ODS - 2013


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Over the coming decades, our economies and societies will need to better understand the choices between diverse investment and public policy options.Identification of co-benefits and win-win alternatives often demands information that cuts across sectors or issue areas.In addition, informed decisions are needed to better manage difficult trade-offs; for example, in terms ofAllocation of scarce resourcesLand use Strategies to increase resilienceThe full cost of unsustainable or sub-optimal resource use is often poorly understood because effects may take a long time to manifest or appear in a different sector or region.
  • Akeybarrier to sustainabledevelopmentis the factthateconomies, societies and governments are structuedaround silos. A decisivecontribution of the SDGsshould be thattheyrender visible and evident the deeplinkagesbetweensectors as well as withissuessuch as equityorresilience.Implementation of key targets shouldencourage and enabledifferentministries and stakeholders to worktogether.Theseshouldalsoprovide concrete entrypointsforcollaboration and investmentsbyotherstakeholders, such as, forexample, the private sector.There are callsforanaction-oriented agenda. Thisispreciselywhat the SDGs can deliver, butonlyifthey are correctlydesigned.
  • The development agenda iscomplex. Weneed to agreeon a processfordefiningitthatenablescomplexity to be simplifiedWealsoneed a processthatencourgages substantive dialogue.The final decisionswill be political, but the processitselfshouldnot be whollypoliticized.Byfocusingon targets and notongoals, the processwill be more TRANSPARENT and substantiveThisis fundamental ifwe are to designan agenda that drives action and focuseson IMPLEMENTATION.
  • Agoalframeworkisessentiallystructuredaroundwhatisknown as a “logicalframework” – or “log frame”There are differentdefinitions of the components of a log frame, so wehavetakenthistablefrom the HLP reportWhatisimportantisthatwhenwe use termslike “target” or “indicator” we are alltalkingabout the samething, and allunderstandthattheseelementsrefer to differentlevels.At itssimplest, one can read a log framefrom the bottom to the top:Ifonedeliverson a set of indicatorsassociated to a target, thenthat target ismet. Similarly, if a set of targets associatedwith a goal are met, thenthatgoalisachieved. The selection of set of targets defines the scopeorthrust of a givengoal.
  • Under a business-as-usual approach, we would start off by discussing the potential goals. (These are represented by the big dark grey blocks at the top) FIRST CLICKOne can foresee endless discussions about which goals are more important.The discussions, however, would be largely rhetorical as a goal on “water” could mean very different things depending on what targets are selected. It could, for example, focus only on sanitation. Or it could focus on sanitation and sectoral water use efficiency….Or it could focus on…..A focus on goals from the outset would also lead to difficult discussions about what thematic areas should become stand-alone goals and which should (also)be cross-cutting. This discussion would also be largely rhetorical given that it would be unclear at that stage the scope would be of any given goal. SECOND CLICK (targets are represented by the smaller grey blocks)Once there was agreement on priority goals – most likely a very large number of goals, the discussion would need to be taken up again to define the targets under each goal. (In the Rio+20 process we went from 17 pages to 273 pages and finally managed to negotiate down to 53 pages. The same could happen with the SDGs, except that instead of pages we would have goals!)Unfortunately, under such a process, the definition of targets would largely take place within specific sectoral silos, with narrower sectoral perspectives, without an effort to specifically identify and incorporate inter-sectoral and multi-dimensional linkagesSuch a process makes it difficult for other constituencies, such as private sector or national experts, to provide (timely) recommendations.Also, and this is critical, such a process for defining targets would probably be divorced from on-the-ground priorities and very specific national needs. The outcome would be largely negotiated with more limited substantive inputs, and would probably make it more difficult to agree to targets that make sense – and are EASY TO IMPLEMENT - at national and sub-national levels.THIRD CLICKPart of the process would be the many pre-defined goals and associated targets that different constituencies, interest groups and delegations will bring to the table. We could end up with dozens or even hundreds of SDGs…..
  • Recently, smallgroups of 8 (governmentdelegates, independentexperts and agencyrepresentatives) wereasked to undertakeanexercise to define targets for a givengoal, whilemakingspecificefforts to identify inter-linkagesbetweensectors and dimensions, as well as cross-cuttingissues.Itwas the usual, top-downapproachThese are examples of the resultsafteralmostonehour of discussions….. Discussionswherenothingwasbeingnegotiated, so therewere no controversies.Can you imagine undertakingsuchanexercisewith 194 delegates in a plenarysetting?!
