Opinion on a pre-final draft EU SDG indicator set. 22 March 2017

Transcription

1 Opinion on a pre-final draft EU SDG indicator set 22 March /8

2 Background At the 25th ESAC meeting on 27 January 2017, Eurostat informed the Committee about the preparation of a reference indicator framework to monitor the Sustainable Development s (SDGs) in an EU context, as foreseen by the Commission Communication Next steps for a sustainable European future - European action for sustainability. Between 15 December 2016 and 27 January 2017, Eurostat consulted Commission services and the Sustainable Development and Europe 2020 Indicators Working Group on an initial proposal for an EU SDG indicator set containing 84 indicators across the 17 SDGs. Based on the feedback received, Eurostat prepared an evaluation report, including a pre-final draft indicator set containing 94 indicators (comprising 64 indicators retained from the initial list of 84 together with 30 new indicators). On 7 March 2017 Eurostat invited ESAC to give its opinion on (a) the indicator selection and allocation and (b) open issues of the pre-final draft. The responses received from ESAC members during the two week consultation period were then collated for this Opinion. Indicator selection and allocation general comments One general comment on the development of an EU SDG indicator set is that more attention could be given to the issues that are relatively more important in Europe compared with other parts of the world. In this way the EU SDG indicator set would add value by placing the indicators in a European context for European policy purposes. A second general comment is that different dimensions of the same indicators should be part of one single indicator, which contributes to keeping the number of indicators more manageable and to making them easier to communicate. Regarding the selection of indicators, the ESAC document entitled ESAC recommendations for an improved indicator setting for European action for sustainability translating the Sustainable Development s (SDG) (see Annex) is especially important. This document puts forward four recommendations, which underline a number of key messages such as: - statistical institutes must have the responsibility to design and select the relevant indicators - the final decision on the target setting is the responsibility of policy makers - measuring progress on an on-going basis is more important than having an elusive target to meet in the mid or long term - measures should account for both averages and dispersion - dissemination and communication of indicators requires explanation and interpretation - differences at local and regional level need to be taken into account; the territorial dimension is to be extended to the indicators set. 2/8

3 Although the proposed indicators are numerous, the selection criteria applied, such as relevance and quality, are good and necessary. In addition, it would be good to pay serious attention to comparability (from one country to another, from one region to another, and over time), data availability, and the annual work load and costs of providing the indicators set. It is important that indicators are clearly defined so that the data collected are comparable and reliable. For example, in 4, Employment of recent graduates (Code 04.31) might be interpreted in two different ways: any kind of employment, or employment only relevant to the field of study (assuming this relates to university graduates). Other examples (03.14 and 11.36) are identified in the following table. The indicators will be evaluated with data mostly provided by NSIs. With so many indicators, it is not clear that all Member States will be able to keep up with the task of providing so many data sets every year (the usual frequency for most indicators). This also touches on the issue of data quality and reliability mentioned above. In fine-tuning the present pre-final draft EU SDG indicators set ESAC would like to see from the perspective of various users, including cities and regions, targeted policies, and regional and local dynamics that breakdowns of the SDG indicators would be the mainstream choice. Geographical breakdowns are important especially in the context of s 1, 3, 4, 5, 8,9,10 and 11. Breakdowns by degree of urbanisation are not enough for targeted policies, for measuring progress, or for engagement. SDGs concern everyone and are about inclusiveness and engagement. It is important to be able to communicate and present the SDG indicators to people at local and regional levels. It is important to know, and to be able to show, where progress has been made to motivate people and various stakeholders, to motivate and initiate the required collaboration, and to put targeted policies in place. Thus, geography matters. The following table provides more specific comments from ESAC members on the proposed indicators and open issues. 3/8

4 on a pre-final draft EU SDG indicator set There are no specific comments from ESAC in relation to s 13, 14 or End poverty in all its forms everywhere 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages Housing is a major issue for Europe reflecting the ageing population, underinvestment in housing, the greater urbanisation and the issue of young people not being able to afford housing. (01.14) The term very low work intensity is used here while the term quasi jobless household is also used for the same phenomenon, even in Eurostat databases and tables. (01.21) The housing cost overburden is important but it is not clear how this is measured. This is an important indicator to have right - and is cost the whole issue? Geographical breakdowns are important especially for this. (02.14) There is insufficient information available to allow one to know what the Daily consumption of fruits and vegetables is. It is not clear what % of population means - does this relate to getting some or a certain amount? Does it refer to fresh or does fresh versus canned versus frozen matter? (03.51) The indicator of Body Mass Index (BMI) appears in regards to two s but under different codes (coded as in 3). It is a good indicator and could be disaggregated by sex, but the unit of measurement (% of population) is unclear. For 2 it is good to have a BMI as large as possible while for 3 it is better to have a 'normal' BMI. Most developed countries are fighting against obesity (i.e. too large values of BMI). For BMI a better approach is to use its distribution (maybe using deciles). Age and gender are very important too. Special attention should be paid in this respect to child versus adult outcomes. In addition, for new born children the height is not relevant since the concept of 'length' is used instead. (03.11) The indicator 'Healthy life years and life expectancy at birth' is actually two indicators and these should be separated or expressed as a ratio. The indicator could be disaggregated by sex. (03.14) The definition of the indicator 'Self perceived health' must be clearly defined so that the data collected are comparable and reliable. It might make sense to try to take age and not just gender into account when looking at this indicator. 4/8

