Esta publicación está dirigida a evaluadores y técnicos, que trabajan en el ámbito de la cooperación para el desarrollo y tienen nociones básicas sobre derechos humanos y los conceptos y elementos del EBDH. Aquellos que aun no conocen este enfoque, también podrán utilizar la presente publicación, pero será necesario que desarrollen previamente una capacitación sobre derechos humanos y sobre el trabajo con EBDH. La evaluación dirigida a las intervenciones de cooperación para el desarrollo ha tenido una larga evolución en su recorrido, en la que se han ido incorporando distintos enfoques y diversas técnicas. Son pocos los evaluadores que realizan evaluaciones en las que no incorporan distintas metodologías y técnicas, y ha sido esta evolución la que ha permitido a la evaluación avanzar y mejorar en sus procesos. Con el documento se pretende aportar una herramienta que ayude a las personas encargadas de realizar las evaluaciones para que incorporen el EBHD, por lo que consideramos relevante realizar una primera lectura de aproximación, antes de entrar de lleno en su implantación para evaluar las intervenciones de cooperación para el desarrollo.

El manual fue desarrollado por el Grupo de Trabajo del UNEG sobre Derechos Humanos e Igualdad de Género y constituye una guía con opciones sobre cómo integrar las dimensiones de DD.HH. e igualdad de género en la evaluación. Este manual ofrece orientación sobre ambos conceptos, “derechos humanos” e “igualdad de género”, para aprovechar las sinergias y la superposición entre estos conceptos que se refuerzan mutuamente, incluido el entendimiento de que la igualdad de género es tanto un derecho humano como una dimensión del desarrollo en si mismo. El manual fue diseñado principalmente para uso de los evaluadores y evaluadoras de la ONU que realizan evaluaciones de programas y proyectos (aquí llamados “intervenciones”), y es especialmente útil para evaluaciones de intervenciones que no tienen como objetivo principal los derechos humanos ni la igualdad de género. También puede ayudar a quienes diseñan y planifican nuevas intervenciones en análisis de DD.HH e igualdad de género, y a promover su inclusión en el diseño de intervenciones y sistemas de SyE.

Los objetivos que buscamos impulsar con este proyecto estuvieron en claro desde su planeación: por un lado, producir indicadores que nos ofrecieran evidencia sobre el estado que guardan las instituciones de seguridad y justicia penal en cada una de las entidades del país; por el otro, con esta información en mano, tenemos la intención de provocar respuestas por parte de la autoridad. El ejercicio de evaluación que aquí se presenta no tiene un fin meramente analítico, también tiene el propósito de provocar los cambios que son necesarios. Es un llamado a la acción.

La ECOPRED 2014 se realiza en el marco del Subsistema Nacional de Información de Gobierno, Seguridad Pública e Impartición de Justicia (SNIGSPIJ) así como del Programa Nacional para la Prevención Social de la Violencia y la Delincuencia. Esta encuesta buscará generar estimaciones sobre algunos de los factores que propician el surgimiento de conductas delictivas y violentas. Asimismo, se busca obtener información sobre las ventajas y vulnerabilidades que afectan el desarrollo de los jóvenes entre 12 y 29 años de edad, los jefes de hogar, así como las comunidades y/o barrios. La utilidad de la ECOPRED es conocer de forma integral los elementos y dinámicas que están influyendo en la formación y socialización de los jóvenes mexicanos. Específicamente, se busca identificar la relación y percepción que tienen los jóvenes con respecto a sus contextos más inmediatos, por ejemplo: familia, amigos cercanos, vecinos, comunidad, y escuela o trabajo.

The papers in this Special Issue raise a number of relevant and important questions, of which three particularly deserve comment. Are indicators reductionist? They might be indeed, both regarding the process of defining them and in their use, which is why it is essential that each be based on a deep and sufficient knowledge of the phenomenon concerned. The human development index illustrates both the pitfalls and potential of global indicators. Are there dark forces behind the selection of indicators? The agreement of the 2030 Agenda was the outcome of a political process that led to a negotiated consensus accomplished by the Open Working Group. In determining the indicators, the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG SDG) was asked for a simple and robust framework which would not affect the political equilibrium reached in the Open Working Group (OWG); no easy task. Is the IAEG SDG an arcane bureaucratic entity? In the face of this immensely challenging task, it has sought a balance between what is feasible in the short term and what is required in the long term. The IAEG SDG has become a space for open and constructive dialog between national statistical offices and international agencies.