  • These are the iconsthatwill be used in the followingslides to explain the “IntegratingApproach”Theseicons are purelyillustrative and do notattempt to pre-judgewhat the final set of SDGscould be
  • INITIAL SLIDEThe proposal calls for starting from a bottom-up analysis of concrete and specific issues that could be structured into specific targets. Targets would only be grouped into goals in a subsequent step. The key sectors that would likely inform the SDGs have been repeatedly identified and would probably include health, water, food security, health, etc. Therefore the targets would largely come from these sectors or thematic areas. Such a process would also allow for governments or different constituencies to also make recommendations on possible targets.Given that the discussion would be based on concrete issues, the end product will likely be easier to translate into policies and actions at the national levelWhat is agreed in NY needs to make sense to our ministries, local authorities, entrepreneurs, and stakeholdersCLICK to FIRST ANIMATIONSpecial efforts need to be made to identify and incorporate inter-linkages and multi-dimensional aspectsIn most interventions in the OWG there have been calls for a new agenda that focuses on the inter-linkages, but it is not easy to deliver on this through a business-as-usual approach as we saw from the illustrations from the group exercise.NEXT 3 CLICKS WILL SHOW 3 CALLOUTS, EACH WITH A SPECIFIC TARGET3 targets have been taken from the HLP report to illustrate the richness of this approachFIRST CALLOUT – (on reduction of stunting, wasting and anemia in children under 5)This target, for example, would normally be listed under a “food security goal”. However, it is profoundly relevant as a health issue. And if one looks at it more deeply, it is critical for delivering on inter-generational equity as well as for future economic growth. Under a business-as-usual approach, these interlinkages would not be captured.SECOND CALLOUT( – on agricultural productivity)This target, would normally also be placed under “food security”. However, it is inherently linked to water allocation issues. And from a broader perspective it is key to delivering on greater equity between rural and urban settings, and for generating employment.At this point, it is important to note that such an “integrating approach” enables one to readily identify targets that help to deliver on issues that are often cited as “must-have” goals but that are very vague. The two targets we have just seen, for example, could be grouped with other relevant targets to define a goal on “equity” – a goal that would have therefore have a clear scope.Through similar rigorous and substantive exercises, same could be accomplished for other issues that are often considered both cross-cutting but that should also be “stand-alone”, such as “resilience” or “urban settlements” or “equity” or even “gender”. These could be both stand-alone AND cross-cutting.THIRD CALLOUT – on sectoral water use efficiencyThis target is clearly linked to both water and food security. But clearly it also has bearing on health and economic growth, to name just two additional inter-linkages
  • (NOTE – This is a continuation of the previous slide)Clearly then, many issues such as water, energy, education and gender, health and sanitation, are intimately inter-relatedSome issues, such as gender or resilience, can be only achieved contextually, and targets that deliver on these issues also do so for other sectorsSome issues such as water, are so central to development that of necessity they should be mainstreamed across various sectorsWe need to identify “hinge issues” = fundamental development issues at could catalyze deep structural changesBy focusing initially on the targets, and not the goals, we are freed to really analyse and understand the deep inter-linkages that underpin each target.We are better able to identify targets that help to deliver on concepts that cannot be so easily captured, such as “inter-generational equity”Obviously, some targets will be relevant only to one sector or issue. Yet through such a bottom-up exercise these targets will also be better understood and formulated.CRITICALLY, such an approach provides an entry point for national representatives or experts or specific constituencies to recommend targets that they – based on their expertise and experience – think could drive the kind of catalytic, structural changes that we are all calling for when we talk about a “transformative agenda”. Surely such an agenda cannot be just business-as-usual…..In Colombia, we are undertaking a very illustrative exercise, based on this approach.All government ministries and specialized agencies were presented with the “integrating approach”All readily understood its value and appreciated its simplicity and transparency.EACH MINISTRY AND AGENCY IS NOW WORKING ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF 3-5 KEY TARGETS THAT THEY BELIEVE COULD DRIVE THE TYPE OF DEEP TRANSFORMATION THAT IS NEEDEDMinistries and agencies are encouraged to work together, to identify cross-cutting and inter-linked targetsThere is considerable enthusiasm for this undertakingMinistry representatives welcome an opportunity to provide substantive inputs to the process FOLLWING A METHODOLOGY THAT IS SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD AND TRANSPARENT.Colombia will not present the results of this exercise as a “wish list of SDG targets/goals” at the international level. However, if as a result of the exercise robust targets are identified, these could be shared as illustrative models
  • (NOTE: there are 2 basic animations to this slide. The first 11 clicks move the target icons so that they are lined up under each goal.Then the next 9 clicks demonstrate how targets could be shared across goals)FIRST SET OF CLICKS (“targets” are lined up under the 4 GOALS)So how would the exercise work? We would select groups of targets that are relevant for delivering on a specific sector (such as “water” or “food security”) or an issue (such as “gender” or “equity”)We have here a hypothetical goal on water. Please note that the targets under this goal are not all colored blue nor do they all have a water-drop. This reflects the fact that many of the targets under water would be cross-cutting, and relate to other sectors and issues.SECOND SET OF CLICKS (TARGETS ARE SHARED ACROSS GOALS)Critically, some targets would be shared across SDGsNow, here we have a very simple and schematic demonstration of how this could work. (This animation only seeks to provide visualization.) The key point is that if we don’t define targets from a rigid sector-perspective, we will be better able to appreciate the relevance of a given target to different issues/sectors and therefore will be able to capture and reflect interlinkages in a simple and straightforward manner.
