1.
U nit ed N at io n s Off ice o f t he H ig h Rep res en ta tiv e f o r the Lea st Dev el o p ed Co unt ri es , La n d lo ck ed Dev elo p in g Co u ntri es a n d S ma l l I s la n d D ev e lo pi ng S ta tes UN-OHRLLS)
DRAFT REPORT
Sixth Session of the Inter-Agency Consultative Group
Geneva, December 2011
Introduction 1. The United Nations Office of the High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island States (UN-OHRLLS) organized the Sixth Session of the Inter-Agency Consultative Group of the United Nations system and international organizations on the Implementation of the Istanbul Programme of Action for the least developed Countries for the Decade 2011-2020. The meeting was held from 5-6 November 2011 in Geneva, Switzerland. The agenda of the meeting comprised three main sessions: i) briefing by organizations on their efforts to integrate the Istanbul Programme of Action (IPoA) into their work programmes and to secure its implementation, ii) presentations of and discussions on the terms of reference of task force/working groups being established for the implementation of the IPoA, iii) work on indicators to monitor, follow up and review the IPoA (See Annex 1 for the Agenda of the meeting). Almost 60 participants, representing 32 organizations, attended the meeting (See Annex 2 for complete list). Opening of the Meeting 2. Mr. Diarra, High Representative High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, delivered the Opening Statement. He thanked participants for responding to OHRLLS’s invitation. This, in his view, attested to continued and strong commitment among UN organizations and other international organizations to support LDC development agenda. He indicated that the objective of the meeting is threefold. First is to exchange views on what various organizations have been doing to put LDC development needs at the forefront of their work and to take stock of challenges they have been confronted with in the pursuit of this endeavour. Second is to share and learn from one another how these challenges could be effectively addressed, including through increasing collaboration and synergies among our respective organizations. Third is to discuss how to take forward a number of specific activities contained in the Road Map, particularly the Inter-Agency Task Force on the establishment of a Technology Bank and Science, Technology and Innovation supporting mechanism dedicated to LDCs, the Inter-Agency working group on crisis mitigation and resilience building and the Inter-agency Working Group on resource mobilization in support of the implementation of the IPoA. He also indicated that the second day of the meeting will be entirely devoted to the work on indicators, with the expectation to arrive at a set of indicators to monitor, follow up and review the IPoA. 3. Mr. Diarra then moved on to report on what has been achieved so far in the journey toward the implementation of the IPoA. He underscored decisions of governing bodies of a number of UN organizations to mainstream the IPoA into their respective programmes of work. He also underlined ECOSOC and GA resolutions in support of the implementation of the IPoA as well as OHRLLS’s efforts to tap into existing UN coordination mechanisms, including EC-ESA and CEB, in advancing the implementation of the IPoA.
2
4. Mr. Diarra indicated that despite the progress made so far the road ahead is long. He reminded participants of the need to move on the proposed working group on agriculture, food security and rural development and to find ways and means to reflect provisions of the IPoA in the deliberations of existing mechanisms such as the meetings of Investment Advisory Council, the Social Protection Floor Advisory Group, the EC-ESA Cluster on Social Development and the UN CEB Inter-Agency Cluster on Trade and Productive Capacity. With these few reflections and remarks, he wished participants productive deliberations Session I: Briefing by organizations on their efforts to implement the Istanbul Programme of Action, including its mainstreaming in their Programmes of Work 5. Mr. David Luke, UNDP, emphasized the three areas of interventions of UNDP in LDCs. These include: (i) supporting MDG acceleration (ii) supporting and promoting inclusive and sustainable growth and (iii) promoting inclusive and equitable development, taking demand-based assistance and national ownership into account. He then recalled the decision of the Executive Board of UNDP to integrate the IPoA into the work of this organization and added that an organization-wide response to this Programme of Action is in the making. He also informed participants that the Executive Boards of UNDP, UNFPA, UNOPS, UNICEF, UN-Women and WFP are expected to take up the issue of the implementation of the IPoA at their joint meeting, which will be held in January 2012. 6. Ms. Jo Elizabeth Butler, UNCTAD, prefaced her remarks by underlining that the Trade and Development Board (TDB) has recently endorsed the IPoA and mandated UNCTAD to mainstream this programme of Action into its programme of work. She mentioned that UNCTAD has continued to produce its annual LDC Report, whose 2011 edition focuses on South-South cooperation. The annual LDC reports and other analytical work, including the recent study on the impact of the recent crisis on resource mobilization, have generated a body of knowledge on issues of key importance to LDC development and delineated UNCTAD as an active global player on LDC issues. She also underscored advisory services extended to some LDCs in such areas as science, technology and innovation, trade logistics and facilitation as well as trade and commodities. 7. Mr. Mohamed El-Kouhene, WFP, recalled that the largest share of WFP’s resources is channelled to LDCs. It is therefore natural to that the IPoA is integrated into the work programme of WFP as mandated by the Executive Board of this organization. Besides being the main recipient of WFP’s aid, LDCs also make symbolic contribution to the resources of the Programme. To ensure multiplier effects of its activities on the economies of LDCs, a deserved attention has been placed in sourcing part of relief food from local farmers. On the proposed working groups, Mr. El-Kouhene requested that the title of working group on agriculture, food security and rural development be slightly expanded so as to include nutrition, which receives little attention in the Istanbul Programme. He capped his presentation by mentioning some initiatives or activities his organization has embarked on recently and which could alter the development course of LDCs. These initiatives include discussions on food price volatility and targeted emergency humanitarian food reserves as well as food security and 3
nutrition interventions as they relate to population and primary health, social protection and disaster risk reduction. 8. Mr. Kifle Shenkoru, WIPO, briefed participants on workshops and meetings organized by his organization since the adoption of the IPoA. These events have enabled WIPO to provide some LDCs with instruments needed to build adequate IP-related institutional infrastructure and human resource capacity. Areas of interventions of WIPO include, among others, training of skills, use of branding, traditional knowledge and establishment of technology centres. 9. Ms. Annet Blank, Head, WTO, underlined progress made in the implementation of the priority areas of the IPoA that are within the purview of WTO, including trade, resource mobilization and the Technology Bank, Science, Technology and Innovation-supporting mechanism. On trade, she indicated that many WTO members are already implementing commitments on DFQF, as well as working on the facilitation and acceleration of the accession negotiations of LDCs to WTO, and on boosting tourism services, the latter two areas resulting in two Ministerial Decisions by WTO Members on respectively a strengthened framework to facilitate LDC accession, and a services Waiver for LDCs to encourage services concessions in areas of the interest of LDCs, done at the 8 th WTO Ministerial Conference in December, 2011. Moving to resource mobilization, she highlighted that Aid for Trade initiative has gained traction since its inception in 2005. Following the third review of the Aid for Trade, a new WTO Aid for Trade Work Programme for the period 2012-2013 was formulated. Under this programme, WTO ministers are invited to agree to maintain, beyond 2011, Aid for Trade levels that at least reflect the average of the period 2006-2008 and work with development banks to ensure the availability of trade finance to lowincome countries. The programme recognized the increasing and complementary role of South-South trade-related cooperation and the need to align aid for trade with national and regional priorities. Also, a large number of the Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) -related projects are on-going with the view to supporting institutional strengthening and trade–related capacity building across LDCs. Much of the involvement of WTO in the area of science, technology and innovation relates to its mandate to monitor and report on the implementation of Art.66.2 of the TRIPS, which requests developed countries to provide incentives to enterprises and institutions in their territories to promote and encourage technology transfer to LDCs. Finally, Ms Blank informed the meeting that WTO Members are working on revising the Work Programme of the Sub-Committee on LDCs to institutionally mainstream the IPoA into the work of the WTO. 10. Mr. Francesco Geoffroy, ITC, recalled the three strategic objectives of ITC. These are: i) improving the competitiveness of firms in developing countries and transition economies, iii) strengthening the ability of trade-service providers to serve exporters and iii) assisting policymakers in linking the private sector into the global economy. Nowhere are those objectives more relevant than in LDCs, hence the aim of ITC to reach 60 per cent of delivery in favour of this group of countries. He then underlined how ITC is working with LDCs to take their development agenda forward. In this regard, he emphasized the dialogue with LDCs to ensure that these countries own the activities implemented by ITC.
