{"id":407,"date":"2015-05-15T11:16:32","date_gmt":"2015-05-15T10:16:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nisr\/?p=407"},"modified":"2015-05-15T12:00:25","modified_gmt":"2015-05-15T11:00:25","slug":"sustainable-development-goal-indicators-are-technical-but-also-political","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nisr\/sustainable-development-goal-indicators-are-technical-but-also-political\/","title":{"rendered":"Sustainable Development Goal Indicators are technical, but also political"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the first of a blog series\u00a0from Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes<\/span><\/a> on the UN Sustainable Development Goals<\/a>\u00a0(SDGs),\u00a0exploring the targets and indicators of sustainable development that have been mapped out for the United Nations post-2015. The Theme Institutes are well placed to contribute to the SDGs, which aim to address the social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainable development. Dr Graham Long <\/a>is Senior Lecturer in Politics, in the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology <\/a>at Newcastle University, and he\u00a0introduces the series, hosted by the Institute for Sustainability<\/a>,\u00a0with a\u00a0political context for the SDGs, arguing that the goals in practice <\/strong>may differ from what has been set out on paper. <\/em><\/p>\n

\"Earth<\/a><\/p>\n

SDG indicators: the technical track<\/strong><\/p>\n

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) currently under negotiation at the UN have reached the \u2018science bit\u2019. A dedicated technical track is in place to decide upon the indicators to accompany the goals and targets \u2013\u00a0that is, what will be (and indeed what can be<\/em>) measured. This exercise will extend into March 2016.\u00a0 The UN Statistical Commission <\/span><\/a>(UNSC) and National Statistical Commissions are charged with arriving at an account of how progress towards the goals will be measured. Alongside a set of global indicators, particular national and even regional indicators might also emerge. When, say, David Hulme \u2013\u00a0a leading international expert on the Millennium Development Goals \u2013\u00a0calls for academic engagement<\/span><\/a>, the coming months may be a decisive moment for just that.<\/p>\n

This is all good, technical stuff on which academics have the knowledge and the mindset to engage \u2013\u00a0assessing weighty issues of methodology and measurability, science and statistics, proxies and paradigms, disaggregation and \u2018data revolution\u2019. Via the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN)<\/span><\/a> and the Scientific and Technological UN Major Group<\/span><\/a>, as well as other expert groups and networks, academics have already had input into this process. Indeed, the Scientific and Technological Major Group\u2019s core role is to facilitate the participation of the scientific community on matters of sustainable development. The UNSC, SDSN and the Independent Expert Advisory Group (IEAG<\/span><\/a>) on the Data Revolution, have all recently run open consultations on these kinds of technical questions. As new drafts of the indicators are prepared, we can expect opportunities for input to continue.<\/p>\n

However, just because this is a \u2018technical\u2019 exercise, doesn\u2019t mean that it\u2019s not also political \u2013 that is, it is fundamentally about \u201cwho gets what, when and how\u201d[1]. Indeed, the United Nations Statistical Commission<\/span><\/a> (UNSC)\u00a0states that it expects \u201cbroad political guidance\u201d from states on questions of indicators. States (and other actors) involved in negotiating the SDGs are acutely aware of how important the indicators are for the framework that results. Given very broad goal areas, and targets (currently) of varying quality and effectiveness, the indicators will bear a lot of the burden of the SDG framework. They can, in effect, \u2018make or break\u2019 the agreement that results. What we choose to measure will dictate where states\u2019 activities are directed\u00a0as states are keen on saying, \u2018what gets measured gets done\u2019.\u00a0 The concrete indicators will be taken to indicate, amongst other things, what these broad and aspirational goals were really driving at in the first place.<\/p>\n

