recently issued its report to the statistical commission, adding a new indicator that was sought by the access to information community. (See related FreedomInfo.org report.) The working group met in public in Thailand in October and developed its February report through virtual deliberations.

More Openness Sought

The groups also object that “the limited window of openness and transparency, compromises the final outcome and creates a real danger of reduction of the SDG targets.” It is not the first time interest groups have raised concerns about the transparency of the process, a similar letter was sent in 2015, resulting in some improvements before the meeting in Thailand, the letter says.

The groups request the convening of regular meetings of civil society and other relevant stakeholders “to brief them on the state of play, with regards to the global and regional indicator development process, how various inputs have led to substantive or marginal revisions and what opportunities are created to ensure an inclusive process.” Regional meetings are also suggested.

The groups also ask for clarity on how indicators are rated and propose a longer time frame, from March 2016 to August 2016, for their development.

Three Main Concerns

The letter cites three major concerns:

1. Transparency and inclusion – Although the President of the General Assembly’s briefing on January 28th reaffirmed the need for the upcoming processes to be fully inclusive in a meaningful way, this is not being fully realised. Our experience so far around civil society engagement and incorporation of our proposals raise questions around principles of participation, transparency and inclusion. Our experience thus far throughout the indicator process is in sharp contrast to the level of participation that led to the development of the 2030 Agenda through the Open Working Group and the post 2015 intergovernmental negotiations. It is unacceptable, for example, that agreements achieved at the second meeting of the IAEG -SDGs in Bangkok were later modified without allowing further inputs and insight.It has been recognised in the IAEG-SDGs (E/CN.3/2016/2) Para 11-16 that civil society and stakeholders contributions were received. However these inputs (through online questionnaires and formal submissions) were rarely taken onboard during the deliberations of the IAEG or reflected in the outcomes, without any process for feedback, explanation or consultations.

2. Regional and Thematic indicators – As mentioned in the report of the IAEG -SDGs (E/CN.3/2016/2), paragraph 23, thematic indicators have already been developed in a number of areas. Similarly, processes of development of regional indicators are also underway. Apparently, involvement of civil society and stakeholders in the development of these indicators with colleagues from different regions is patchy and leaves much to be desired.

3. Timeline for finalization of the Global Indicators – As the global indicators will form the core of and starting point for all other sets of indicators, one cannot underestimate the importance of getting this done correctly from the start. It is not just about setting the right benchmarks, but ensuring the right level of ambition is set, and that this is adequately tracked and measured. As you know, many of the ambitions reflected in the 2030 Agenda are a result of inputs, from millions of people across the world, in the Open Working Group and post-2015 intergovernmental negotiations. A reductionist agenda resulting from ignoring the civil society inputs on robust and strong indicators is not acceptable. We also support the sentiments echoed by some Member States, putting into question the March 2016 deadline for the adoption of the global indicators. Given that a lot more work is needed, across all tiers of indicators, it would be prudent to take a few more months for meaningful multi-stakeholder consultations and not sacrifice quality for speed and a weak outcome.

.

.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Filed under: IFTI Watch