27
Tier I indicators reflect an internationally
accepted methodology, with data produced by
50% of countries. The indicators in Tiers II and
III have weaknesses either in methodology or
availability, or both. As of December 31, 2018,
two full years into implementation of the SDGs,
just 45% of the official indicators for use at the
national level are classified as Tier I.
13
This is
after the international community has been working on the MDGs for 15 years, spent 3 years
developing the SDGs, and has been engaged in
implementation for 2 years.
Adapting SDG measurement to the local level
increases the degree of difficulty. Data quality
challenges similar to those experienced with the
UNSC indicators not only exist locally, but for
most municipalities, they will be more pronounced. These challenges are complicated by
the reality that no officially determined SDG
metrics exist for local purposes and that localization of the agenda can take many forms. A key
issue relates to the balance between standardization and customization: To what extent is it
important that the common language of the SDGs
translates into common measurement across different cities?
The points of reconciliation among standardization and customization depend in part upon
audience and objective. A city may focus its
efforts one way if it places high value on the ability to compare progress against counterpart cities
across the world. It may take other approaches if
it sees the SDGs as a common denominator
among different levels of government at the
county, state, and national levels, or if it is primarily interested in using the SDGs as a common
platform to mobilize action among community
stakeholders.
As the city of Los Angeles selects indicators
to measure progress toward the proposed 156 targets of its localized framework, there are multiple
options from which to draw. Its Mayor’s
Dashboard provides regularly updated data on
close to 200 indicators, measures, metadata, and
13 IAEG-SDGs. Tier Classification for Global SDG
Indicators. Retrieved from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/
iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/
charts. In 2018, the city entered into an agreement with the World Council on City Data
(WCCD) to become one of eight local data hubs
for sharing information based on WCCD’s open
data standards. There may also be the opportunity to localize selected national SDG indicators,
especially if local data can be disaggregated from
the same sources the US government is using to
report national metrics to the UN through its
online reporting portal.
The WCCD partnership offers promise in providing a common basis for comparison to other
cities. In 2014, after years of consultation with
cities worldwide, the organization was instrumental in publishing ISO 37120, a standard set of
46 core and 54 supporting indicators and related
methodologies to measure the sustainable development of communities. Certification against the
ISO standard requires third-party verification,
ensuring a rigorous application of the methodology and a high quality of reporting. This enables
a high degree of comparability for cities reporting against the standard.
Though the ISO standard was developed
before the SDGs, WCCD recognized that the
indicators cover similar social, economic, and
environmental dimensions. WCCD now publishes an annual report of reporting cities with the
ISO indicators mapped against the SDGs.
The alignment draws an association between
each indicator in ISO 37120 to any SDG target
where that indicator might provide relevant
insights. Thus indicators may be used more than
once, and more than one indicator may be associated with an SDG target.
While this approach helps draw an aggregate
picture of progress, its usefulness in helping a
city measure performance against particular SDG
targets, especially for managerial purposes,
seems limited. This is not surprising, as the ISO
certification was not designed specifically for this
purpose.
The set of 100 ISO indicators also leave gaps
in coverage over the entire breadth of SDG targets. A rough analysis suggests that ISO indicators can provide a direct measure that corresponds
to the specificity of a target, at a level equivalent
3 Los Angeles: Measuring Its Ambition to Achieve the SDGs
Tier I indicators reflect an internationally
accepted methodology, with data produced by
50% of countries. The indicators in Tiers II and
III have weaknesses either in methodology or
availability, or both. As of December 31, 2018,
two full years into implementation of the SDGs,
just 45% of the official indicators for use at the
national level are classified as Tier I.
13
This is
after the international community has been working on the MDGs for 15 years, spent 3 years
developing the SDGs, and has been engaged in
implementation for 2 years.
Adapting SDG measurement to the local level
increases the degree of difficulty. Data quality
challenges similar to those experienced with the
UNSC indicators not only exist locally, but for
most municipalities, they will be more pronounced. These challenges are complicated by
the reality that no officially determined SDG
metrics exist for local purposes and that localization of the agenda can take many forms. A key
issue relates to the balance between standardization and customization: To what extent is it
important that the common language of the SDGs
translates into common measurement across different cities?
The points of reconciliation among standardization and customization depend in part upon
audience and objective. A city may focus its
efforts one way if it places high value on the ability to compare progress against counterpart cities
across the world. It may take other approaches if
it sees the SDGs as a common denominator
among different levels of government at the
county, state, and national levels, or if it is primarily interested in using the SDGs as a common
platform to mobilize action among community
stakeholders.
As the city of Los Angeles selects indicators
to measure progress toward the proposed 156 targets of its localized framework, there are multiple
options from which to draw. Its Mayor’s
Dashboard provides regularly updated data on
close to 200 indicators, measures, metadata, and
13 IAEG-SDGs. Tier Classification for Global SDG
Indicators. Retrieved from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/
iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/
charts. In 2018, the city entered into an agreement with the World Council on City Data
(WCCD) to become one of eight local data hubs
for sharing information based on WCCD’s open
data standards. There may also be the opportunity to localize selected national SDG indicators,
especially if local data can be disaggregated from
the same sources the US government is using to
report national metrics to the UN through its
online reporting portal.
The WCCD partnership offers promise in providing a common basis for comparison to other
cities. In 2014, after years of consultation with
cities worldwide, the organization was instrumental in publishing ISO 37120, a standard set of
46 core and 54 supporting indicators and related
methodologies to measure the sustainable development of communities. Certification against the
ISO standard requires third-party verification,
ensuring a rigorous application of the methodology and a high quality of reporting. This enables
a high degree of comparability for cities reporting against the standard.
Though the ISO standard was developed
before the SDGs, WCCD recognized that the
indicators cover similar social, economic, and
environmental dimensions. WCCD now publishes an annual report of reporting cities with the
ISO indicators mapped against the SDGs.
The alignment draws an association between
each indicator in ISO 37120 to any SDG target
where that indicator might provide relevant
insights. Thus indicators may be used more than
once, and more than one indicator may be associated with an SDG target.
While this approach helps draw an aggregate
picture of progress, its usefulness in helping a
city measure performance against particular SDG
targets, especially for managerial purposes,
seems limited. This is not surprising, as the ISO
certification was not designed specifically for this
purpose.
The set of 100 ISO indicators also leave gaps
in coverage over the entire breadth of SDG targets. A rough analysis suggests that ISO indicators can provide a direct measure that corresponds
to the specificity of a target, at a level equivalent
3 Los Angeles: Measuring Its Ambition to Achieve the SDGs