Homicide and Conflict-Related Deaths Per 100,000 People

UNDP would like to share its comments on indicators for Goal 16. Please note, that these comments are additional to the comments which had already been posted in behalf of UNDP and other UN organizations and are not meant to replace them. By mentioning TST proposalwe refer to the discussions in the TST Sub-Group for Goal 16, co-ordinated by designated co-chairs over a number of months, which fed in to the previous version of the list of proposals. These discussions were open to all of the members of the Sub-Group (PBSO, EOSG/RoL, UNODC, UNDP, DPA, DPKO, ECA, ILO, IOM, ITU, OCHA, OHCHR, OSAA, UN Women, UNAIDS, UNCDF, UNCITRAL, UNEP, UNECE, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNICEF), and were informed by other expertise, including the work of the Virtual Network on Indicators for Goal 16.

Target 16.1.

Target 16.1. consists of two dimensions, which should accordingly be measured, either with two indicators as suggested or with one single indicator covering both concepts as suggested by the TST:

“Homicide and conflict-related deaths per 100,000 people”

In particular:

Number of victims of intentional homicide by age, sex, mechanism and where possible type of perpetrator, per 100.000 population: The focus on homicide is narrow, but benefits from relative ease and reliability of measurement. The suggested indicator however does not measure domestic or gender-based violence which is a form of violence especially experienced by women, children and the elderly – work will be required to disaggregate data for this indicator, and to ensure strong links with measurement of Target 5.2 (violence against women) and Target 16.2 (violence against children)”?

As it concerns the second suggested indicator Conflict-related death per 100.000 people (disaggregated by age, sex and cause): While it is important to measure the level of conflict-related violence, the narrow definition leaves out measurement of violence that exists outside of conflict circumstances, such as domestic violence and gender-based violence. Also much of violent acts committed under conflict circumstances do not lead into death (such as sexual violence or torture). The indicator suggested by TST“homicide and conflict-related deaths per 100,000 people” would be more comprehensive, especially when disaggregated by sex.

Target 16.2.

An additional indicator on sexual violence disaggregated by gender and age and type of sexual violence would measure better the progress against the target. The indicator proposed by the TST

Percentage of young women and men aged 18-24 years who experienced sexual violence by age 18

can also be reconciled or linked with SDG 5, Target 5.2 which measures sexual violence by type but exclusively for women and girls aged 15-49.

Regarding the proposed indicatorNumber of detected and non-detected victims of human trafficking per 100.000 by sex, age and form of exploitationwe suggest removing “detected” and “non-detected” to avoid confusion and to simplify the measurement.

Target 16.3.

The suggestions prioritized in the list would introduce a narrow focus on criminal justice only, and displace an outcome focus on the rule of law and access to justice. A narrower focus on criminal justice only would not help to preserve the balance and ambition of the SDGs and targets. The first suggested indicator Percentage of victims of violence in the previous 12 month who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized conflict resolution mechanisms (also called crime reporting rate) focuses only on victims of violence, whereas the target is access to justice for all. A large proportion of women globally struggle with lack of property rights, or inheritance rights, and also majority of cases of Gender-Based Violence, including Domestic Violence, are never reported to officials due to stigma or fear of unequal treatment. A better indicator would be the one suggested by TST,

Proportion of those who have experienced a dispute in the past 12 months and who have accessed a fair formal, informal, alternative or traditional dispute mechanism.

as it is more inclusive and wider in definition of cases that require access to justice. The focus on all forms of “dispute” is helpful in meeting the ambition of the 2030 Agenda, and will need to be translated appropriately into national contexts to allow for collection. Definitions/qualifiers are needed to meet the risk to make the indicator otherwise open to broad interpretations.

Target 16.4.

This new indicator Percentage of seized and collected firearms that are recorded and traced, in accordance with international standards and legal instruments is fine from the point of view of seizures. However, not all collected firearms will be traced — for example if an amnesty has been part of the collection process, if people are handing in legal weapons they don't want anymore, or are not allowed to have because of a change in the law, etc. So, if we are to keep this indicator, we suggest deleting "and collected." The advantage of the original proposed indicator

"Percentage of small arms marked and recorded at the time of import in accordance with international standards"

is that all states import small arms, usually in significant numbers. Not all States seize them, or at least a significant number of them. And marking at the time of import is a commitment that all States have agreed to. Also, UNODC's global study focuses on seizures of firearms by law enforcement, not on the collection of firearms

Target 16.6.