4
He also added that transfer of know-how features prominently in the work of his organization. 11. Mr. Luis M. Tiburcio, UNESCO, indicated that UNESCO is strongly committed to supporting the implementation of the IPoA. Its Executive Board has requested the mainstreaming of all relevant priority areas of the IPoA into the Programme and Budget for 2012-2013. To that intent, UNESCO will continue to provide capacity-building support LDCs in such areas as literacy, technical and vocational education and training, science, technology and innovation, management of, and access to, safe drinking water, gender equality and the empowerment of women and communication and information for development. UNESCO has also expressed interest in contributing to the work of some of the working groups and other activities contained in the Road Map for the implementation of the IPoA. 12. Ms. Norah Babic, IPU, stated that LDCs constitute an important constituency within the Union as 34 LDCs are members of this institution. She added that priority is given to this group of countries, with half of the capacitybuilding activities of IPU targeting them. She informed participants of the project document jointly formulated with OHRLLS which seeks to support and promote parliamentary engagement with the implementation of the IPoA (IPoA) for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) for the decade 2011 - 2020. In the same vein, she also mentioned other activities in support of the implementation of the IPoA. These include the incorporation of the mainstreaming of the IPoA into the work of parliaments into the IPU strategy for 2012-2017, the preparation of guidelines on how to mainstream the IPoA into the work of national parliaments, the strengthening of the parliamentary focal point mechanism, and the development of a regular feedback mechanism for parliaments to report on their IPoA related work. 13. Mr. Jiri Hlavacek, UNEP, underlined the importance of IPoA for becoming an integral part of preparatory process, discussion and political decision at the Rio+20 in 2012 and MDGs review in 2015. He recalled that majority of activities envisaged in IPoA are already reflected in present UNEP' 6 subprogrammes of PoW (climate change, ecosystem management, disasters and conflicts, resource efficiency, harmful substances and hazardous waste and environmental governance). He underscored that much of UNEP’s work focuses on LDCs. The recently adopted IPoA will be reflected in UNEP’s Medium-term Strategy 2014-2017 (MTS) and strategic frameworks and PoW aimed at regional and country-level deliveries. Outlining the programmatic approach of UNEP, he mentioned on-going efforts to analyse the needs and priorities of LDCs and to align UNEP activities to these. He also touched on LDC-relevant thematic issues of growing interest to his organization, including information sharing and peerlearning in the context of South-South cooperation and involvement in the debate on green economy. The forthcoming special session of the Governing Council/GMEF in February 2012 when discussing the GEO-5, green economy concept and environmental governance will take into account the challenges and needs of LDCs embodied now in IPoA. Green economy concept offers opportunity for LDCs and their holistic, synergetic approach to implementation of sustainable development goals of IPoA. Also ordinary session of the UNEP
5
Governing Council in 2013 when adopting new MTS and PoW will reflect IPoA according to the mandate of UNEP. UNEP through its Bali Strategic Plan of Technology Support and Capacity-building of 2005, South-South cooperation involvement and etc. is assisting LDCs and is cooperating also with other UN agencies to deliver as One UN. 14. Ms. Shyami Puvimanasinghe, UN-OHCHR, observed that the IPoA has an increased reference to human rights and that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights plans to both mainstream the IPoA in its work and support mainstreaming of human rights in UNLDC IV follow up. It is working towards an online Training Course to be developed with OHRLLS, UNITAR and others, for stakeholders in LDCs, and invites interested UN agencies to join in this effort. In the context of the IPoA goal of just, equitable and sustainable development, human rights including the right to development will play an increasingly significant role, because they place people at the centre of development and focus on the vulnerable both locally and globally. In a globalizing world, the right to development has the potential to create an enabling environment for development in all countries, and to make trade, investment, and development cooperation work for the well-being of all peoples. Further, the OHCHR conceptual framework on human rights indicators will assist the discussion on indicators. 15. Mr. Robert Jenkins, UNICEF, recalled the commitment of his organization to the implementation of the IPoA as mirrored by the decision of its Executive Board to mainstream the IPoA in its line of work. He then emphasized a couple of points, which he considered essential to the attainment of the goals set in the IPoA. First is equity. In this regard, he mentions a detailed UNICEF study, which shows how equity can scale up progress towards the achievement of MDGs in LDCs. Second is the importance of monitoring results, particularly among most disadvantaged groups. 16. Mr. Moazam Mahmood, ILO, indicated that his organization is pleased to work with OHRLLS in contributing to sustained development in LDCs. He highlighted the work of ILO on such issues as jobless growth and social protection. He capped his remarks by expressing hope that employment will be brought up in the thematic follow-up of the IPoA. In this regard, he requested that the issue of productive employment be taken up by the working group of crisis mitigation and resilience building. 17. Mr. Zion Hermans, UNFPA, underlined how population dynamics affect poverty reduction efforts as well efforts to increase food security, combat hunger and ensure environment sustainability. He indicated that UNFPA is committed to supporting LDCs in their efforts to address population issues. Mr. Hermans then emphasized two main points: i) deliverables for LDCs that UNFPA has committed to, and ii) the decision of the UNFPA to bind by. On the deliverables, LDCs, as part of the UNFPA’s A-list of countries, feature prominently in the activities of this organisation. The support extended to LDCs relates to population situation analysis, the evaluation of the linkages between population dynamics and development challenges and the integration of
6
population dynamics and interrelated issues. Another area is capacity building to design, execute and analyse census. He then recalled the decision of the joint Executive Board of UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS to integrate the IPoA into the work programmes of these organizations. 18. Ms. Selina Jackson, the World Bank, underscored that the assistance of her institution for LDCs comes through IDA, the concessional window of the World Bank Group. The recently successful replenishment of IDA-16 bodes well with efforts to contribute to the implementation of the IPoA, as a significant share of the record funding package for IDA 16 for the next three years, to which development partners agreed on, will be channelled to LDCs and will contribute to financing infrastructure and addressing climate change challenges. She mentioned three specific activities in support of the implementation of the IPoA: i) new World Bank trade strategy, including work through the Enhanced Integrated Framework for LDCs, ii) discussions with the UN on the proposed “Aid for Trade Research Partnership” and launching of a LDC Portal in collaboration with DESA with the view to facilitating access by LDCs to information on LDC-related preferential measures, iii) the convening of a high-level roundtable discussion on “Economic Growth and Structural Change in the LDCs” sponsored by the World Bank through its Development Research Group, Trade and Integration Unit, Columbia University and UN-OHRLLS in 2012. 