The SDGs Indicators: A Challenging Task for the International Statistical Community

Abstract

The papers in this Special Issue raise a number of relevant and important questions, of which three particularly deserve comment. Are indicators reductionist? They might be indeed, both regarding the process of defining them and in their use, which is why it is essential that each be based on a deep and sufficient knowledge of the phenomenon concerned. The human development index illustrates both the pitfalls and potential of global indicators. Are there dark forces behind the selection of indicators? The agreement of the 2030 Agenda was the outcome of a political process that led to a negotiated consensus accomplished by the Open Working Group. In determining the indicators, the Inter‐Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG SDG) was asked for a simple and robust framework which would not affect the political equilibrium reached in the Open Working Group (OWG); no easy task. Is the IAEG SDG an arcane bureaucratic entity? In the face of this immensely challenging task, it has sought a balance between what is feasible in the short term and what is required in the long term. The IAEG SDG has become a space for open and constructive dialog between national statistical offices and international agencies.

A New Method for the Quantitative Assessment of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and a Case Study on Central Asia

“…For example, when researchers want to develop adequate indicators for assessing SDG 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), it is a basic requirement to have deep and ample knowledge and understanding of the phenomena or situation of violence, crime, justice, peace and government. Without it, the indicators developed will certainly decrease and reorient the content of the goal [48]. Thus, as few individuals or organizations can master all the challenging content proposed by 17 SDGs, this indicator framework proposed by IAEG-SDGs may be the most appropriate SDG indicator framework for reference and use by researchers.…”

“…Thus, as few individuals or organizations can master all the challenging content proposed by 17 SDGs, this indicator framework proposed by IAEG-SDGs may be the most appropriate SDG indicator framework for reference and use by researchers. It is authoritative and can be reductionist of the phenomena they measure (some researchers regard it as a minimalist expression of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [45,48]), although it may represent a huge statistical challenge and some indicators may not be accurately quantified [49,50]. Therefore, to cover all 17 SDGs, based on this authoritative indicator framework and the situation of two countries' data collection in the UN SDGs database, we selected as many indicators as possible with data from 2000 to 2017 [51].…”

“…However, the sample area (Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan) of this paper did not have the relevant data of these two indicators; thus, only indicator 37 was used. Fourth, the universal 17 SDGs cover a wide range of content of sustainable development, such as all three major dimensions (economy, society, and environment) of sustainable development, as well as enablers such as institutional coherence, policy coherence, and accountability [48]. When fewer indicators are selected to assess SDGs, even if these indicators have certain comprehensiveness and representativeness, they may still result in a reduction or reorientation in the content of goals and targets.…”

Measuring the Health Impact of Drinking Water Sources in El-Fashir, Sudan

“…Joint Monitoring Programmers for water supply and sanitation stated that billions of people worldwide are lasting to suffer from poor access to water, sanitation and hygiene and according to UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO) reports (4) . One of the targets of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6.1, which is concerned mainly with water supply, "is to achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030" (5)(6)(7) . Water quality considered safe and fit for human consumption if all parameters being in standards and according to national and international guidelines as explained in the bellow table1, which expressed the standards for selected parameters include among others EC, pH, R. Chlorine, Turbidity, TDS, Nitrate …….…”

“…Heavy metals accumulate in human organs and nervous system which hinders the normal functions where it causes health problems (2) . Moreover, the heart diseases, kidney-related problems, and cancer are related to the traces of metals such as chromium (Cr) and cadmium (Cd) reported as water-related diseases (6). Fluoride can have an adverse effect on tooth enamel and may give rise to mild dental fluorosis.…”