Involving Business in Building the SDG Indicator Framework: a work in progress

The well-worn adage, “what gets measured gets done,” understandably comes to mind when we consider the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. The 2030 Agenda calls for an extensive set of global indicators in its outcome document (Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, para. 75) that would be “simple yet robust, address all SDGs and targets including for means of implementation.” The framework, the resolution notes, is part of the “effort to leave no one behind, as Member States have pledged,” which requires that there be “timely, reliable, and disaggregated data to support the implementation of the ambitious 2030 Agenda.” In addition to the global indicators, Member States are to develop regional, national, and sub-national level indicators along with baselines for targets where national and global baseline data does not yet exist.  

Given the ambition and scope, this structure for measuring SDG progress will not be constructed rapidly. The vast multi-level indicator framework will take time to evolve over the 15 year period towards 2030, as knowledge and data availability improve.  

In the spirit of another saying that “well begun is half done,” the very first efforts to enact the 2030 Agenda are quite important. A UN Inter-Agency Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal indicators (IAEG-SDGs) has taken on the task of developing the framework, which will then be proposed for endorsement by  the UN Statistical Commission during its meetings in early March 2016. After that endorsement, the framework will be presented to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the General Assembly for adoption. Going forward, follow-up and review of annual progress at the UN’s High-level Political Forum will be informed by an annual progress report by the Secretary-General in cooperation with the United Nations system, based on the global indicator framework along with data from national statistical systems and information collected at the regional level. The IAEG-SDGs would continue to provide technical support for the implementation of the indicators and monitoring framework over the course of the 2030 Agenda.

Where does the private sector fit into both these complex near and long term efforts? After all, the business community was involved with other stakeholders in weighing in during the negotiations leading to the SDGs themselves. The outcomes of the SDG Summit and the Financing for Development Summit recognize the foundational role businesses all over the world will need to play in order to achieve the vision of the 2030 Agenda. The challenge now is ensuring that business continues to be involved in the implementation process; and the global framework of indicators is at the heart of that process. We explore below how the UN is faring on this front and possible areas for improvement going forward.

No data revolution without business

Mr. John Pullinger, Chair of the Statistical Commission, noted in his speech to the General Assembly on the progress of the SDG indicators’ development that they “will require an unprecedented amount of data to be produced and analysed.” Indeed, the lead-up to the SDG Summit was complemented by a new global dialogue on the data revolution, which has led to a new Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data hosted by the UN Foundation. The Global Partnership brings together over 70 champions that represent the full range of data producers and users critical to harnessing the data revolution for sustainable development. It is led by Governments, companies, civil society organizations, international organizations and statistical and data communities from around the world.

The Global Partnership has an important focus on capacity development, but the UN conversation about what the indicators will be so far continues mainly through the intergovernmental process described above. While the indicator development process at the UN has been transparent and open to feedback from business and other stakeholders via online submissions, opportunities for business to have a meaningful exchange of ideas over the indicators in-person has been somewhat limited as past meetings to discuss the global indicator framework have only allowed limited participation from the business community.

For example, according to the report prepared for the Statistical Commission's March meeting, the open consultation held in Bangkok in December 2015 was attended by “[o]ver 220 participants, including representatives of 24 of the 28 members of the Group, and close to 200 observers, including Member States that are not members of the Group, as well as representatives of international and regional organizations and civil society, academia and the private sector.” Of those non-state actor observers, only 1 of the 56 attendees was from business, and several other business representatives were not allowed to attend.

There are other inputs into the UN Statistical Commission’s work that would benefit from private sector input. For example, a recent UNIDO Report submitted to the Commission mentions its struggles with gathering industrial data in developing countries. The lack of data is deeper than a reporting problem, however; this dearth creates a more fundamental challenge: a drag on the development of industrial policy at national levels since policymakers do not have enough information to formulate policy. A response properly coordinated with the business community could potentially overcome some of these historic capacity issues.

A similar need exists for information and communications technology (ICT) statistics, according to the “Report of the Partnership on Measuring Information and Communications Technology for Development.” Multi-stakeholder approaches in close cooperation with the private sector actors are necessary in order to leverage ICT as a key enabler to development. Furthermore, demands are increasing for reliable governance statistics, according to the Report of the Praia Group. The private sector is rightfully concerned with governance data and business is capable of offering guidance to develop inclusive data collection systems.

Any statistical work involving big data, moreover, will almost necessarily entail engagement with the private sector, as noted by the Secretary-General’s recent Report on Big Data. It is necessary, therefore, to explore long-term partnerships that benefit both the private sector and the UN. To further learning and cooperation on big data, the third International Conference on Big Data for Official Statistics will be held in Dublin in June 2016 to discuss, among other capacity-building topics, “Data access and partnerships: the win-win scenarios.”

The private sector is keen to offer its expertise and the United Nations can catalyze this interest for continued business engagement in support of the SDGs - if business has a true seat at the table. The various processes being considered by the UN Statistical Commission in March beg the question of specific ways in which the private sector and its views can interface with the myriad processes and the Statistical Commission’s work itself. This highlights the need for better coordination and opportunities for input directly to UN bodies in a meaningful way.