This brief article comments on the special issue on SDGs - Knowledge and Politics in Setting and Measuring the SDGs. Acknowledging that the articles in the issue show how reliance on indicators changes the way development is conceived,Merry asks why is it so difficult to produce better indicators. If they are too narrow, why not simply produce more? She arguesthat conceiving of measurement as an infrastructure provides important insight into these questions.

The process of designing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was intensely political, as it can be expected of United Nations negotiations of that magnitude. Inevitably, those politics have spilled over into the technical process of formulating global indicators to monitor the Sustainable Development Goals. This commentary explores some of the tensions between competing priorities and various constituencies that affect the design of the global SDG indicator framework.

The article critically analyses how the transformative ambition of the SDGs may be threatened in the process of moving from vision, through goals and targets to indicators. This is exemplified by a case study concerning sustainable agriculture, and most specifically indicator 2.4.1, where two contrasting approaches – industrial agriculture and agro?ecology – stand in opposition, each with its associated discourse and interests. The process is analysed in great detail, noting the complex interplay of political and technical considerations. FAO has played a central role in establishing a compromise with regard to the wording of indicator 2.4.1 which papers over the disagreements and does not explicitly promote either of the two competing approaches. And the organisation has facilitated a technical process which, instead of one simple indicator, has led to a composite, multidimensional version with nine sub?indicators, as a result of which it has been relegated to ‘Tier III’ status, implying that it will not be used for global monitoring purposes. The article concludes that – owing to a combination of political and technical factors – the transformative potential of the SDGs may, in this instance, be lost. In order to transform the debate it is necessary, and should be sufficient, to show that–already today–agro?ecological approaches can achieve high yields.

This Special Issue usefully analyses the links between statistics, knowledge, policy making and politics, and uncovers intended and unintended consequences of using indicators to frame policy. Many civil society organizations (CSOs) were actively involved in the Open Working Group, and some have continued their advocacy into the ongoing process of developing the SDG indicator framework. Some indicators are being reconsidered; but despite repeated efforts there is still no indicator to measure inequality between countries. There is a recognized need for innovative ways to supplement already existing data. The use of proxy measurements is already underway, and initiatives such as a collaboration between some UN agencies and Gallup. The active public engagement in the process that determined the SDGs may help to resist the reductionism often evident in translating from the goals to the targets to the indicators. The 2019 meeting of the High?Level Political Forum (HLPF) will be an essential occasion to address some of these issues and to chart a correction course.

Thanks to successful strategizing by women's rights organizations, attention to gender equality and women's rights is remarkably wide?ranging in the 2030 Agenda. But the ambition to have gender equality as a crosscutting issue tends to evaporate at the level of targets and indicators. This speaks to the difficulties of using quantitative indicators to capture the largely context?specific and qualitative dimensions of gender equality. Ultimately, some of the concerns about the huge significance attached to the measurement imperative stems from the inordinate weight that the global indicators framework is carrying, effectively substituting for substantive contestation on key policy issues and meaningful accountability mechanisms.

The SDGs are important because they set consensus norms. At face value, Goal 10 sets a strong norm on reducing inequality within and between countries. Yet this is undermined and distorted by the targets and indicators which are weak and set an agenda for inclusion rather than for reducing inequalities. This paper explains this paradox as a result of an intense contestation over the framing of the inequality agenda as inclusion, focusing on the poor and excluded, rather than on extreme inequality. The paper provides a detailed account of the negotiations and argues that the insertion of the shared prosperity measure in setting the target on vertical economic inequality (rather than distribution measures such as Gini or Palma ratio) was strategic. It concludes that the political choice over the meaning of a norm is made on what is said to be a technical basis. The technical and political considerations cannot be disentangled and greater transparency on the policy strengths and weaknesses of measurement choices is needed.

Facing the reality of new sources of data and statistics and their impact on measuring SDG progress, the working paper explores how to integrate them into official statistics at different levels in a uniform way. Without tackling the political dimension, does this proposal close one accountability gap while neglecting the important one between data and statistics and development progress in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda?