19. Mr. Bartholomew Armah, ECA, recalled that much of ECA’s work relates to capacity building, which is carried out through the production of knowledge products, the promotion of advocacy, awareness raising and peer learning, and the provision of advisory services. Following the adoption of the IPoA, ECA undertook a stock-taking exercise, wherein ECA divisions were asked to map on-going and expected activities that could contribute to the implementation of the IPoA. It turned out that much is already done in all priority areas. He then turned to a specific tool developed by ECA- ECA LDC Monitor-for the purpose of monitoring the IPoA. He indicated that the development of indicators will be essential to commence the process of customizing this tool and enable monitoring of progress at the national and sub-national levels. 20. Mr. Mansour N'Diaye, UNCDD, informed participants that his organization took up the issue of implementation of the IPoA in a meeting that was held right after the Istanbul Conference. He recalled the strategic objectives pursued by UNCDD, including protecting of ecosystems and improving the living conditions of affected populations. He then went on to mention the assistance provided to LDC national focal points in the implementation of the three Rio Conventions. Mr. N’Diaye also added that UNCDD has developed some impact indicators, some of which could inform the on-going work on indicators initiated by OHRLLS. 21. Ms. Bernadette Mukonyora, IFAD, underscored that LDCs constitute a core constituency for IFAD, as this group of countries accounts for 42 per cent of the total resources disbursed by this organization since 1978. Eighty six per cent of IFAD’s resources channelled to LDCs take the form of concessional financing. Looking forward, she mentioned that IFAD has set aside USD 500 million to be allocated to LDCs in 2012 on the basis of a performance-
7
based allocation system. These resources will contribute to improving the living conditions of poor rural people and to increasing their resilience to shocks. Turning to the operational aspect of IFAD’s activities, Ms. Mukonyara highlighted that IFAD favoured a differentiated approach to country programming. Such an approach implies taking into account country peculiar conditions when formulating projects and programmes intended to clients. 22. Ms. Zoritsa Urosevic, UNWTO, briefed participants on the work of UN Steering Committee on Tourism for Development (SCTD), which was instituted at the Istanbul Conference. SCTD comprises nine organizations, which work together with the view to unlocking the full development potential of tourism in LDCs. She mentioned that SCTD agencies, with the support of the Secretariat of the Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF), have recently organized a workshop to assist eight LDCs in articulating their specific tourism-related needs and identifying SCTD Agency capabilities that could be used to address these needs. The workshop also provided an opportunity to keep these LDCs abreast of EIF and how they could tap into this scheme when developing their tourism strategies and action plans. The UNWTO General Assembly in 2011 approved for the Organization to continue its programme of work for LDCs. 23. Ms. Ivana Milovanovic, WHO, underlined that the issue of the integration of the IPoA into the programme of work of organizations will be brought up at the meetings of the governing body of WHO to be held in February 2012. She then indicated that country cooperation strategies inform the content and scope of the engagement of WHO. On the development of indicators, she emphasized similar exercises undertaken by her organization in collaboration with other UN agencies and mentioned that the work on indicators could build on these. 24. Mr. Kaliba Konare, WMO, summarized WMO’s efforts towards the implementation and mainstreaming of the IPoA. First, he recalled the participation of WMO Secretary-General to the Istanbul Conference. Second, he emphasized the decision of the sixteenth session of WMO congress in June 2011 to continue and enhance WMO special programme for LDCs so as to strengthen the capabilities of the national meteorological and hydrological services (NMHSs) of these countries to produce and provide relevant weather, water and climate information and services in order to meet the demands and requirements of the priority areas for action in the IPoA. Third, Mr. Konare informed participants of recent activities carried out by WMO, in collaboration with OHRLLS. In particular, he highlighted the staging of a workshop for African LDC national points and Directors of NMHSs with the view to sensitising them on the benefits of weather-climate-and water-related services in development of the LDCs and to building partnership among the two groups. In the same vein, a capacity development seminar for LDC national meteorological and hydrological services was also held in the aftermath of the workshop. 25. Mr. George Deikun, UNHABITAT, recalled the growing urbanization of LDCs and the implications of this on development outcomes. In view of this, he indicated that UN-HABITAT actively engages with LDCs to address the housing needs of urban poor communities in these countries, particularly through
8
supporting efforts to upgrade slums and to increase the supply of affordable housing including through improved land and settlement planning and security of land tenure. Closely related to this is the involvement of UN-HABITAT on issues such as the access of the urban poor to improved water and sanitation facilities. He mentioned two events that will held soon: the sixth session of the World Urban Forum and the International Conference on Housing and Urbanization to further advance national efforts at slum upgrading consistent with MDG7. These two events will serve as platforms for all stakeholders to share views on challenges and opportunities associated with rapid urbanization and improving the living conditions of the urban poor. 26. Mr. Jaromir Cekota, UNECE, highlighted how improved infrastructure can eliminate the disadvantage of being landlocked and boost trade and economic and cooperation. He, however, indicated that improved hardware infrastructure alone will not suffice to deliver the full potential of infrastructure development and emphasised the importance of software infrastructure, including regulation, trade facilitation procedures and national policies. He highlighted that UNECE has joined hands with UNESCAP in supporting regional cooperation between Afghanistan and its Central Asian neighbours within the framework of the UN special Programme of the Economies of Central Asia (SPECA). In this regard, he mentioned projects such as Transboundary watershed management between Afghanistan and Tajikistan, the support for developing free trade agreements between Afghanistan and its central Asian neighbours, and the UNECE project on developing Euro-Asian Transport Links. 27. Ms. Evelyn Zerbo, UNIDO, submitted latter in the meeting UNIDO’s input to the briefing. Seven of the eight priority areas for action of the IPoA form the basis of the interventions of UNIDO in LDCs. The recently held Ministerial Meeting has adopted the LDC Strategy and Operational Plan 2012-2020, which is expected to inform the content and scope of UNIDO’s support to LDCs in the decade to come. The three dimensions highlighted in this Strategy include: i) converting commodities into products, empowering rural commodities in the development process, and iii) strengthening the new regional industrial complementaries.
