The 2030 Development Agenda: Tackling regional challenges Ben Slay Senior advisor UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe and CIS Istanbul 16 December 2015

Key issues and messages Lessons learned from region’s MDG experience Implications for SDGs Emerging “issues of transition” Greater complexity National adaptation, prioritization, and “cherry picking” Statistical capacity Staggered start Need for rapid, cohesive, integrated UN approach

MDGs in the region: Lessons learned National post-2015 consultations (2013-2014) Held in virtually all “programme countries” Regional post-2015 consultation (November 2013)

MDGs in Europe and Central Asia: An uneasy fit Weak identification with the “South” European- , Russo-centric country orientation Extreme poverty, basic services—not (seen as) major challenges 20+ new states emerge after “MDG baseline year” 1990, facing major issues of: Governance, human rights Conflict/post-conflict Environmental sustainability (in poorer countries) Institutional capacity (especially for data/statistics) ODA inflows relatively modest

MDGs’ weak environmental sustainability dimensions matter—Water . . . Aral Sea: 1989-2008 Water withdrawals as a share of total fresh water resources (2007-2011, HDRO data)

. . . Land, energy, and health Numbers of child deaths per 100,000 children (2004 data) Shares of population living on degraded land (2010) Source: UNDP Human Development Report Office.

The “governance disconnect”—also an issue Popular insurrections unseat governments . . . Ukraine (2014, 2005) Kyrgyzstan (2010, 2005) Moldova (2009) Georgia (2003) Albania (1997) . . . Even as these countries are “on track to achieve the MDGs”

Unemployment rates disaggregated by age, ethnicity “Tyranny of averages”: National data often conceal pockets of poverty, vulnerability Unemployment rates disaggregated by age, ethnicity Sources: ILO, national statistical offices, UNDP/EU/World Bank Roma vulnerability database. 2011 data.

MDGs in the region: Pluses “Adaptation” of MDGs, targets, indicators: “Nationalization”: MDG targets, indicators redefined to better reflect national specifics Virtually all countries in the region did this “Localization”: Sub-national disaggregation Result: More national relevance But less international comparability MDG needs assessments/costing estimates Helped with sectoral resource mobilization MAFs: Joint UN responses

From MDGs to SDGs: Continuity and change 2000 2015 2030 Dignity end poverty, fight inequality People ensure healthy lives, knowledge, inclusion of women and children Planet protect our ecosystems for all societies and our children Partnership catalyse global solidarity for sustainable development SDGs: “Sustainable development in all countries” Justice promote safe and peaceful societies, and strong institutions MDGs: “Reduce poverty, extend basic services in poor countries” Prosperity grow a strong, inclusive and transformative economy

MDGs v. SDGs: The numbers game Issues of transition: “Complexity”, “adaptation”, “prioritization”, “cherry picking” Many middle income-countries adapted MDG targets and indicators to reflect national specifics Advantage: More national relevance Disadvantage: Less international comparability There are 409 sustainable development goals, targets, and (proposed*) indicators  Complexity Will other (new) ones be “adapted”? Or Will it be about “which indicators to use”? How will national priorities be set? “Cherry picking”? MDGs v. SDGs: The numbers game Goals Targets Indicators MDGs 8 21 60 SDGs 17 169 223*

Issue of transition: Statistical capacity? Emerging gap between SDG: Statistical aspirations Realities March 2015 survey on proposed SDG indicator feasibility  Implication: Many developing countries will not escape “tyranny of averages” Question: Can “big data” (“open data”) be part of the answer? UNSC indicator assessment survey Number of indicators Very relevant, suitable, and feasible 50 (16%) Very relevant, suitable, but only feasible with a strong effort 39 (13%) Very relevant, but suitability needs further discussion, and only feasible with a strong effort 28 (9%) Only somewhat relevant, suitability needs further discussion, and only feasible with a strong effort 86 (28%) Only somewhat relevant, suitability needs further discussion, and difficult even with a strong effort 95 (31%) Based on responses to a UN Statistical Commission survey of 70 national statistical offices conducted in March 2015.

SDG indicators: A staggered start? Green SDGs: No problem with indicators Yellow SDGs: Indicator problems can be resolved Grey SDGs: “More discussion necessary” on indicators “Ready to rock” ------------------------------------------------------- “Not yet ready for prime time” UNDP calculations, based on responses from 25 member states, collected by UN Statistical Commission in October 2015.

SDGs: Some concluding thoughts SDGs fit our region much better than MDGs did This is a huge opportunity . . . but where’s the money? Alternative sources of development finance (e.g., remittances)? How do we do SDG16 (“peace, justice, inclusive institutions”)? Governments are expecting UN support that is: Timely Integrated Complexity of SDG agenda means we can not know all the answers in advance—especially on: Reporting Accountability But let’s not let this stand in the way of moving forward . . . Together 

Thank you very much! Ben.slay@undp.org