This is not just a procedural matter. Clearly, business is expected to implement and resource much of the SDG action in one way or another, so its own tracking, and the kinds of indicators of progress that business identifies and uses need to be reflected somehow in the global framework going forward, and that has to be taken on board sooner rather than later.   

In a future post, we will delve further into business’s own approach to metrics and reporting of sustainability information, and lessons and synergies that are relevant to the global framework.

 

Rethinking “Bankability” for Africa Infrastructure

Throughout the last decade, Africa’s economic growth has been robust.  While this growth is expected to continue during 2016 for sub-Saharan Africa, it will likely not reach the region’s full potential due to ongoing global challenges and under-investment in infrastructure. Doubling-down on implementing infrastructure projects will thus be a critical step in enhancing Africa’s economic climate.

This is why the outcome document of the United Nation’s Financing for Development conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 2015 (the “Addis Ababa Action Agenda”) recognized that key to achieving the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda would be “implementing resilient and environmentally sound infrastructure, including energy, transport, water and sanitation, and sustainable and resilient buildings using local materials.”  Likewise, the Sustainable Development Goals have prioritized infrastructure in its own goal - Goal 9 - reflecting the consensus of the world’s development finance institutions that infrastructure needs to be a priority going forward.  This is the case particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, which faces a $93 billion per year infrastructure gap.   

The question is precisely how infrastructure will get financed. As African governments continue to face diverse financing constraints, which include budgetary restrictions and backlogs of yet-to-be-approved projects, external funding from private and public financial institutions is vital.

But, as Bechtel’s regional president in Africa, Andrew Patterson, notes in a new blog post, governments must be strategic and selective about which projects to focus on and which funding models to use depending on the type of project under consideration. Patterson should know:  Bechtel has extensive experience, having worked in 160 countries and delivered 25, 000 projects.

According to Patterson, ideally, governments should concentrate on about three to five large infrastructure projects per year in order to improve the chances of project delivery. They should also carefully consider who to partner with on what kinds of projects:  there should be a division of labor between public and private finance. Governments should spearhead the large infrastructure projects – major highways, greenfield freight rail, urban light rail, and the initial greenfield port project – because the Public-Private Partnership or Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) models are not well-suited for those major projects due to the presence of project unknowns and associated risks. 

As Patterson explains, it’s all about bankability - and simply a matter of math:  governments can more easily obtain external funding, including export credit that is much cheaper than what private equity firms can offer, and, private institutions require higher contingency reserves for the development phase of projects. This often makes the larger projects no longer bankable. In contrast, private investments should concentrate on projects that are bankable and can rapidly reach financial closure, such as power projects, expanding existing airports and marine ports, and the manufacturing/service industries. 

More fundamentally, African governments will need to rise to the challenge of creating the right enabling environments to welcome in such infrastructure investments, as USCIB has argued in a 2015 policy paper on the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. One practical step is creating a dedicated centralized PPP unit within their governments that can analyze PPP opportunities throughout ministries and sectors, which are perceived as contributing significantly to the accomplishments of a country’s PPP program.  Bechtel has ostensibly played that role in  Gabon, where it helped the government deliver a $25 billion infrastructure plan, including organizing and co-managing the l’Agence Nationale des Grands Travaux, a government agency that oversees the execution and delivery of the plan with various ministries and government agencies. As part of this program, Bechtel supports the government in reviewing and prioritizing the projects for their social and economic benefits, and developing the best delivery model for each individual project.

In sum, infrastructure will be key to achieving the SDGs but governments must take the lead and there are a number of important key policy choices and frameworks they can establish to make funding their infrastructure priorities more achievable. Read Bechtel’s blog here to learn more.

New UN Technology Facilitation Mechanism open for business -- but is it open TO Business?

Business has been keenly interested in informing U.N. deliberations to design a global Technology Facilitation Mechanism (TFM) since it was first proposed in the Rio +20 outcomes in 2012.  As most innovation emanates from business and collaborations with business, and considerable resources are expended to take technology from concept to market, business has much to offer and a lot at stake vis a vis global initiatives on technology to advance sustainability and the way it gets deployed.

The new TFM has just been officially launched at the UN. The success of the TFM will depend on its ability to bring in meaningful engagement by a variety of stakeholders, especially the private sector. At this early stage, questions remain about whether the TFM is constituted to deliver on its mandate and add value beyond several existing technology bodies at the UN - particularly on the question of its ability to incorporate the views of business.

What is the TFM?

The TFM was launched during the United Nations Summit to adopt the post-2015 development agenda in September 2015.   It also figured prominently as an outcome of the July 2015 Addis Ababa Conference on Financing for Development (see para 123 of Addis Ababa Action Agenda) and has received support from a range of stakeholders as a critical means to promote science, technology, and innovation to advance progress on all of the newly adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). With the launch of the TFM, stakeholders hope to have better access to the technical cooperation necessary to combat climate change, alleviate poverty, and ultimately achieve the SDGs.