Session II: Presentations and Discussions on the Terms of Reference of the Working Groups/Task Forces being established for the implementation of the IPoA 28. Mr. Sandagdorj Erdenebileg, UN-OHRLLS, presented the terms of reference of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the establishment of a Technology Bank and a Science, Technology and Innovation-supporting mechanism as well as those of Inter-Agency working groups on resource mobilization and on crisis mitigation and resilience building. 29. He recalled that OHRLLS had engaged and consulted with other UN system and international organizations to keep up the momentum built in Istanbul in the aftermath of the successful staging of the Fourth United Nations Conference 9
on LDCs. A brainstorming meeting of the Interagency Consultative Group was convened on 28 June 2011 to discuss the way forward for the implementation of the IPoA. The meeting discussed and endorsed the Road Map for the implementation of the IPoA. This Road Map outlined activities/actions that need to be undertaken by all stakeholders, namely the inter-governmental bodies, parliaments, CSOs, the private sector, and the UN System, to ensure that the objectives of the IPoA are met. Principal among these substantive activities/actions are specific recommendations contained in the IPoA, such as the establishment of a Technology Bank and a Science, Technology and Innovationsupporting mechanism, but also the establishment of inter-agency working groups such as those on resource mobilization and on crisis mitigation and resilience building. 30. Mr. Erdenebileg indicated that the Task Force on the establishment of a Technology Bank and a Science, Technology and Innovation-supporting mechanism will be entrusted with the responsibly of undertaking needs assessment to: i) review existing mechanisms of technology transfer and technological innovations in LDCs, ii) identify factors that limit technology transfer and technological innovations under the current IPR regime, iii) and propose recommendations on how to remove these constraints. The task force will then prepare the terms of reference of consultant(s) who will work on functions and modalities of functioning of technology bank and STI Centre. The findings and recommendations of this study will be submitted to a validation process through consultations involving LDCs, developed countries and other key stakeholders and finalised thereafter. 31. Moving to the working groups, he noted that their functions include: i) identifying broad commitments contained in the Road Map as they relate to resource mobilization and crisis mitigation and resilience-building, ii) translating these broad commitments into detailed and innovative measures, initiatives and mechanisms and iii) suggesting how these measures, initiatives and mechanisms could be implemented and along with their timing and sequence. 32. Mr. Mr. Erdenebileg went on to underline what is expected from participants. This includes reviewing the functions of the task force and interagency working groups, reflecting on ways in which these schemes will function and the modalities through which they will deliver they activities, and agreeing on the membership of the task force and inter-agency working groups. 33. He expressed hope that some participating organizations will take up the remaining planned inter-agency working group on agriculture, food security and rural development and ensure that the LDC development agenda are reflected in the agenda of existing mechanisms, such as the Investment advisory Council, the Social Protection Floor Advisory Group, the EC-ESA Cluster on Social Development, the UN CEB Inter-agency Cluster on Trade and Productive Capacity, and UN Steering Committee on Tourism for Development. 34. In the ensuing discussion, many participants expressed their satisfaction with the formulation of the drafts terms of reference for the Task Force on the establishment of a Technology Bank and a Science, Technology and
10
Innovation-supporting mechanism and for the working groups on resource mobilization and on crisis mitigation and resilience building. In view of their respective lines of work and mandates, a number of participating organizations expressed interest in being part of these undertakings. 35. Participants indicated that they could provide only preliminary comments as they have just received the TORs. They promised to come back in due course with more informed comments. That said, they went on to make general preliminary comments on the three schemes to be established. Many felt that the organic linkages between the working groups/task force and the Interagency Consultative Group should be spelled out clearly. The same holds for the ways and tools though which their deliberations will influence policy-making across LDCs. Some participants reiterated the need for these schemes to take stock of, and build on, existing mechanisms at the national and regional and global levels. A number of participants also underscored the linkages among some of the issues at the core of the deliberations of the two working groups and requested that this be acknowledged in both TORs so as to encourage increased cross-fertilization of ideas between the working groups. 36. Specific comments on the terms of reference of the Task Force on the establishment of a Technology Bank and a Science, Technology and Innovationsupporting mechanism related to the need to expand the analysis to cover indigenous knowledge, review the science and technology-related domestic policies and to attach a timeframe to each of the expected outcomes. On crisis mitigation and resilience-building, a number of participants requested that the TOR incorporates issues of land degradation and generation of productive employment, natural disasters and climate change adaptation and mitigation. Turning to the TOR of the working group on resource mobilization, participants highlighted some key issues that should be reflected in the work on this working group. These include domestic resource mobilization and capital accumulation in support of value addition and retention. Session III: Proposed set of indicators to monitor, follow up and review the implementation of the IPoA 37. Mr. Oumar Diallo, OHRLLS, presented the proposed set of indicators to monitor, follow-up and review the implementation of the IPoA. By way of introduction, he underscored that the Istanbul Declaration and the Istanbul Programme of Action were adopted at the Fourth United Nations Conference on LDCs. The IPoA outlines a vision and the strategy to achieve sustainable development in least developed countries for the next decade. It emphasizes eight priority areas for actions. Each of these eight priority areas contains goals and targets to meet by 2020, in most cases, and carries concrete commitments by both LDCs and their development partners. These commitments are to be carried out either jointly and separately but in the spirit of partnership and mutual accountability. 38. He added that the new programme of action provides for effective monitoring, follow-up and review frameworks at national, regional and global 11
levels. To be effective, he added, these framework should build on a set of indicators for which there are reliable, comparable and easy to collect information, hence the idea of establishing a working group. A Working Group is expected to come up with a set of indictors to monitor, follow up and review the IPoA. 39. Mr. Diallo went on to mention that two main criteria have moulded the choice of indicators: i) the reliance of indicators that are drawn from other global frameworks (MDGs, Paris Declaration) or on well-established indicators or indicators that could provide relevant and clear measures of the goal or target of interest but are also anchored on international standards, recommendations and best practices, ii) the selection of indicators that capture not only outcomes and outputs but also inputs, therefore enabling to assess efforts deployed by various stakeholders in leaving up to their respective commitments. 40. He then gave a snapshot of the list of proposed indicators OHRLLS has come up with. One hundred distinct quantitative indicators were identified for 39 goals and targets out of the 46 that emerge from the eight priority areas for actions of the IPoA. Qualitative indicators were used for the remaining 7 goals and targets. Besides these 100 quantitative indicators, three additional indicators have been proposed for the monitoring of the first objective of the IPoA. 41. Mr. Diallo moved on to the features of the proposed list of indicators and noted that some of these indicators are often used to cover goals and targets of more than one priority area for actions, attesting to the high degree of linkages among the priority areas of the IPoA. Also, a good number of indicators are borrowed from global frameworks such as the MDGs and the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness as well indicators that shape LDC inclusion and graduation criteria. The remaining indicators are well-established indicators or slightly modified indicators of existing indicators or indicators computed on the basis of existing indicators. 42. After presenting the key features of these indicators, he underlined that OHRLLS expects to be advised on how relevant the proposed indicators are. He then shared with participants the views of his Office on the next steps. He mentioned that comments and suggestions emerging from the discussions will help revise the proposed list of proposed indicators, which will serve as a basis for the production of metadata sheets. These metadata sheets will be run through a validation process, wherein feedback on the proposed indicators is sought. 43. The presentation was followed by general comments. Participants commended OHRLLS for preparing the background note on indicators and for sharing it prior the convening of the Inter-Agency meeting. General comments then followed. A participant commented on the scope of the exercise, insisting that efforts should focus only on indicators beyond those of existing global frameworks such as the MDGs. There was also the view that the political process of accountability-meaning the validation process-should be clearly spelled out in the background note. 44. The remaining general comments relate to the content of the proposed indicators. Participants underscored the importance of having disaggregated data
