94
the city’s leadership, which aligned with SDGs
relating to health (3), water and sanitation (6),
industry and infrastructure (9), sustainable cities
(11), climate change (13), and good governance
(16). This simple connect-the-dots approach was
found to reduce any skepticism and improve buyin from local officials.
In the case of LA, where the mayor has played
a leadership role in promoting the SDGs, the
local research team developed a list of proposed
local SDG indicators that aligned with LA’s
Sustainable City pLAn. The team aimed to propose a set of targets and associated indicators that
would enable a more coordinated government
effort to achieve the SDGs.
The advantage of aligning SDG planning and
monitoring exercises with existing local strategies and plans is that it can encourage better
cross-governmental coordination and minimize
excessive, cumbersome local monitoring. But
unless a clear commitment is also made to progressively meet the other “missing” goal areas, it
risks being a “pick-and-choose” approach which
may jeopardize the integrated and indivisible
nature of the SDGs.
7.8
The SDGs and the Official
Indicators Provide
a Common Language,
to Encourage Coordination
and Where Possible Active
Comparison
Across the cities studied, local stakeholders
praised the utility of the SDG indicator framework (the set of 240 indicators recommended by
Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable
Development Goal Indicators – IAEG-SDG
15
)
for providing a common language—one which
enabled diverse city stakeholders to talk about
their objectives in reference to specific metrics
and outcomes. Using a data-informed approach
also helped ensure that conversations about pri15 https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/ See also the
e-handbook on SDG indicators, available at https://
unstats.un.org/wiki/display/SDGeHandbook/Home
orities and targets (including target thresholds)
were evidence-based and locally relevant.
All of the cities studied drew upon the set of
IAEG-SDG indicators to some degree in their
initial discussions, either just for inspiration
when designing their own locally relevant indicators or as the basis for their monitoring framework. On a few dimensions, such as CO 2
emissions and urban sprawl, the discussions have
consequently spawned cross-city discussions on
methodological alignment (e.g., in the sidelines
of the recent Winter US Conference of Mayors
meeting), which may eventually enable active
cross-city comparison. However, it was pointed
out by a number of cities, such as LA, USA, and
Bristol, UK, that global indicators are not always
directly relevant and appropriate for a city context and the city’s jurisdiction may limit its ability to affect achievement. For example, target
levels (e.g., national versus sub-national), geographic context (e.g., coastal versus landlocked),
and various data constraints have implications for
how cities utilize the official indicators and structure city-level SDG monitoring. Therefore, it is
imperative that local stakeholders critically analyze the relevance of the local IAEG-SDG indicators and then work together to craft a functional
set of local indicators that can better support local
policies and planning.
7.9
The Necessity to Develop
Additional Local SDG
Measures
In all of the cities studied, stakeholders felt the
need to tailor the IAEG-SDG indicators or significantly add to them to better reflect local priorities and conditions. For example, in Baltimore,
stakeholder discussions on appropriate measurement indicators for SDG 1 turned to the topic of
causes of poverty in the city. Stakeholders concluded that “liquid asset poverty,” households
with at least 3 months of accessible cash, is a
strong indication that a household may not be
resilient to shocks such as layoffs in an economic
recession, illness of the household breadwinner,
or property damage in an environmental disaster.
J. Espey
the city’s leadership, which aligned with SDGs
relating to health (3), water and sanitation (6),
industry and infrastructure (9), sustainable cities
(11), climate change (13), and good governance
(16). This simple connect-the-dots approach was
found to reduce any skepticism and improve buyin from local officials.
In the case of LA, where the mayor has played
a leadership role in promoting the SDGs, the
local research team developed a list of proposed
local SDG indicators that aligned with LA’s
Sustainable City pLAn. The team aimed to propose a set of targets and associated indicators that
would enable a more coordinated government
effort to achieve the SDGs.
The advantage of aligning SDG planning and
monitoring exercises with existing local strategies and plans is that it can encourage better
cross-governmental coordination and minimize
excessive, cumbersome local monitoring. But
unless a clear commitment is also made to progressively meet the other “missing” goal areas, it
risks being a “pick-and-choose” approach which
may jeopardize the integrated and indivisible
nature of the SDGs.
7.8
The SDGs and the Official
Indicators Provide
a Common Language,
to Encourage Coordination
and Where Possible Active
Comparison
Across the cities studied, local stakeholders
praised the utility of the SDG indicator framework (the set of 240 indicators recommended by
Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable
Development Goal Indicators – IAEG-SDG
15
)
for providing a common language—one which
enabled diverse city stakeholders to talk about
their objectives in reference to specific metrics
and outcomes. Using a data-informed approach
also helped ensure that conversations about pri15 https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/ See also the
e-handbook on SDG indicators, available at https://
unstats.un.org/wiki/display/SDGeHandbook/Home
orities and targets (including target thresholds)
were evidence-based and locally relevant.
All of the cities studied drew upon the set of
IAEG-SDG indicators to some degree in their
initial discussions, either just for inspiration
when designing their own locally relevant indicators or as the basis for their monitoring framework. On a few dimensions, such as CO 2
emissions and urban sprawl, the discussions have
consequently spawned cross-city discussions on
methodological alignment (e.g., in the sidelines
of the recent Winter US Conference of Mayors
meeting), which may eventually enable active
cross-city comparison. However, it was pointed
out by a number of cities, such as LA, USA, and
Bristol, UK, that global indicators are not always
directly relevant and appropriate for a city context and the city’s jurisdiction may limit its ability to affect achievement. For example, target
levels (e.g., national versus sub-national), geographic context (e.g., coastal versus landlocked),
and various data constraints have implications for
how cities utilize the official indicators and structure city-level SDG monitoring. Therefore, it is
imperative that local stakeholders critically analyze the relevance of the local IAEG-SDG indicators and then work together to craft a functional
set of local indicators that can better support local
policies and planning.
7.9
The Necessity to Develop
Additional Local SDG
Measures
In all of the cities studied, stakeholders felt the
need to tailor the IAEG-SDG indicators or significantly add to them to better reflect local priorities and conditions. For example, in Baltimore,
stakeholder discussions on appropriate measurement indicators for SDG 1 turned to the topic of
causes of poverty in the city. Stakeholders concluded that “liquid asset poverty,” households
with at least 3 months of accessible cash, is a
strong indication that a household may not be
resilient to shocks such as layoffs in an economic
recession, illness of the household breadwinner,
or property damage in an environmental disaster.
J. Espey