  • One of the groupsthatparticipated in the exerciseshown in a previousslide, carriedoutanexerciseusing the IntegratingApproachAlthoughtheydidnothave time to finish the exercise, the processforidentifying the targets was simple and straightforward, and tookunder 10 minutes. Basic issuesassociatedwith a given sector werereadilyidentifiedbyparticipantsgiventhat the sameissueswererepeatedlyidentifiedby the participants. The keylinkageswithothersectorsweretheninitiallyidentified.Take home messages:Targets for the maindevelopmentissues are broadlyalreadyidentified and thereis a lot of consensusamongstakeholdersregardingwhatthese areWherethere are “new” issues, these can be readilyexplained to others, whothensubstantivelyparticipate in betterunderstanding the scope of the proposed target and the inter-linkages. The conversationisconstructive, and itiseasy to collectively (re)formulate a target ifneeded.Simplicityenables the complexities to be renderedunderstandable. People do notgetlost in the maze of potentiallinkages and trade-offs. Nor do theygetconfused as to whatcould be targets and whatcould be indicatorsorelements of anenabllingenvironment/drivers.
  • (Thisslideisself-explanatory)
  • So, theproposalcallsfor a simple process. initially, the discussionsfocuson targets, notgoals. Thatis, the discussionsfocusonspecificissuesthat can be reflected in targets.In the process, efforts are made to specificallyidentify targets that are capture inter-sectoral and multi-dimensional aspects. Targets then are groupedintogoals. Giventhatthereis a clearerunderstanding of the co-benefitsormultiplebenefits a specific target can deliver, itshould be simpler to identify targets that are relevant to deliveringon more thanonegoal.
  • Theproposedprocessisnoteasyor simple. But the business-as-usual approachisalsonoteasy and itisfar more difficult.A bottom up processenables more substantive discussions and a more transparentprocess to take placeItalsoprovidesentrypointsforstakeholders to participate in the processbyrecommending targets thattheythinkwouldaddresspriorityissues. The final decisionswill be politicaldecisionstakenbyMemberStates. Butthesedecisionswill be basedon a soundunderstanding of the issues.
  • Theproposedprocessisnoteasyor simple. But the business-as-usual approachisalsonoteasy and itisfar more difficult.A bottom up processenables more substantive discussions and a more transparentprocess to take placeItalsoprovidesentrypointsforstakeholders to participate in the processbyrecommending targets thattheythinkwouldaddresspriorityissues. The final decisionswill be politicaldecisionstakenbyMemberStates. Butthesedecisionswill be basedon a soundunderstanding of the issues.
  • Oneconcernthatremainsis the need to agree to a limitednumber of goals. However, weallrecognizethatthiswillnot be easy. Byenabling more informeddiscussions, the IntegratingApproach can help to achievethis. In addition to this, the proposed “Dashboard” concept wouldalsohelp.This concept simplycallsforagreeing, at internationallevel, to a core set of goalswithassociated targets and indicatorsThereisrecognition of the need to providefordifferentiationamongcountriesgivendifferentdevelopmenttrajectories. Therefore at a global level, wewouldallagree to a core set of global aspirationalgoalsThen….each country would be able to determine, withinthatcore set, which targets are relevantforeach country basedonpriorities, circumstances, etc. Foreach target, each country would determine the indicatorsthat are relevant, and the speed and level of achievement. Additional targets which are notprioritized at internationallevel, couldstill be appliedthem at nationaloreven regional level.