La Guía del usuario para medir la corrupción está dirigida a agentes nacionales, donantes y agentes internacionales que miden la corrupción y elaboran programas para combatirla. Expone las ventajas y las limitaciones de varios enfoques de medición. Asimismo, ofrece capacidades para una orientación práctica sobre el uso de indicadores y de los datos generados por las herramientas de medición de corrupción, que permite identificar puntos de entrada para los programas.

The rise of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) has augured profound changes in the landscape of global health metrics. Primarily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the IHME has offered donors a platform for assessing many health?related Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators and a toolkit to measure the progress of different countries. The IHME's increasing influence reveals the relative sidelining of international agencies and especially the World Health Organization which has long been central to global health metrics production. This shift reflects a growing conflict between the expertise and norms of national and intergovernmental statistical production on the one hand, and the distinct epistemologies and logics of new non?state data actors. These transitions – from an international world of statistics to a more plural, global realm of data – have acute implications for the politics and accountability of knowledge production related to the SDGs and development writ large. Even as the SDGs embrace the rubric of ‘no one left behind’, the emerging data politics might be eroding the ability of poorer states to know and act upon their development problems on their own terms.

The selection of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) , targets and indicators for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) can only be understood in the light of struggles to advance these rights amid a context of the growing reliance on indicators to measure progress. If the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) de?politicized inherently polemical issues in SRHR, the (re)production of knowledge of rights in the SDGs poses a subtler, but just as serious, threat. Although rights, and SRHR in particular, are apparently taken into account, the apparent neutrality of these metrics obscures politics and ideology. There is a danger that over?reliance on quantitative indicators obscures the structural challenges facing the advancement of SRHR, and therefore indicators should be coupled with qualitative information derived in context.

The papers in this special issue provide accounts of the politics and knowledge that shaped the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The open and transparent processes in the Open Working Group (OWG) and Post?2015 agenda consultations challenged the MDG paradigm and set more transformative and ambitious goals. But across many goals, there was slippage in ambition when targets and indicators were selected. In some cases, this is due to genuine difficulty in defining a suitable indicator. In other cases, there is clearly a contestation about the agenda, and indicators are used to reorient or pervert the meaning of the goal. The accounts of the negotiations– concerning inequality, sustainable agriculture, access to justice, education, environment – show how the selection of an indicator is purportedly a technical matter but is highly political, though obscured behind the veil of an objective and technical choice. The papers also highlight how the increasing role of big data and other non?traditional sources of data is altering data production, dissemination and use, and fundamentally altering the epistemology of information and knowledge. This raises questions about ‘data for whom and for what’ – fundamental issues concerning the power of data to shape knowledge, the democratic governance of SDG indicators and of knowledge for development overall.

This report is the outcome of a discussion among many experts, who were actively engaged in the design of sound indicators for measuring Goal 16, as an input to the work of the United Nations Statistical Commission's Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDG) and the Praia Group on Governance Statistics. It is also meant to provide inspiration and guidance for the development of Goal 16 indicators at the regional and national levels. The Virtual Network for the Development of Indicators for Goal 16 brought together governance experts, development practitioners, statisticians, UN agencies and civil society organizations to advice on the best possible set of indicators for measuring progress on goal 16 in the Post-2015 development framework.

La Agenda 2030 además de identificar la necesidad de alianzas, reconoce que la creatividad de las empresas puede impulsar la resolución de los retos del desarrollo sostenible; les hace un llamado explícito en este sentido. Hay un enorme potencial en un enfoque de negocio impulsado por valores.

Análisis que comprende el Marco global de indicadores, Mecanismos globales y nacionales de monitoreo de indicadores, Avances en México, Comparativo, Hallazgos, Lecciones aprendias y retos.

This brief proposes a strategic RBLAC focus on SDG acceleration hotspots in Latin America and the Caribbean. As underlined by the SG’s reform agenda, SDG acceleration ultimately means assisting member-states to move the needle on targets and goals “making country-level delivery the litmus test for success”. In sync with UNDP’s Strategic Plan 2018-2021, acceleration also means integrating across different member-state objectives (i) leaving no one behind, tackling the hardest exclusions by gender, race, ethnicity or geographic exclusion; (ii) building resilience to natural disasters, economic downturns and social and political conflict; and (iii) promoting structural transformations that ensure sustainable development.