12
so as to ensure that the monitoring framework in the making captures equity dimensions. While agreeing with the concept of “additionality”, many participants cautioned against having a framework with too many indicators, thus imposing additional burden to already weak overstretched statistical machineries in LDCs. With respect to selection criteria, many participants noted important data gaps in LDCs. Because of this, they were of the view that availability should also inform the choice of indicators to monitor, follow up and review the implementation of the IPoA. A number of participants felt that the set of proposed indicators should also help assess the extent to which commitments made by various stakeholders in the IPoA are delivered and should not focus only on targets and goals set in each priority area for action. 45. Ideally, indicators should be selected on the basis of established set of criteria. The number and type of indicators used should be determined on the basis of such criteria, and where possible a standard set of ‘core’ indicators may be used, to allow comparability of different courses of actions and outcomes. Overall indicators should be straightforward and clear measures of progress , reliable, verifiable and easy to understand by policymakers and other stakeholders, they should be consistent with data available and with the data collection capacity, should be relevant to policymaking, and should have a direct link with interventions or actions. They should be, easy and not too costly to measure. 46. The general comments were followed by specific comments (See Annexes 3-6 for specific proposals made by some organizations). On productive capacity, a participant recommended that indicators capturing technical capability as well as capital formation should complement the ones already proposed. The ratio fixed capital formation to GDP was suggested as one of the indicators for capital formation. The participant also promised to revert back to OHRLLS with concrete suggestions, based on on-going work spearheaded by UNCTAD. Some participants highlighted the need to identify indicators that reflect the rural/urban divide in terms of access to infrastructure. As a result of the discussions, the following indicators were proposed: Proportion of employed people living below $1 (PPP) per day (working poverty rate) Proportion of own-account and contributing family workers in total employment (vulnerable employment rate) Distribution of employment by sector Percentage of households that have access to electricity Percentage of households living in rural areas that have access to electricity 47. Turning to agriculture, food security and rural development, some participants proposed that additional indicators be proposed to monitor, follow-up and review important commitments made in this priority area. It was suggested that FAO, IFAD and FAO will consult and come up with some suggestions. Other comments relate to the priority given to agriculture in government spending allocation. There was a suggestion to add agriculture spending as a share of total spending. It was also proposed to remove the indicator: Fertilizer consumption (kilogrammes per hectare of arable land). 13
48. As regards trade, a participant recommended to supplement the relative measure of the aid for trade proposed in the background note by an absolute measure: the total volume of aid trade to LDCs. The same participant also suggested that progress in achieving the second goal/target on trade be gauged through qualitative indicators, not by quantitative indicators. Some participants also requested the inclusion of WTO, UNCTAD and ITC as potential sources of information for the indicators on trade. 49. On mobilizing financial resources for development and capacity building, a participant showed the limits of using aid alignment indicators borrowed from the Paris Declaration framework. Information on these indicators is not available for all LDCs and for all years. Moreover, it is still unclear whether surveys through which this information is generated will continue. There were suggestions to include indicators to assess the transformative nature of FDI, say the share of FDI that contributes to value retention and value addition. It was also suggested to include indicators, to the extent possible, on domestic resources mobilization, including access to finance as measured by lending rates or the spread between borrowing rates and lending rates. The capacity of governments to mobilize taxation (tax revenue as a percentage of government expenditure), domestic private investment as percentage of GDP or as the ratio to total private capital flows can also provide useful measures of capacity to mobilize domestic resources for development in LDCs. Other comments touched on governancerelated indicators, which were taken up in the discussions on governance at all levels. 50. The discussions on indicators for human and social development touched on its sub-themes. On education and training, some participants proposed a set of indicators to capture quality. The detailed list of these indicators and others along with their coverage was sent in written form. As far as population and primary health are concerned, one participant was of the view that the IPoA should highlight the need to address population issues and therefore recommended the inclusion of a number of new goals/targets along with actions by LDCs and their development partners. The same participant recommended new indicators for these goals/targets. As regards youth development, some participants advised that the monitoring framework should include indicators that capture the relevance of training and computer literacy. Also, a participant felt that there should be geographically disaggregated indicators (rural/urban). The following specific indicators were recommended:
Youth unemployment rate Ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates Youth employment to population ratio Youth working poverty rate Youth labour force participation rate
51. The need to have geographically disaggregated indicators was also reiterated for shelter and water and sanitation. Regarding the same theme, another participant recommended that the discussions on slums be broadened to include access to housing. On gender equality and empowerment of women, a 14
number of participants felt that the exercise of identifying indicators for this priority area will greatly benefit from the deliberations of the Inter-Agency Gender Working Group, while some highlighted the need to come by with indicators that convey the extent to which women, particularly those that live in rural areas, have access to productive assets and inputs. Turning specifically to women empowerment, there was a suggestion to consider the percentage of ministerial positions held by women. With regard to social protection, a number of participants highlighted that care must be taken to ensure that the proposed indicators capture the multiple dimensions of social protection, including in areas such as education and others. It was therefore recommended to include the indicator government spending in education as percentage of GDP or as a percentage of total government spending. 52. Moving to multiple crises and emerging challenges, participants recommended the inclusion of indicators that could help assess the degree of implementation of NAPAs and NAMAs and the degree of articulation in implementing the three Rio conventions. There was a suggestion to replace the indicator average annual soil erosion rate (ha, %p/y) by Land Cover Status. Other indicators recommended for this priority are as follows:
Per capita CO2 Emissions Volume of international disaster relief assistance Volume of humanitarian aid Direction of trade Number of deaths due to natural disasters Economic losses due to natural disasters as a percentage of GDP Coefficient of Variation of aid
53. On Good Governance at All Levels, there was a suggestion to consolidate all proposed indicators related to ratification of human rights treaties into one: status of ratification of the 17 international human rights treaties and optional protocols. This indicator should be complemented by type of accreditation of National Human Rights Institutions by the rules of procedure of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions. The discussions also highlighted the need to explore the possibility of borrowing some governance indicators conceived by a number of international organizations and NGOs, including CPIA, corruption perceptions index and APRM governance indicators. Also, a set of new governance indicators related to representation to, and role of, parliaments were sent in written form. Closing Session 54. Mr. Sandagdorj Erdenebileg, Acting Director of UN-OHRLLS, delivered the closing remarks. He thanked participants for their contributions and summarized what has emerged from the two-day meeting. Participating organizations concurred to send by 16 January 2012 their comments on the three terms of reference presented during the meeting, namely those of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the establishment of a Technology Bank and Science, Technology and Innovation supporting mechanism dedicated to LDCs, the Inter-Agency 15
working group on crisis mitigation and resilience building and the Inter-agency Working Group on resource mobilization in support of the implementation of the IPoA. There was also an agreement to hold a meeting of the Task Force and Working Groups in March 2012 in Geneva. On the indicators, participants agreed that there will be no other meeting to discuss indicators other than the Sixth Session of the Inter-Agency Working Group. It was therefore agreed that the list of indicators should be finalized on the basis of comments and suggestions made by participants. There was also a consensus that organizations will be supplying OHRLLS with data on indicators they have proposed. The next Inter-Agency Consultative Meeting will be held in New York in April/May 2012.
