The 2030 Development Agenda: Tackling regional challenges

Ben Slay

Senior advisorUNDP Regional Bureau

for Europe and CIS

Istanbul16 December 2015

Key issues and messages

• Lessons learned from region’s MDG experience

• Implications for SDGs• Emerging “issues of transition”– Greater complexity – National adaptation, prioritization, and “cherry

picking”– Statistical capacity– Staggered start

• Need for rapid, cohesive, integrated UN approach

MDGs in the region: Lessons learned

• National post-2015 consultations (2013-2014)– Held in virtually all

“programme countries”• Regional post-2015

consultation (November 2013)

MDGs in Europe and Central Asia: An uneasy fit

• Weak identification with the “South”– European- , Russo-centric country orientation– Extreme poverty, basic services—not (seen as)

major challenges• 20+ new states emerge after “MDG baseline

year” 1990, facing major issues of:– Governance, human rights– Conflict/post-conflict– Environmental sustainability (in poorer countries)– Institutional capacity (especially for data/statistics)

• ODA inflows relatively modest

MDGs’ weak environmental sustainability dimensions matter—Water . . .

Turkmenist

an

Uzbekis

tan

Tajikist

an

Armenia

Azerb

aijan

Kyrgyzs

tan

Kazakh

stan

World

113%

101%

51%

37% 35% 33%

19%

8%

Aral Sea: 1989-2008Water withdrawals as a share of total fresh

water resources (2007-2011, HDRO data)

. . . Land, energy, and health

Armenia

Kyrgyzs

tanW

orld

Tajikist

an

Turkmenist

anSe

rbia

Moldova

Kazakh

stan

Uzbekis

tan

10% 10% 10% 11% 11%

19%

22%24%

27%

World

Azerb

aijan

Uzbekis

tan

Turkmenist

an

Tajikist

an

258 269

325

449

551

140 132

192

2

343

Unsafe water, sanitation Indoor air pollution

Shares of population living on degraded

land (2010)

Numbers of child deaths per 100,000 children (2004 data)

Source: UNDP Human Development Report Office.

7

The “governance disconnect”—also an issue

• Popular insurrections unseat governments . . .– Ukraine (2014, 2005)– Kyrgyzstan (2010, 2005)– Moldova (2009)– Georgia (2003)– Albania (1997)

• . . . Even as these countries are “on track to achieve the MDGs”

“Tyranny of averages”: National data often conceal pockets of poverty, vulnerability

BiH FYRoM Serbia Montenegro Albania

62%

55%

43%

37%

27%

54%53%

49%44%

23%

29%31%

23%20%

13%

Youth

Roma

National

Sources: ILO, national statistical offices, UNDP/EU/World Bank Roma vulnerability database. 2011 data.

Unemployment rates disaggregated by age, ethnicity

MDGs in the region: Pluses

• “Adaptation” of MDGs, targets, indicators:– “Nationalization”:• MDG targets, indicators redefined to better reflect

national specifics• Virtually all countries in the region did this

– “Localization”: Sub-national disaggregation– Result: More national relevance• But less international comparability

• MDG needs assessments/costing estimates– Helped with sectoral resource mobilization

• MAFs: Joint UN responses

Dignityend poverty, fight inequality

Peopleensure healthy lives, knowledge, inclusion of women and children

Planetprotect our ecosystems for

all societies and our children

Partnership catalyse global solidarity for sustainable

development

Justicepromote safe and peaceful societies, and

strong institutions

Prosperitygrow a strong, inclusive and

transformative economy

2000 2015 2030

From MDGs to SDGs: Continuity and change

MDGs: “Reduce poverty, extend basic services in poor countries”

SDGs: “Sustainable

development in all countries”

Issues of transition: “Complexity”,“adaptation”, “prioritization”, “cherry picking”• Many middle income-countries adapted MDG targets

and indicators to reflect national specifics– Advantage: More national relevance– Disadvantage: Less international comparability

• There are 409 sustainable development goals, targets, and (proposed*) indicators Complexity

MDGs v. SDGs: The numbers game

Goals Targets Indicators

MDGs 8 21 60

SDGs 17 169 223*

– Will other (new) ones be “adapted”? Or

– Will it be about “which indicators to use”?

– How will national priorities be set?• “Cherry picking”?

Issue of transition: Statistical capacity?• Emerging gap

between SDG:– Statistical

aspirations– Realities

• March 2015 survey on proposed SDG indicator feasibility

• Implication: Many developing countries will not escape “tyranny of averages”

• Question: Can “big data” (“open data”) be part of the answer?

UNSC indicator assessment survey Number of indicators

Very relevant, suitable, and feasible 50 (16%)

Very relevant, suitable, but only feasible with a strong effort

39 (13%)

Very relevant, but suitability needs further discussion, and only feasible with a strong effort

28 (9%)

Only somewhat relevant, suitability needs further discussion, and only feasible with a strong effort

86 (28%)

Only somewhat relevant, suitability needs further discussion, and difficult even with a strong effort

95 (31%)

Based on responses to a UN Statistical Commission survey of 70 national statistical offices conducted in March 2015.

SDG indicators: A staggered start?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

• Green SDGs: No problem with indicators• Yellow SDGs: Indicator problems can be resolved• Grey SDGs: “More discussion necessary” on indicators

UNDP calculations, based on responses from 25 member states,

collected by UN Statistical Commission in October 2015.

“Ready to rock” ------------------------------------------------------- “Not yet ready for prime time”

SDGs: Some concluding thoughts

• SDGs fit our region much better than MDGs did– This is a huge opportunity . . . but where’s the money?

• Alternative sources of development finance (e.g., remittances)?

– How do we do SDG16 (“peace, justice, inclusive institutions”)?• Governments are expecting UN support that is:

– Timely– Integrated

• Complexity of SDG agenda means we can not know all the answers in advance—especially on:– Reporting– Accountability

• But let’s not let this stand in the way of moving forward . . . Together

Thank you very much!

Ben.slay@undp.org