Click here to load reader

Lesson Learned from MDG Monitoring

  • View
    47

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Lesson Learned from MDG Monitoring. Workshop on Millennium Development Goals Monitoring: 2015 and Beyond (Bangkok, 9-13 July 2012). What have we achieved with the monitoring framework (1)?. Advantages of having an agreed framework for monitoring the development agenda: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Text of Lesson Learned from MDG Monitoring

  • Lesson Learned from MDG MonitoringWorkshop on Millennium Development Goals Monitoring: 2015 and Beyond(Bangkok, 9-13 July 2012)

  • What have we achieved with the monitoring framework (1)?

    Advantages of having an agreed framework for monitoring the development agenda:Strong partnership between the international statistical systems and countries for the development of statistics for MDG indicatorsImproved coordination within countries for reporting at the national and sub-national levelIncreased attention to the need for strengthening statistical capacity

  • What have we achieved with the monitoring framework (2)?

    Advantages of having an agreed framework for monitoring the development agenda:Improved data availabilityPromoted a dialogue between national and international statistical systems on statistical capacity building and other important issuesPromoted the adoption of internationally agreed statistical standards and helped resolve inconsistencies between national and international data sets

  • Chart2

    52.7272727273

    9.0909090909

    23.6363636364

    1.8181818182

    7.2727272727

    5.4545454545

    Percentage

    %

    MDG indicators series by nature of data, as of July 2011

    Table 1

    Percentage of Countries

    Number of Indicators for which trend analysis is possible200320062011

    0 - 52996

    6 - 1040138

    11 - 15312624

    16 - 2205262

    Table 1

    2003

    2006

    2011

    %

    Percentage of countries in MDG indicator database, by number of indicator series for which trend analysis is possible

    Nature

    Nature of dataNumber of IndicatorsPercentage

    Country Data2953

    Country Adjusted59

    Estimated1324

    Modeled12

    Global monitoring data47

    Not Available35

    Total55100

    Nature

    Percentage

    %

    MDG indicators series by nature of data, as of July 2011

    Sheet3

  • Chart3

    28.83435582829.20245398776

    40.49079754613.49693251538

    30.674846625825.766871165624

    051.533742331362

    2003

    2006

    2011

    %

    Percentage of countries in MDG indicator database, by number of indicator series for which trend analysis is possible

    Table 1

    Percentage of Countries

    Number of Indicators for which trend analysis is possible200320062011

    0 - 52996

    6 - 1040138

    11 - 15312624

    16 - 2205262

    Table 1

    2003

    2006

    2011

    %

    Percentage of countries in MDG indicator database, by number of indicator series for which trend analysis is possible

    Nature

    Nature of dataNumber of IndicatorsPercentage

    Country Data2953

    Country Adjusted59

    Estimated1324

    Modeled12

    Global monitoring data47

    Not Available35

    Total55100

    Nature

    Percentage

    %

    MDG indicators series by nature of data, as of July 2011

    Sheet3

  • On the monitoring: what have we learnt (1)?Indicators were perceived by national statistical systems primarily as a top-down initiativeHaving a fixed list of indicators may distort policy prioritiesThe framework overlooks inequality and specific population groupsGlobal targets were interpreted as national targets, penalizing the poorer countries

  • On the monitoring: what have we learnt (2)?The numerical targets were erroneously set (generally too ambitious and based on global trends dominated by a few countries) There is often no consistency between targets and indicators Some targets are poorly specified Inconsistencies between national and international data created problems at the national level and tension in the international statistical community

  • MDG Monitoring:Setting targets: a few examplesGoal 4: Target 4.A: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rateOnly about 25 countries reduced by two-thirds from 1990 to 2010. Among these 25 countries, most of them are high income or middle income countries with relatively low under-five mortality rate (U5MR)If the annual rate of decline over 2000-2010 continues, the world will not reach MDG 4 until 2037