16
ANNEX 1: Agenda of the Sixth Inter-agency Consultative Group Meeting of the United Nations system and international organizations on the implementation of the Istanbul Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2011-2020 5-6 December 2011 Room:V, Palais des Nations, Geneva Monday 5 December 2011 10:00- 13:00 Opening Statement by Mr. Cheick Sidi Diarra, Under-SecretaryGeneral and High Representative for LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS (UNOHRLLS) on the status of implementation of the IPoA and on the Agenda of the Meeting. Briefing from participating organizations on their efforts to implement the Istanbul Programme of Action, including its mainstreaming in their Programmes of Work 15:00-18:00
Discussions on the Terms of Reference of the Working Groups/Task Forces being established for the implementation of the IPoA. Presentation by Mr. Sandagdorj Erdenebileg, Acting Director, UNOHRLLS (i) Inter-Agency Task Force on the establishment of a Technology Bank and Science, Technology and Information supporting mechanism dedicated to LDCs ( Lead agencies: UN-OHRLLS, UNCTAD, UNIDO, UNESCO, World Bank, WTO, WIPO and ITU) (ii) Inter-Agency working group on crisis mitigation and resilience building (Lead agencies: UN-OHRLLS, UNDP and the World Bank) (iii) Inter-agency Working Group on resource mobilization in support of the implementation of the IPoA (UN-OHRLLS, UNCTAD, IMF, the World Bank and DESA)
Wrap-Up of the First Day discussions by Mr. Cheick Sidi Diarra, Under-SecretaryGeneral and High Representative for LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS (UN-OHRLLS) Tuesday, 6 December 2011 10:00-13:00 Brief introductory Remarks by Mr. Sandagdorj Erdenebileg, Acting Director, UNOHRLLS on the working group on the indicators for the monitoring, follow-up and review of the Istanbul Programme of Action Presentation of the proposed set of indicators by Mr. Oumar Diallo, OHRLLS.
17
Part 1: Indicators for the specific objectives of the IPoA and for priorities areas (Productive capacity, Agriculture, food security and rural development, Trade, and Commodities) i. Discussant (UNCTAD) ii. Interactive Discussions iii. Wrap-up by Rapporteur (UNESCAP/ITU) Part 2: Indicators for priorities areas (Human and Social Development, Multiple crises and other emerging challenges) i. Discussant (UNSD/ UNECA) ii. Interactive Discussions iii. Wrap-up by Rapporteur (UNECA) 15:00-17:00 Part 3: Indicators for priorities areas (Mobilizing financial resources for development and capacity building, good governance at all levels) and South-South Cooperation i. Discussant (OECD/UNCTAD) ii. Interactive Discussions iii. Wrap-up by Rapporteur (OHRLLS) Closing Remarks by Mr. Sandagdorj Erdenebileg, Acting Director, UN-OHRLLS
18
ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Name Mr. Faouzi Gsouma
Email faouzi.gsm@laposte.net
Abdessalam Ould Ahmed Silvano Sofia Bernadette Mukonyora Moazam Mahmood Theodoor Sparreboom Norah Babic Constantine Bartel Younghwa Lee Francessco Geoffroy Orhan Osmani Yasmin Ahmad Adriano Timossi Shyami Puvimanasinghe Nicolas Fasel Cheick Sidi Diarra Sandagdorj Erdenebileg Oumar Diallo Cecile Leque HervĂŠ Cronel Etienne Alingue Abdoul Dieng N'Diaye Mansour Sophia Twarog
Organizations AUC African UnionGeneva Office FAO FAO IFAD ILO ILO IPU ITC ITC ITC ITU OECD OHCHR OHCHR OHCHR OHRLLS OHRLLS OHRLLS OIF OIF OIF UNAIDS UNCCD UNCTAD
Mussie Delelegn Bonapas Onguglo Jo Butler Giovanni Valensisi
UNCTAD UNCTAD UNCTAD UNCTAD
mussie.delelegn@unctad.org bono-pas.onguglo@unctad.org Jo.Butler@unctad.orG giovanni.valensisi@unctad.org
19
aouldahmed@unog.ch ssofia@unog.ch b.mukonyora@ifad.org mahmood@ilo.org sparreboom@ilo.org nb@mail.ipu.org bartel@intracen.org ylee@intracen.org geoffroy@intracen.org orhan.osmani@itu.int Yasmin.AHMAD@oecd.org atimossi@ohchr.org spuvimanasinghe@ohchr.org nfasel@ohchr.org diarrac@un.org erdenebileg@un.org dialloo@.un.org cecile.leque@francophonie.org Herve.cronel@francophonie.org etienne.alingue@francophonie.org dienga@unaids.org mndiaye@unccd.int sophia.twarog@unctad.org
ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS (Cont’d) Name David Luke Bartholomew Armah Adrian Gauci Jaromir Cekota Jiri Hlavacek Syed A.M. Nuruzzaman Micol Lucchi Luis M. Tiburcio Talal El Hourani Alison Kennedy Zion Hermans George Deikun Robert Jenkins Evelyne Zerbo Raines Frauenfeld Zoritsa Urosevic Mohamed El-Kouhene
Organizations UNDP UNECA UNECA UNECE UNEP UNESCAP UNESCO UNESCO UNESCO UNESCO UNFPA UNHABITAT UNICEF UNIDO UNOPS UNWTO WFP
Ivana Milovanovic Daniel Lelam Kifle Shenkoru
WHO WIPO WIPO
Email david.luke@undp.org Barmah@uneca.org agavei@uneca.org jaromir.cekota@unece.org Jiri.Hlavacek@unep.org nuruzzaman.unescap@un.org m.lucchi@unesco.org l.tiburcio@unesco.org t.el-hourani@unesco.org a.kennedy@unesco.org hermans@unfpa.org deikun.unhabitat@unog.ch rjenkins@unicef.org E.Zerbo@unido.org rainerF@unops.org zurosevic@unwto.org mohamed.elkouhene@wfp.org milovanovici@who.int daniel.lelam@wipo.int kifle.shenkoru@wipo.int
Victor Owade Kaliba Konare Selina Jackson Annet Blank Michael Roberts
WIPO WMO World Bank WTO WTO
victor.owade@wipo.int kkonare@wmo.int sjackson2@worldbank.org annet.blank@wto.org michael.roberts@wto.org
20
ANNEX 3: List of indicators suggested by UNESCO (in red) Table 6-A: Proposed Indicators for Human Development (Education and Training) Goals and Targets
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Use in other monitoring settings
E. Human Development Education and Training a. Ensure universal access to free primary education in least developed countries by increasing the enrolment and retention rates, and also increase access to secondary, tertiary, and vocational education and skill development training
Adjusted net intake rate to primary education Adjusted net enrolment rate in primary education Survival rate to last grade of primary Percentage of repeaters in primary education
IAEG on Gender (proposed indicator) MDG 2.1 MDG 2.2
69 69 73 82
Primary completion rate, measured by: Gross intake rate to last grade of primary education
Supplementary MDG indicator for Goal 2
80
Effective transition rate to secondary education Gross enrolment ratio in secondary education Percentage enrolment in technical and vocational programmes at secondary level
IAEG on Gender (proposed indicator) Gender parity index of GER is part of MDG 3.1
69 73 69
Gross enrolment ratio in tertiary education Pupil/teacher ratio in primary education Pupil/teacher ratio in secondary education Survival rate to last grade of primary Primary completion rate, measured by: Gross intake rate to last grade of primary education
Gender parity index of GER is part of MDG 3.1
MDG 2.2 Supplementary MDG indicator for Goal 2
67 86 63 73 80
Gross graduation rate from lower secondary education
IAEG on Gender (proposed indicator)
39
Youth literacy rate (% of literate population aged 15-24)
MDG 2.3
84
b. Increase the quality of education and training that is offered at all levels and increase literacy and numeracy rates of adults and children
Adult literacy rate, (% of literate population aged 15 and above) c. Eliminate gender disparities in education and training and ensure
Ratio of female to male in primary enrolment Ratio of female to male in secondary enrolment Ratio of female to male in tertiary enrolment
Coverage (%) *
Potential Data Sources
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any
•UNESCOUIS
All UIS’ gender-sensitive indicators will be provided by gender (total, male & female).
