lesson learned from mdg monitoring workshop on millennium development goals monitoring: 2015 and...

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:Strong partnership between the international

statistical systems and countries for the development of statistics for MDG indicators

Improved coordination within countries for reporting at the national and sub-national level

Increased 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 issues

Promoted the adoption of internationally agreed statistical standards and helped resolve inconsistencies between national and international data sets

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Country Data Country

Adjusted

Estimated Modeled Global

monitoring

data

Not Available

%

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 22

%

2003 2006 2011

On the monitoring: what have we learnt (1)?

Indicators were perceived by national statistical systems primarily as a “top-down” initiative

Having a fixed list of indicators may distort policy priorities

The framework overlooks inequality and specific population groups

Global 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 examples

• Goal 4: Target 4.A: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate– Only 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 examples

• Measuring relative change vs. absolute change‾ Performance 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 examples

• Top 20 performers based Relative Change (RC) over 1990-2010, RC= (X2010-X1990)/X1990

 Low

income

Lower middle income

Upper middle income

High income Total

Caucasus and Central Asia   1     1

Eastern Asia   2     2

Latin America & the Caribbean   1 5   6

Northern Africa   2     2

Oceania   1     1

South-eastern Asia 1   1   2

Southern Asia 2 1     3

Western Asia     1  2 3

Total 3 8 7 2 20

MDG Monitoring:Setting targets: a few examples

• Top 20 performers based Absolute Change (AC) over 1990-2010, AC= X2010-X1990

 Low

income

Lower middle income Total

Eastern Asia   1 1

South-eastern Asia 1   1

Southern Asia 2 2 4

Sub-Saharan Africa 13 1 14

Total 16 4 20

MDG Monitoring:Setting targets: a few examples

Baseline 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

4.03

18.94

24.722.81

13.97

19.62

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1991 1997 1999 2002 2005 2007

Reduce Child Mortality and Maternal Mortality

Region

Under-5 Child Mortality Maternal Mortality

AARR AARR AARR AARR

(1990-2000) (2000-2010) (1990-2000) (2000-2010)

Developing Regions 1.93 2.39 1.73 3.05

Northern Africa 5.57 5.54 6.51 3.27

Sub-Saharan Africa 1.22 2.41 0.96 2.63

Eastern Asia 3.75 6.06 5.58 5.3

South-eastern Asia 3.91 4.05 5.02 4.54

Southern Asia 2.96 2.76 3.4 5.07

Western Asia 3.98 3.41 3.61 4.14

Oceania 1.74 1.92 1.09 1.53

Latin America and the Caribbean 4.34 4.2 2.41 3.16

Caucasus and Central Asia 2.17 3.2 0.22 3.02

● 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

Number of countries that have faster AARR in 2000-2010 than in 1990-2000 / Total number of countries in the region

RegionUnder-5 Child

Mortality Maternal Mortality

Developing Regions 90/139 79/124

Northern Africa 1/5 0/5

Sub-Saharan Africa 40/47 37/45

Eastern Asia 3/4 3/4

South-eastern Asia 4/10 4/10

Southern Asia 6/9 5/9

Western Asia 8/12 7/12

Oceania 5/11 2/3

Latin America and the Caribbean 19/33 16/28

Caucasus and Central Asia 4/8 5/8

MDG Monitoring: The selection of the indicators and their relevance

to the targets: a few examplesGoal 3. Promote

gender equality and empower women

Target 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

indicators Indicators must have well established metadata and be

relevant to most countries Indicators should be based on existing internationally

agreed definitions and classifications Indicators 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 minimum

• The 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 change

• Changes in population size and structure should be explicitly incorporated in the monitoring tool

• Indicators 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 time

Some 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