  • ODS - 2013

    1. 1. The Integrating Approach: A proposal for structuring discussions in the SDG OWG
    2. 2. Why a new approach is called for • A key challenge for irreversible poverty eradication & for delivering well-being for 9 billion in the context of sustainable development = break away from silos • Maximize potential synergies and minimize potential trade/offs • Need to take informed decisions • Broaden partnerships for on-the-ground delivery
    3. 3. Value added of the SDGs • Interlinkages between sectors & issues, between the 3 dimensions = need to be made explicit and understandable • Facilitate interaction and dialogue between different line ministries & sectoral agencies, between key actors - including government, civil society and private sector • Outputs from such a process would likely be more focused on addressing concrete needs at national level and on implementation
    4. 4. What the proposal is about • Focus initially on targets not goals • Adopt mainly a bottom up rather than a top down approach • Engage substantively on issues from the very start REALITY NOT RHETORIC
    5. 5. The Logical Framework Term Common understanding of what it is Example from MDGs Goal Expresses an ambitious, but specific, commitment. Always starts with a verb/action. Reduce child mortality Target Quantified sub-components that will contribute in a major way to achievement of goal. Should be an outcome variable Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the underfive mortality rate Indicator Precise metric from identified databases to assess if target is being met (often multiple indicators are used). Under-5 mortality rate Infant mortality rate Proportion of 1-year olds immunised against measles
    6. 6. Business-as-usual in in practice
    7. 7. The Integrating Approach Water Health Food security Inclusive economic growth
    8. 8. Increase agricultural productivity by x%, with a focus on sustainably increasing smallholder yields and access to irrigation. Reduce by x% stunting, wasting by y% and anemia by z% for Interlinkages: employment, water, food all children under 5. security Interlinkages: health andBring freshwater withdrawals in line with supply and increase water food security efficiency in agriculture by x%, industry by y% and urban areas by z%. Interlinkages: Water and food security
    9. 9. An exercise with this approach Remember the earlier slide that showed the results of a group exercise following a traditional approach? Well, here is the result from an exercise by one of the groups using the Integrating Approach The process was simple and enabled participants to efficiently identify many areas of consensus.
    10. 10. ? ? ?
    11. 11. Benefits of this approach • Inter-linkages between issue areas (eg. gender, equity or resilience) and between sectors better captured • Greater balance in addressing the 3 dimensions of SD • Number of targets could potentially be reduced • No need to discuss what is “stand-alone” / “crosscutting” • Stronger political support can be built around the targets • Entry point for inputs from other constituencies/ stakeholders • IMPLEMENTATION
    12. 12. Moving forward • Start off discussions on the targets, not the goals • Make efforts to identify multi-dimensional or inter-sectoral linkages • Agreed targets would be grouped into goals • Some targets would be shared across goals
    13. 13. Reality check • Prioritization will ultimately be a political decisionmaking process • Through a bottom up process it will be better informed and more substantive • The process will never be simple, but it can be more streamlined and coherent • Efforts will need to be made to limit the number of goals agreed to For the SDGs to be relevant and taken up, we need to get the metrics right
    14. 14. A complementary proposal Two considerations should to inform the definition of the SDGS within a universal agenda: 1. 2. • • Agreement on a limited number of Goals A modality for differentiation Global challenges need to be addressed at the global level But regional, national, and local specificities must be taken into account The DASHBOARD PROPOSAL calls for agreement on • global goals that focus on global development priorities • targets and indicators tailored to national priorities and circumstances
    15. 15. The Dashboard Concept  Global Goals: • Agreement on a few salient global priorities  Each Goal would have a core set of targets & indicators agreed at international level • Each country would determine the speed and level for each target • Each country would determine which targets & indicators are relevant according to their national circumstances In addition to this, • Countries can define additional targets and/or indicators • This would not be taken up at international level – in the MDG process many countries defined additional national MDGs that served a domestic agenda but were not reflected internationally
    16. 16. The Dashboard Proposal: An Example Food Security & Nutrition Reduce postharvest loss and food waste by x% FS-Target B Reduce harvest waste by x% by [year] Reduce handling & storage waste by x% by [year] Reduce consumption waste by x% by [year] Each country determines its: • Baseline • Milestones • Speed Each country determines which indicators are relevant and adjusts them to national circumstances (e.g. type of crop, locality, modalities)
    17. 17. The Benefits of the Dashboard Approach  Issues common to many countries would be reflected in the same targets and indicators = good basis for cooperation, capacity building, exchange of experiences, and overall support from all sources  Regional and global comparability and aggregation would be possible  Greater overall coherence within the new framework at all levels  A “race to the bottom” is unlikely because when metrics work and are perceived to be useful, countries and organizations use them..... …..GDP and MDGs are both voluntary! If we get the new metrics right, this will spur a race to the top – by all stakeholders, not only by governments
    18. 18. Many thanks Muchas gracias Directorate for Economic, Social and Environmental Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs Colombia