  • MDG Monitoring:Setting targets: a few examplesMeasuring relative change vs. absolute changePerformance on most of the MDGs are measured in relative terms, which puts countries with a poor starting point at a disadvantage.Monitoring MDG progress should use both relative and absolute changes and should investigate the association between them to gain the maximum possible insight into the MDG progress.Example: Goal 4 Reduce Under-Five Child Mortality by two thirds

  • MDG Monitoring:Setting targets: a few examplesTop 20 performers based Relative Change (RC) over 1990-2010, RC= (X2010-X1990)/X1990

  • MDG Monitoring:Setting targets: a few examplesTop 20 performers based Absolute Change (AC) over 1990-2010, AC= X2010-X1990

  • MDG Monitoring:Setting targets: a few examplesBaseline year:The Millennium Declaration was adopted in September 2000 by the General Assembly and the MDG monitoring framework was established in 2001.1990 is normally used as the reference/benchmark year for MDG monitoring. This leads to a discrimination against countries with poor 1990s performance.

  • Reduce extreme poverty by half - Bolivia

  • Reduce Child Mortality and Maternal Mortality Progress toward achieving these two MDGs are assessed by calculating an average annual rate of reduction (AARR). The AARR is calculated on an exponential basis, which assumes a continuous, exponential reduction between two points in time.

  • Reduce Child Mortality and Maternal Mortality

  • MDG Monitoring: The selection of the indicators and their relevance to the targets: a few examplesGoal 3. Promote gender equality and empower womenTarget 3.A. Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and to all levels of education no later than 2015

    Ind. 3.2 - Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector (ILO)The target does not address the whole spectrum of the goal.The indicator does not have a clear link with the target.The indicator is not completely adequate to address gender equality in the labour market. Other variables would need to be considered, such as working conditions, the levels of remuneration and wage differentials, labour legislation and social benefits, full-time versus part-time jobs, the status in employment, the importance of the informal sector/home-based work in the country, etc.

  • Experience with monitoring the MDGs

    The IAEG has initiated work to assess its experience in monitoring the MDGs in order to provide the necessary technical inputs to guide the formulation of a possible post 2015 monitoring frameworkTesting proposals for a set of criteria for the selection of indicators (prepared by countries member of the IAEG)Doing the analytical work necessary for the formulation of targets (based not only on global trends, but for different groups of countries)

  • Criteria for the selection of the indicators

    The IAEG is working on testing criteria for the selectionof the key indicators to be included in the framework. Thecriteria being tested include principles such as:National statistical systems should be fully involved in the selection of common indicatorsThere should be continuity with the current set of indicatorsIndicators must have well established metadata and be relevant to most countriesIndicators should be based on existing internationally agreed definitions and classificationsIndicators should not require ad hoc data collection

  • Criteria for the selection of the indicators (2)

    Indicators should have an unambiguous interpretation: more (or less) is always better (or worse)Indicators should be clearly linked to the targetIndicators should be sensitive to interventions/change/progress (short term)Each indicator should have some complementarities to other indicators (helps constitute a monitoring system)

  • Some reflections by the IAEG

    Different targets should be set at the national level (the IAEG has agreed to eliminate the on track/off track assessment for countries)Numerical targets should be realistically set, based on assessment of trends in regions, sub-regions and/or smaller groups of countries as necessary (a plausible historical/analytical basis -- analytical work by IAEG is ongoing)The set of indicators should be developed with a view to keeping the burden to countries to a minimumThe monitoring framework should include a minimum set of common indicators, supplemented by indicators to measure processes/efforts to be used (including at the national level)

  • Indicators should measure both absolute change and relative changeChanges in population size and structure should be explicitly incorporated in the monitoring toolIndicators should regularly be reported for different groups of the population when relevant, and indicators be to the largest extent possible disaggregated by sex, wealth quintiles, and urban/rural residence, and disparities monitored over timeSome reflections by the IAEG

  • The way forward

    The IAEG will conduct the testing and analytical work. At the October 2012 meeting, the proposals will be reviewed by representatives from national statistical systems.The Statistical Commission will also prepare a contribution on key issues that should find their place in the post-2015 agenda, as requested by the president of ECOSOC and provide its contribution to the Bureau of the Council by the end of December 2012.

  • THANK YOU