Prior to the TFM's launch, an informal working group of several UN agencies, the Word Intellectual Property Organization and the World Bank had led the UN's work on technology facilitation.   Going forward, a new Inter-agency Task Team on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals (IATT) open to every UN agency will work across seven work streams. Among other activities, the IATT will

  • Create a collaborative, multi-stakeholder forum on science, technology and innovation for the SDGs
  • Create an online platform
  • Map existing science, technology and innovation initiatives, conduct background research and develop reports in support of the TFM’s activities
  • Carry out a UN capacity building programme on technology facilitation for the SDGs
  • Develop partnerships and advance fund raising

These work streams and the current structure of the TFM do combine several of the building blocks that have proven successful in other multilateral technology bodies and initiatives, but a critical component – engagement with the business community – may be underdeveloped in the current structure of the TFM, as discussed below.

Learning lessons from existing technology facilitation mechanisms

In our view, there are some important lessons to learn from previously existing technology facilitation mechanisms – particularly those in the green technology space – that are essential for the TFM to incorporate so that it adds value to already existing initiatives. 

Some of the success factors to be considered for the TFM are exemplified by existing bodies, such as: 

  • The Climate Technology Centre & Network (CTCN), which works alongside the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) alongside a consortium of other institutional partners, and
  • WIPO Green,  established by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 2013. 

The CTCN is a satellite organization of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.  CTCN

  • facilitates the transfer of climate-friendly technology by providing technical assistance at the request of developing countries,
  • creates access to information and knowledge on climate technologies, and
  • fosters collaboration between business and academic institutions.

These services address barriers that limit the development and transfer of climate technologies and works to create an enabling environment for innovation and increased investments in climate technology projects. CTCN's demand-driven approach ensures that countries have assessed their own needs first, which also signals the requisite ‘buy-in’ so that technology will be usefully deployed.

WIPO Green is “an interactive marketplace that connects technology and service providers with those seeking innovative solutions.” It is comprised of an online database and network whose members include SMEs, industry associations, intergovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders. Since its inception, WIPO Green has contributed to green technology innovation and transfer in addition to adding greater transparency to the market for green technology.

CTCN, WIPO Green, and other successful technology facilitation approaches share a common thread – strong partnerships with the private sector that leverage the sector’s insight on the factors that enable new technology. It would be a shame if the TFM doesn’t take advantage of the business community's considerable experience or doesn't pay attention to the need for appropriate enabling environments and providing country-specific assistance.

What is the role for the private sector in the TFM?

In launching the TFM, the President of the UN General Assembly, H.E. Mogens Lykketoft, “stressed the importance of having strong participation from the private sector and that the role of the states was to provide the enabling environment for that.” Indeed, business needs to be embedded in the TFM process in order to leverage the resources, including investment, innovation, and know-how, that business can bring towards its implementation.

The main engagement point for business in the TFM would appear to come in the multi-stakeholder 10-Member Group of experts appointed by the Secretary-General to provide ideas, guidance and recommendations to the UN Inter-agency Task Team on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals (IATT) as it carries out its main tasks described above.

This first group of experts serves at the discretion of the Secretary-General, but nominally for an initial two-year term.  Unfortunately, this multi-stakeholder group’s first cohort has  just one business representative – not exactly a proportional number of the represented stakeholders (business, academia and civil society) as was projected by the nascent IATT-STI in its first meeting (noting among other criteria, the need for "balance of representatives of civil society, private sector (including philanthropies), scientific and technological community;").  

Nor is one business representative really proportional to the role and insights business can bring to the discussion. Questions may arise as to exactly how the different perspectives of the vast constituents of the global business community can be adequately represented in the members’ work with such limited representation.

Seeking Supportive Innovation Ecosystems

The Alliance for Clean Technology Innovation (ACTI), has stressed the importance of strong intellectual property (IP) protection to technological innovation and dissemination.  There is no one-size-fits all approach to enabling innovation and investment, and ACTI has argued for targeted, creative policies that are tailored to meet country needs. These elements, in addition to collaboration among governments, multilateral institutions, academia and business, come together to form supportive ecosystems for innovation that are necessary for clean technology innovation to combat global climate change.

One initial development in setting up the TFM is puzzling:  the IATT-STI's first act during its first meeting in October 2015 was to delete the reference to property rights in its Terms of Reference, in order to "avoid possible legal and controversial discussions." The meeting summary notes that "It was highlighted that the principles of intellectual property rights could be treated in other places other than the TORs, if necessary (e.g. any contracts or terms of use related to external products, such as the online platform)." While we do not know what the draft reference to intellectual property rights said, taking the topic off the table entirely is arguably not a step in the right direction.

The outcome documents of the SDGs and the Addis Abba Action Agenda both recognized the need for the 2030 Agenda to forge a “revitalized” global partnership for sustainable development. We hope that as the Inter-agency Task Team moves forward with its work, it will find supplementary ways to get the business community’s perspectives on its various work streams, and in the TFM itself.

References:  

Alliance for Clean Technology Innovation, Climate Change Policies for Clean Technology Innovation and Dissemination (11 May 2009) pp. 2-3.