5 (03.15) In relation to BMI is there a specific threshold being used and is that calibrated for Europe? Should age and gender not be important here also? See also the comments under code for 2. (03.25) Similarly, should death rate due to chronic disease take into account age? (03.31) Is there a specific reason for the choice of age groups to cover/not-cover in the measure of suicide? In particular the middle age group is missing (20-49 years). This indicator could be disaggregated by sex. Geographical breakdowns are important especially for this. 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all (04.10) There is insufficient detail given on Early childhood education and care to judge what it captures. (04.31) The variable Employment rate of recent graduates seems very vague and nothing is given to elucidate what it is measuring. It could be interpreted in two different ways: any kind of employment, or employment only relevant to the field of study (assuming this relates to university graduates). The definition of the indicator must be clearly defined so that the data collected are comparable and reliable. (04.50) What threshold is being used for the PISA metrics and to what does share refer? Should it be looked at by gender also? Geographical breakdowns are important especially for this. 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls (05.10, 05.11) The two metrics on the gender pay gap are too vaguely defined to be assessed from the table provided in the consultation. (05.21) Does account need to be taken of the structure of business in looking at the proportion of women in senior management positions? Could differences in the size distribution of enterprises impact on this figure in a distortional way? Geographical breakdowns are important especially for this. 5/8

6 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all (06.11) In a global context this indicator makes sense, but does it for Europe? The threshold seems too low in other words, if you have one of bath/shower/flushing toilet, are you excluded from this percentage? (07.10) Energy does not only include fuel; however the proposed electricity price per kwh is not very meaningful either. The scope of this is extremely broad and the selection of indicators must have been particularly challenging, yet they have not been selected in a balanced way and they fail to address the entire scope of this. In particular, the decent work element has not been addressed and more attention could be paid to the quality of work, such as information on non-standard and precarious forms of work, work organisation, working time, workers representation, etc. Instead, the focus is on economic growth and the number of people in employment. This unfortunately reproduces the current dominance of macroeconomic surveillance, and a focus on the number not the quality of jobs, in other areas of EU social policies. It is recommended to have two unemployment indicators in the list, namely total unemployment and the longterm unemployment rate. Could something relating to a comparison of median wages with the minimum national wage level be possible? Robotics will have a dramatic impact in future years but this section seems not to capture anything of that dynamic. There are limitations to the use of GDP growth, particularly in the context of the relocation of large economic operators can countries supply alternative measures to put alongside GDP? Geographical breakdowns are important especially for this. 6/8

7 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (09.10) For sustainability, BERD 1 and GERD 2 are needed. If GERD comprises mainly HERD 3 and GOVERD 4, it may overstate the need for complementary GERD to translate sustainable growth - you could put BERD as a share of GERD as a supplementary. The effect on GDP of the relocation of large economic operators to different countries can create a comparability issue here. Some metric from the Community Innovation Survey here would be useful. Geographical breakdowns are important especially for this. (10.11) The use of household disposable income here is a good alternative to GDP per capita and should definitely be included. Would it be a possible to have a metric at regional level in preference to GDP per capita as proposed? (10.25) Taking into consideration the importance of reducing inequalities as usual in EU-SILC, in this indicator we need to change from per capita to per equivalent scale. The practice in EU-SILC when measuring poverty is to divide income by equivalent scales, instead of per capita. Geographical breakdowns are important especially for this. (11.11) Is the first indicator on dwelling quality enough for Europe? Is there an issue with a rapidly ageing population about the suitability of residences for people as they get older e.g. access without climbing four flights of stairs? (11.12) It is not clear what the overcrowding metric is but it needs calibrating for an EU context to be meaningful. (11.25) Regarding people killed in road accidents, does this need to take some account of metrics for kilometres travelled? Otherwise an economic downturn which impacts on travel can lead to an improvement in reduced numbers of road deaths. (11.36) The indicator must be clearly defined so that the data collected are comparable and reliable. Geographical breakdowns are important especially for this. 1 Business enterprise expenditure on research and development 2 Gross domestic expenditure on research and development 3 Higher education expenditure on research and development 4 Government expenditure on research and development 7/8

8 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns (12.20) EMAS 5 registration alone will not give information on sustainability, as enterprises that are not registered may have sustainable production as well. (12.53, 12.54) Could there be a better reference point than GDP for the passenger and freight volumes? 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels (16.19) The proposed EU-SILC indicator seems to be adequate for the general perception of safety. (16.31) Could there be a better metric for the state s support of the legal system the legal aid budget seems very weak. Are there any data on expenditures on training in prison etc. to reduce the likelihood of recidivism or maybe rates of recidivism? In this, subjective indicators are over represented; non-official subjective indicators should be replaced with objective, more easily measurable indicators. 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development (17.10) Here GNI is used (percentage of GNI), which raises the issue of whether GNI should be used in some other metrics where GDP is used. Looking at Europe, general government gross debt relative to GDP is used here. Is there an issue of what is also happening to private debt if you are thinking about sustainable development at country level? 5 Eco-Management and Audit Scheme 8/8