•UNESCOUIS
The indicator “-Gross graduation rate from lower secondary education” might be of limited coverage in the LDC’s.
•UNESCOUIS
Ratio of female to male is usually measured by gender parity index (GPI)
86 MDG 3.1 MDG 3.1 MDG 3.1
21
88 73 63
equal quality of education between males and females.
Female participation in secondary technical and vocational programmes
71
Education expenditure as % of government expenditure
63
Education expenditure as % of GDP Percentage of female tertiary graduates from fields of science and technology
67 22
IAEG on Gender (proposed indicator)
Notes: (*) Coverage is the percentage of countries with at least one data point in the last three years, out total LDCs
22
of gross enrolment ratio at respective level of education. A GPI value between 0.97 and 1.03 indicates parity among
Table 8-A: Proposed Indicators for Human Development (Youth Development) Goals and Targets
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Use in other monitoring settings
Coverage (%) *
Potential Data Sources
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any
•OHRLLS based on desk research
This goal should be monitored using qualitative information about new legislation and initiatives that are being put in place by LDCs to enable a greater participation of youth in the life of society and in decision-making processes. This information could be collected from LDCs and/or through desk research
•UNESCO-UIS
Technical and vocational education programmes are those designed to lead participants to acquire the practical skills, know-how and understanding necessary for employment in a particular occupation or trade or class of occupations or trades (ISCED 1997)
•UNESCO-UIS
Probably you need to add another indicator(s) on youth employment\unemployment
E. Human Development Youth Development a. Strive to ensure full and effective participation of youth in the life of society and in decision-making processes
b. Build the educational and skills capacity of youth and achieve full and productive employment and decent work
Youth literacy rate (% of literate population aged 15-24)
MDG 2.3
84
Percentage enrolment in technical and vocational programmes at secondary level
c. Enhance youth participation in the economy through improving access to vocational education, volunteering and employment
69
Gross enrolment ratio in secondary education
Gender parity index of GER is part of MDG 3.1
73
Gross enrolment ratio in tertiary education
Gender parity index of GER is part of MDG 3.1
67
Youth literacy rate (% of literate population aged 15-24)
MDG 2.3
84
Percentage enrolment in technical and vocational programmes at secondary level
69
Notes: (*) Coverage is the percentage of countries with at least one data point in the last three years, out total LDCs
23
Table 10-A:
Proposed Indicators for Human Development (Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women)
Goals and Targets
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Use in other monitoring settings
Coverage (%) *
Potential Data Sources
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any
•UNESCO-UIS (3.1)
Ratio of girls to boys is measured by gender parity index (GPI) of gross enrolment ratio at respective level of education. A GPI value between 0.97 and 1.03 indicates gender parity 3.2 is collected by the ILO and 3.3 is collected by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)
E. Human Development Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women a. Achieve equal access of women and girls to education, basic services, health care, economic opportunities, and decision-making at all levels
3.1: Ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary, and tertiary education 3.1a:Ratio of female to male primary enrolment
MDG 3.1
88
UN WOMEN
3.1b: Ratio of female to male secondary enrolment
MDG 3.1
73
•United Nations Statistics Division
3.1c: Ratio of female to male tertiary enrolment
MDG 3.1
63
3.2: Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector 3.3: Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament b. Take steps to realize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, including sexual and reproductive health.
•5.3: Contraceptive prevalence rate •5.4: Adolescent birth rate
•UN WOMEN •United Nations Statistics Division
•5.6: Unmet need for family planning
c. Accelerate efforts to promote women's rights and gender equality, including women with disabilities
•UN WOMEN
24
Progress in achieving this goal could also be gauged through qualitative information about new legislation and initiatives that are being put in place by LDCs with the view to promoting women's rights and gender equality, including women with disabilities. This information could be collected from LDCs and/or through desk research.
Table 11-A: Proposed Indicators for Human Development (Social Protection) Goals and Targets
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Coverage (%) *
Potential Data Sources
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any
• Health expenditure, public (% of GDP)
•IMF
• General government expenditure on health as a percentage of total expenditure on health
•ILO
• Social security expenditure on health as a percentage of general government expenditure on health
•WHO
Given that some of the indicators might not available for all years, the assessment of the rate of progress in achieving this goal should be complemented by qualitative data on new legislation and initiatives aimed at introducing and improving social protection schemes.
E. Human Development Social Protection a. Enhance social protection to improve the resilience of all, including poor and disadvantaged groups
Education expenditure as % of government expenditure
63
UNESCO-UIS
Education expenditure as % of GDP
67
UNESCO-UIS
Notes: (*) Coverage is the percentage of countries with at least one data point in the last three years, out total LDCs
25
ANNEX 4: List of indicators suggested by IPU (in red) Table 1-A: The Objectives of the Istanbul Programme of Action Istanbul Programme of Action
e. Enhance good governance at all levels, by strengthening democratic processes, institutions and the rule of law; increasing efficiency, coherence, transparency, and participation; protecting and promoting human rights; and reducing corruption, and strengthen least developed country Governments' capacity to play an effective role in their economic and social development.
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Capacities of LDC parliaments (as pillars of governance) to provide efficient, transparent and representative decision making. Focus areas: budget process; composition of parliament; parliamentary rules of conduct. Involvement of parliaments in oversight and monitoring of IPOA-supportive policies through mainstreaming as well as regular progress reviews.
26
Potential Data Sources
•The World Bank •IPU
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any
Possible indicators to cover this objective are similar to those pertaining to the priority area "Good governance at all levels", and on “Mobilizing Financial Resources for Development and Capacity building”
ANNEX 5: List of indicators suggested by UNIDO (in red) Table 2-A: Proposed Indicators for Productive Capacity Goals and Targets
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Potential Data Sources
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any
A. Productive Capacity a. Increase significantly the value addition in natural resource-based industries paying special attention to employment generation
• Share of the non-extractive sector in total GDP •1.4 Growth Rate of GDP per person employed •1.5 Employment-to-population ratio
• United Nations Statistics Division •The World Bank •IMF
The non-extractive industry will be equal to GDP excluding agriculture, hunting, forestry, fishing, mining and quarrying (ISIC A-C). Share of the non-extractive sector will be estimated using the top level of International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC).
Share of Manufacturing value-added (MVA) in GDP MVA per capita Share of LDC in world MVA MVA growth rates
UNIDO
b. Diversify local productive and export capability with a focus on dynamic value added sectors in agriculture, manufacturing and services
• Herfindahl-Hirschmann Production Concentration Index, estimated on the basis of information on value-added by sectors and using the top level of ISIC Market diversification index Share of LDC in most dynamic products Share of manufactured exports in total exports
• United Nations Statistics Division •The World Bank •IMF
The top level of International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) will be used to estimate the Herfindahl-Hirschmann Production Concentration Index
c. Significantly increase access to telecommunication services and strive to provide 100 percent access to the Internet by 2020
•8.14: Fixed telephone lines per 100 population •8.15: Mobile cellular subscriptions per 100 population •8.16: Internet users per 100 population
•ITU •United Nations Statistics Division
Ideally, data should have drawn from ITU database, which is however not available online. Data were downloaded from the World Development Indicators, which itself is derived from ITU’s database.
