Report of the 2nd Inter Agency Expert Group (IAEG) on SDG indicators, in Bangkok on 26-28 October 2015

The ITUC, Education International and Public Services International along with a number of CSOs attended the second meeting of the Inter Agency Expert Group (IAEG) on SDG indicators, in Bangkok on 26-28 October 2015. Several UN agencies, including the ILO were also present, in addition to the membership of the IAEG and a handful of Member State observers.

By Matt Simonds (TUDCN/ITUC/TUAC)

The ITUC, Education International and Public Services International along with a number of CSOs attended the second meeting of the Inter Agency Expert Group (IAEG) on SDG indicators, in Bangkok on 26-28 October 2015. Several UN agencies, including the ILO were also present, in addition to the membership of the IAEG and a handful of Member State observers.

The official summary of the meeting can be found here.

The updated list of indicators can be found here.

It is important that when reading the summary to understand how to refer to the information in the updated list of indicators. The most important thing to consider when reviewing the updated list of indicators is to understand the use of colour coding in the list of indicators.

  • Green=agreed indicator
  • Yellow=close to agreement but some revision require
  • Grey=not close to agreement and considerable revision needed
  • Red=remove

Following this you will be able to ascertain where some indicators have moved from being Yellow to Green or the opposite.

Trade unions were able to intervene on the discussion on Goal 8 and the associated indicators. This statement can be found here.

All other relevant documentation can be found here.

With respect to our core priorities as the labour movement, the Bangkok meeting produced some fairly positive results on the whole, though some important question marks remain.

On the positive side most of the indicators we have been prioritizing have been approved in a way that would be considered satisfactory (there are almost always grounds for improvement), and in some instances have actually improved. Highlights include, for example:

  • Indicator 8.3.1 now includes a measure on informal employment, which it did not include previous to the meeting.
  • Indicator 8.5.1 looking at the gender wage gap was also agreed upon.
  • Indicator 8.b.1 which, among other elements measures collective bargaining rate, survived the meeting.

The main concerns which remain following the meeting are:

  • Indicators 8.8.1 and 8.8.2 and Indicator 16.10.1.
  • Indicator 8.8.1 which has been approved would fall short of our expectations as currently framed, to review only work place injuries and fatalities, omitting workplace disease.
  • Indicator 8.8.2 which is meant to measure ratification of ILO conventions, is already short of expectations as currently framed, and worse is one of the indicators that requires considerable revision (in this instance in presumably a negative way) before approval.
  • Indicator 16.10.1 which seeks to assess violation of fundamental freedoms by measuring violence against certain actors in society (including trade unionists) is a hotly contentious indicator and has been more or less universally rejected by the IAEG (the rejection is general and not specifically due to the reference to trade unionists). Also, unsettling is that there is no indicator to measure inequality between countries under Goal 10, which is particularly glaring given that the goal aims to overcome precisely this.

A general workstream has been established by the IAEG to work through any issues on data disaggregation on the basis of the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. Presumably, this will work stream will focus primarily on areas where disaggregation may prove difficult.

The way forward for the IAEG process is to consult virtually to resolve the areas which remain in question or dispute. Our ability to contribute to this is very limited. The overall timeline is to have an agreed package of indicators in advance of next year’s UN Statistical Commission. The IAEG will meet again (most likely in New York in March). Finally, whatever the IAEG produces will be a set of recommendations to the UN Statistical Commission and does not necessarily constitute a finished or agreed set of indicators. Ultimately, the final set of indicators would need to be approved at the level of the UN General Assembly.