The Integrating Approach:A proposal for structuring discussions

in the SDG OWG

Why a new approach is called for

• A key challenge for irreversible poverty eradication & for delivering well-being for 9 billion in the context of sustainable development

= break away from silos• Maximize potential synergies and minimize

potential trade/offs• Need to take informed decisions• Broaden partnerships for on-the-ground delivery

Value added of the SDGs

• Interlinkages between sectors & issues, between the 3 dimensions

= need to be made explicit and understandable • Facilitate interaction and dialogue between

different line ministries & sectoral agencies, between key actors - including government, civil society and private sector

• Outputs from such a process would likely be more focused on addressing concrete needs at national level and on implementation

What the proposal is

about• Focus initially on targets not goals• Adopt mainly a bottom up rather

than a top down approach• Engage substantively on issues

from the very start

REALITY NOT RHETORIC

The Logical Framework

Term Common understanding of what it is

Example from MDGs

Goal Expresses an ambitious, butspecific, commitment. Alwaysstarts with a verb/action.

Reduce child mortality

Target Quantified sub-components thatwill contribute in a major way toachievement of goal. Should bean outcome variable

Reduce by two-thirds, between1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate

Indicator

Precise metric from identifieddatabases to assess if targetis being met (often multipleindicators are used).

Under-5 mortality rateInfant mortality rateProportion of 1-year oldsimmunised against measles

Business-as-usual in

in practice

The Integrating Approach

Water Health Food security Inclusive economic

growth

Increase agricultural productivity by x%, with a focus on sustainably increasing

smallholder yields and access to irrigation.

Interlinkages: employment, water, food security

Bring freshwater withdrawals in line with supply and increase water

efficiency in agriculture by x%, industry by y% and urban areas by z%.

Interlinkages: Water and food security

Reduce by x% stunting, wasting by y% and anemia by z% for all

children under 5.

Interlinkages: health and food security

An exercise with this

approachRemember the earlier slide that showed the results of a group exercise following a traditional approach?Well, here is the result from an exercise by one of the groups using the Integrating ApproachThe process was simple and enabled participants to efficiently identify many areas of consensus.

??

?

Benefits of this approach• Inter-linkages between issue areas (eg. gender,

equity or resilience) and between sectors better captured

• Greater balance in addressing the 3 dimensions of SD

• Number of targets could potentially be reduced• No need to discuss what is “stand-alone” /

“cross-cutting”• Stronger political support can be built around

the targets• Entry point for inputs from other constituencies/

stakeholders• IMPLEMENTATION

Moving forward

• Start off discussions on the targets, not the goals

• Make efforts to identify multi-dimensional or inter-sectoral linkages

• Agreed targets would be grouped into goals

• Some targets would be shared across goals

Reality check• Prioritization will ultimately be a political

decision-making process• Through a bottom up process it will be better

informed and more substantive• The process will never be simple, but it can be

more streamlined and coherent• Efforts will need to be made to limit the number

of goals agreed to

For the SDGs to be relevant and taken up, we need to get the metrics right

A complementary

proposalTwo considerations should to inform the definition of the SDGS within a universal agenda:

1. Agreement on a limited number of Goals2. A modality for differentiation

• Global challenges need to be addressed at the global level

• But regional, national, and local specificities must be taken into account

The DASHBOARD PROPOSAL calls for agreement on• global goals that focus on global development priorities• targets and indicators tailored to national priorities and

circumstances

The Dashboard Concept Global Goals:

• Agreement on a few salient global priorities

Each Goal would have a core set of targets & indicators agreed at international level

• Each country would determine the speed and level for each target

• Each country would determine which targets & indicators are relevant according to their national circumstances

In addition to this,

• Countries can define additional targets and/or indicators • This would not be taken up at international level – in the MDG

process many countries defined additional national MDGs that served a domestic agenda but were not reflected internationally

Reduce postharvest loss and food waste by x%

Food Security & Nutrition

The Dashboard Proposal: An Example

FS-Target B

Reduce harvest waste by x% by [year]

Reduce consumption waste by x% by [year]

Reduce handling & storage waste by x% by [year]

Each country determines its:• Baseline• Milestones• Speed

Each country determines which indicators are relevant and adjusts them to national circumstances (e.g. type of crop, locality, modalities)

The Benefits of the Dashboard Approach Issues common to many countries would be reflected in the same targets

and indicators = good basis for cooperation, capacity building, exchange of experiences, and overall support from all sources

Regional and global comparability and aggregation would be possible

Greater overall coherence within the new framework at all levels

A “race to the bottom” is unlikely because when metrics work and are perceived to be useful, countries and organizations use them.....

…..GDP and MDGs are both voluntary!

If we get the new metrics right, this will spur a race to the top – by all stakeholders, not only by governments

Many thanks

Muchas gracias

Directorate for Economic, Social and Environmental AffairsMinistry of Foreign Affairs

Colombia