27
ANNEX 6: List of indicators suggested by IPU (in red) Table 13-A: Proposed Indicators for Mobilizing Financial Resources for Development and Capacity Building (Domestic Resource Mobilization) Goals and Targets
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Potential Data Sources
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any
•Number of LDC parliaments adopting MPs personal assets disclosure rules and make regular disclosures public. •Number of parliaments adopting conflict of interest guidelines for MPs
•OHRLLS based on desk research •IPU (survey), - (and possibly TI sources and ohers desk reviews.) [this could also be in Table 16-A, line b.]
This goal could be assessed through qualitative information on anti-corruption conventions and other institutional innovations which LDCs adhere to. The assessment should also be based on similar measures taken by LDC development partners with the aim of curbing cases in which their representatives, companies engage in corruption abroad. This information could be collected from LDCs and/or through desk research.
G. Mobilizing Financial Resources for Development and Capacity Building
Domestic Resource Mobilization b. Reduce corruption and increase transparency at all levels.
28
Table 14-A: Proposed Indicators for Mobilizing Financial Resources for Development and Capacity Building (Official Development Assistance) Goals and Targets
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Potential Data Sources
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any
•Percent of donors and of aid flows that use public financial management systems in LDCs (Q11-bis) •Percent of donors and of aid flows that use LDC procurement systems (Q12-bis) •Percentage of aid disbursements released to LDC according to agreed to scheduled in annual or multi-year frameworks (Q15-bis) •Proportion of ODA provided to LDC that is channelled to economic infrastructure and the productive sectors •Percent of aid put on budget; •Percent of aid provided as budget support •Participation of parliaments in aid effectiveness structures (govt.-donor roundtables) [this could also go under governance below]
•OECD (PD monitoring survey and other sources) •UN-DCF survey on mutual accountability [to be verified with UN]
"Bis" is used for indicators that are derived from the Paris Declaration but tailored to LDCs
G. Mobilizing Financial Resources for Development and Capacity Building Official Development Assistance b. Ensure the alignment of aid with least developed countries' national priorities and increase the alignment of aid with least developed countries' national systems and procedures
29
Table 16-A: Proposed Indicators for Good Governance at all Levels Goals and Targets
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Potential Data Sources
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any
•Percentages of LDCs that have ratified; i) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ii) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, iii) conventions relating to disadvantaged, vulnerable, marginalized populations and to labour standards •The percentage of LDCs that have ratified the convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women • 3.1 Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament Fair representation of ethnic/cultural minorities, as well as of youth (as proportion of population)
•UN •IPU (for women, minorities and possibly youth)
These indicators should be supplemented by qualitative information on constitutional and legislative guarantees and on national human rights institutions protecting human rights. Quantitative information on the degree of participation of the population in all phases of development policy, programme design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation might also be useful. Also expert assessment on the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence might also help gauge progress in fostering the rule of law.
• Number of parliaments with legal authority to approve loan agreements with World Bank and/or IMF, as well as number of parliaments able to amend the government budget proposal • Number of parliaments disposing of (independent) auditor generals reports on previous year’s expenditures •Number of countries with a transparent, open and participatory budget process (publication of budget proposal; pre-budget public hearings; etc) •Number of parliaments participating in national progress reviews of IPOA •Number of parliaments adopting Action Plans for the mainstreaming of IPOA in their own work •Number of parliaments/MPs interacting with citizens and publishing legislation and other key documents online (e-Parliaments)
•OHRLLS based on desk research •IPU (joint survey with WB/IMF; information received by partner organizations such as INTOSAI, International Budget Partnership; IPU World e-Parliament Report) •UN Resident Coordinators (LDC focal points)
H. Good Governance at all Levels a. Strengthen good governance, the rule of law, human rights, gender equality and empowerment of women, and democratic participation, including by enhancing the role of parliaments.
c. Enhance the institutional capacity of least developed countries to ensure good governance
30
Note: first global minorities survey expected in 2014. UN Stats Division may need to cooperate especially for youth data.
Progress in this goal could be gauged through information on national efforts of LDCs to strengthen the institutional capacity of LDCs in the area of good. These efforts could take the form of reforms and other institutional innovations which LDCs have embarked in.
ANNEX 7: List of indicators suggested by the Rome-Based Agencies-FAO, IFAD and WFP-(in red) Table 1-A: The Objectives of the Istanbul Programme of Action c. Reduce the vulnerability of least developed countries to economic, natural, and environmental shocks and disasters, as well as climate change, and enhance their ability to meet these and other challenges through strengthening their resilience.

WFP
Household food consumption score
31
Possible indicators to cover this objective are similar to those pertaining to the priority area "Multiple crises and other emerging challenges"
Table 3-A: Proposed Indicators for Agriculture, Food Security and Rural Development Goals and Targets
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Potential Data Sources
•Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption
•United Nations Statistics Division
•Prevalence of acute malnutrition among children <5 (weight for height)
WFP
•% of annual public spending to agriculture
IMF Government Financial Statistics (GFS) Yearbook and National government agencies
•The Prevalence of Undernourishment (or Food Insecurity) in LDCs
FAO
• Agricultural machinery, tractors per 100 sq. km of arable land •Agricultural irrigated land (% of total agricultural land) •Fertilizer consumption (kilograms per hectare of arable land)
•Food and Agriculture Organization •The World Bank
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any
B. Agriculture, Food Security, and Rural Development a. Make substantial progress towards eradicating hunger by 2020
b. Substantially increase investment in rural infrastructure
c. Ensure access to safe food and emergency food assistance in all least developed countries
•OHRLLS
•Household food consumption score
WFP
32
This goal should be monitored using qualitative information about global reforms aimed at improving access to safe food and ways in which emergency food assistance are delivered.
Table 7-A: Proposed Indicators for Human Development (Population and Primary Health) Goals and Targets E. Human Development Population and Primary Health a. Achieve targets under Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5 by 2015 and, building on these, further significantly reduce the infant, under-five and maternal mortality rates and child undernutrition by 2020.
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Potential Data Sources
•4.1: Under-five mortality rate •4.2: Infant mortality rate •4.3: Proportion of 1 year-old children immunized against measles
•UNSD •The World Bank
•Prevalence of acute malnutrition among <5 (weight for height)
WFP
•The Prevalence of Undernourishment (or Food Insecurity) in LDCs
FAO
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any
Table 12-A: Proposed Indicators for Multiple Crises and Emerging Challenges Goals and Targets
F. Multiple Crises and Emerging Challenges a. Build the resilience of least developed countries to withstand economic shocks and to mitigate their adverse effects.
Proposed indicator(s) to measure goals and targets
Potential Data Sources
• Herfindahl-Hirschmann Production Concentration Index, estimated on the basis of information on value-added by sectors •Herfindahl-Hirschmann Export Concentration Index, estimated on the basis of information on the product categories of the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC) at the three-digit level •Exports Diversification Index •Share of the non-extractive sector in total GDP •Coefficient of Variation of ODA to LDCs over the past 3 years compared to what is was before •Coefficient of Variation of Remittances to LDCs over the past 3 years compared to what is was before •Disaster preparedness index
•UNCTAD •WTO •OECD •UN Statistics Division
33
WFP
Remarks on proposed indicators, If any