Indicators and the review process<\/strong><\/p>\n

Accurate data \u2013\u00a0and the right data \u2013\u00a0will be important for the review and follow up framework for the goals. Data is indeed \u201cthe raw material of accountability\u201d, as the IEAG proclaims. However, there is a lot more to accountability than just data \u2013\u00a0notably, the responsiveness of actors and the presence of standards and sanctions. The SDG agenda is not even really about accountability \u2013\u00a0even though it will be accompanied by a monitoring mechanism of some stripe. These are \u201caspirational\u201d and \u201cvoluntary\u201d goals, and their complexity tells against attempts to allocate responsibilities to particular actors.<\/p>\n

Even if we are speaking of \u2018monitoring\u2019 or \u2018follow up\u2019 rather than accountability in a strict sense, indicators are but raw materials of a process. They have to be assessed in appropriate structures and forums. Whilst the indicators themselves are technical, the arenas in which they will be used are decidedly not. And without institutions that allow for scrutiny, all the scientifically valid indicators and successful measurement in the world will not give us effective review or monitoring, let alone accountability. This framework for monitoring and review is up for discussion at the next set of intergovernmental negotiations in May. Received wisdom indicates that state, regional and global institutions will have a role, with the recently-established \u201cHigh Level Political Forum\u201d<\/span><\/a>. However, much of how this will operate is still to be decided.<\/p>\n

\"Financial<\/a><\/p>\n

Reflecting goals and targets<\/strong><\/p>\n

On the one hand, a broad and complex agenda to apply to every country suggests that comprehensive coverage would require a large number of indicators. On the other, there is a clear limit on the number that will be practicable. In the context of these conflicting imperatives, which<\/em> indicators are finally chosen is a question with great political significance for the goals. It looks important to select indicators that at least reflect the spirit, intent or guiding idea of each goal area. Indicators must strive for technical rigour. But if they do not accurately capture the key aspirations for each goal, then the goal in practice<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 come March 2016 \u2013\u00a0will not reflect the goal on paper<\/em> in September 2015. Again, this demonstrates how important the formulation and selection of indicators will be. States, through negotiation, will decide on the essence of the goals and exercise final control over how this judgement will be made, something that will surely prove to be difficult and controversial.<\/p>\n

The limit to the scope for \u201ctechnical\u201d assessment is clearly indicated by the way that, even as the indicator <\/em>process was confirmed as technical, many states vigorously rejected technical proofing of the targets<\/em>, even though the targets are very mixed in quality and just as crucial. For some states, evidently, the targets are too political to be technical. Other states invoked technical inputs precisely to make the opposite political point. When the Scientific and Technological Major Group \u2013 offering \u201cthe science perspective\u201d \u2013 reported that only 29% of the targets are \u201cwell-formulated and based on latest scientific evidence\u201d[2], this finding was widely invoked in favour of proofing and pruning of targets.<\/p>\n

No escape from politics<\/strong><\/p>\n

We should proceed with caution about any assumption that the indicator debate, by virtue of being \u201ctechnical\u201d or \u201cscientific\u201d, is not also political. For those stepping into such issues, \u2018forewarned is forearmed\u2019. But also, the SDGs offer a much broader agenda for study by almost every branch of the sciences and social sciences \u2013 from assessments of their ultimate ends and assumptions, or their place in a wider history of \u2018development\u2019 initiatives, down to the detailed content of every indicator. The SDGs need expert scrutiny in every root and branch. Not only where such academic input would be welcomed by states, but also precisely where it might not be.<\/p>\n

[1] To adapt Harold Lasswell\u2019s phrase from his book Politics: who gets what, when, how <\/em>(New York: Whittlesey House. 1936).<\/p>\n

[2] http:\/\/www.icsu.org\/publications\/reports-and-reviews\/review-of-targets-for-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-science-perspective-2015\/SDG-Report.pdf<\/p>\n

These are the author\u2019s personal views, and do not necessarily reflect the position of any larger organisation. (Contact <\/em>graham.long@newcastle.ac.uk<\/em><\/span><\/a>\u00a0to find out more)<\/em><\/p>\n

Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes:<\/em><\/p>\n