1

Issues and Challenges in Monitoring the MDGs Post 2015

Yongyi Min

United Nations Statistics Division

United Nations Statistics Division

2

Outline

● Issues in the current MDGs monitoring

● Challenges in monitoring the MDGs post 2015

● Developing SMART post 2015 goals for monitoring

3

Issues in the current MDGs monitoring

● 1. One-size-fit-all targets

● 2. Measuring relative change vs. absolute change

● 3. Baseline year: 1990 or 2000?

● 4. Other issues

4

Issue 1: One-size-fit-all targets

● The MDGs are evaluated by numerical targets, some specific (e.g. reduce extreme poverty by half, reduce under-five mortality by two thirds), some more vague (e.g. productive and decent employment, reduce biodiversity loss).

● The targets were formulated based on historical trends at the global level. They are the projections to 2015 based on the global trends in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Therefore it might not be fair to impose them on each country or region.

5

Issue 2: 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.

6

Example 1: Reduce extreme poverty by half

● Top 20 performers based on Relative Annual Progress Rate (RAPR), RAPR = [(Xlatest-Xfirst)/Xfirst] / (Tlatest-Tfirst)

  Low income

Lower middle income

Upper middle income Total

Caucasus and Central Asia 2 2 2 6

Eastern Asia   1   1

Latin America & the Caribbean   1 3 4

Northern Africa   1   1

South-eastern Asia   1 1 2

Southern Asia   2   2

Sub-Saharan Africa 2 1   3

Western Asia   1   1

Total 4 10 6 20

7

Example 1: Reduce extreme poverty by half

● Top 20 performers based on Absolute Annual Progress Rate (AAPR), AAPR = (Xlatest-Xfirst)/(Tlatest-Tfirst)

  Low incomeLower middle

income Total

Caucasus and Central Asia 1 1 2

Eastern Asia   1 1

South-eastern Asia   2 2

Southern Asia 1 2 3

Sub-Saharan Africa 9 3 12

Total 11 9 20

8

Example 2: Reduce Under-Five Child Mortality by two thirds

● 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

9

Example 2: Reduce Under-Five Child Mortality by two thirds

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

  Low incomeLower 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

10

Issue 3: Baseline year: 1990 or 2000?

● 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.

11

Example 1: 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

12

Example 2: Reduce Child Mortality and Maternal Mortality

Region

Under-5 Child Mortality Maternal MortalityAARR 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

13

Issue 4. Some other issues in the current MDG monitoring

● Data issues in the current MDG monitoring: data availability, discrepancies between national data sets and series compiled by international agencies, data inconsistencies within country, data comparability.

● Lack of clear numerical targets for Goal 8 and its linkage with other MDGs.

● MDGs monitoring focuses more on average progress at global, regional or national level, neglecting the poorest and most vulnerable.

14

Challenges in monitoring the MDGs post 2015

1. Global vs. local targets

2. Simplicity vs. complexity, and stability vs. flexibility

3. Disaggregated monitoring

4. Linking with monitoring other development goals and initiatives: Rio+20, measuring well-being.

15

Developing SMART post 2015 goals for monitoring

For better monitoring of development progress, SMART criteria can be used to develop the post 2015 MDGs

● S: Simple

● M: Measurable

● A: Achievable

● R: Relevant

● T: Time-bound