The definition of primary spending as per the indicatorPrimary government expenditures as a percentage of original approved budgetneeds to be specified(ie. it means expenditures without interest).

As flagged earlier by the TST, this indicator is also relevant for other targets: 1.3 (social protection), 3.8 (health coverage), 4.1 (education), 17.1 (domestic resource mobilization), 17.9 (capacity building), 17.13 (macro-economic stability)”.

Alternatively of evaluating the capacity of the government to spend their budget, this indicator could focus on the transparency of the budgeting process: “Proportion of the national budget planning and spending data made publicly available” which also relevant for measuring target 16.10. Another approach would be to refer to audit/oversight functions, e.g. percentage of public sector expenditure subject to audit by independent bodies.

In practice it will be difficult to measure all aspects of “effective, accountable or transparent” institutions with only one indicator, but the focus on planning/budgeting/spending is a useful proxy taken from competence in a core aspect of government business which has a direct impact for beneficiaries and the 2030 Agenda as a whole.

In addition, this indicators can be supplemented on the national level with other indicators such like:

Public advertising of all government procurement (national and subnational)

Trust in local government institutions: Percentage of people saying that they trust/ have confidence in national and sub-national governments

These indicators capture the accountability and transparency aspects with regards to local institutions.

Regarding the proposed indicator:Percentage of recommendations to strengthen national anti-corruption frameworks (institutional and legislative) implemented, as identified through the UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism.The narrow focus on implementation of anti-corruption framework recommendations is not capturing the real level of efficiency, accountability and transparency of public institutions, as it doesn’t echo the voice of the end beneficiaries of the public institutions – often the most vulnerable of the population such as women, children, elderly and minorities. The TST indicator

Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services

captures better the level of access to services of all people, and the satisfaction rate of the beneficiaries in regards to public institutions and the services they are required to deliver. As flagged earlier by the TST, this indicator is also relevant for other targets: 16.a, 16.3, 16.9 and all other targets with access to basic services such as health, education, etc, eg. 1.4 (access to basic services), 3.8 (health coverage), 4.1, 4.2, 4.a (education), 7.1 (energy), 10.2 (social inclusion), 11.1 (housing)”.

The definition of "satisfaction" needs to be specified in this context.

Target 16.7.

Regarding the proposed indicator Proportion of countries that address young people's multisectoral needs with their national development plans and poverty reduction strategies:

The reference to "proportion of countries" does not make sense in this context and is also not a national indicator. The suggested indicator collects data only from strategies but doesn’t measure their implementation, thus the inclusiveness of real decision-making is not actually measured. The indicator suggested by TST

Turnout as a share of voting-age population in national election

responds better to the needs of the target, especially if the data is to be disaggregated by age groups and gender. Measuring turnout is systematic and comparable, but cannot measure election quality.

Target 16.a.

“The proposed indicator Percentage of victims who report physical and/or sexual crime to law enforcement agencies during past 12 month disaggregated by age, sex, region and population group and does not capture the full range of concepts in this Target, but is one proxy. A possible alternative that measures “number of verified crime, terror acts or violence that were prevented by national authorities or through international cooperation” or “percentage of population protected through timely prevention of crime, terror acts or violence by national authorities or through international cooperation” could work as well

Target 16.b.

UNDP supports the indicator

Existence of independent national human rights institutions (NHRIs) in compliance with the Paris Principles

as 'A' status NHRIs - i.e. those in full compliance with the Paris Principles - will be reporting on human rights trends within their respective countries. Furthermore, evidence supports the assertion that the presence of an 'A' status or well-functioning, independent NHRI has a multiplier effect for human rights across the board and in this respect is multi-purpose. In addition, the status of NHRIs is determined through an accreditation sub-committee supported by OHCHR and the global body of NHRIs (the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights) and is therefore readily available.

UNDP, 3 September 2015