The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicator framework has been developed with 231 indicators for global monitoring of the 2030 Agenda. However, the applicability of certain indicators to measure progress towards these goals at the national level is not always straightforward.
Due to the diversity of national circumstances, questions have been raised on whether all global indicators should apply to monitoring sustainable development in every country. In particular, this has made the assessment of data gaps across countries complex. Can the missing data for an indicator be produced for every country? On one hand, the assessment must be comparable; on the other, it must remain applicable to the national context. To better understand this, three different concepts have been used to tailor data gap assessment to national context: applicability, relevance, and national priority (see Figure 1). Of the three concepts, only applicability provides a comparable basis for assessment as the other two rely on a subjective choice of indicators.
Figure 1 Hierarchy of concepts in indicator adoption by countries
Applicability can be attributed to the design of certain indicators which are only suitable for specific countries, geographical features, or of a unique national context. For instance, some indicators are tailored exclusively for developing countries, others are constrained by geographical factors such as the presence of mountains or seas, making them inapplicable to countries without these features. Relevance refers to indicators for which the underlying issue is acknowledged as relevant to the country context by officials. For instance, female genital mutilation may be identified as relevant by country A and not by country B with a higher prevalence. National priorities are a subset of what is identified as relevant and, given the national policy context and resources, the associated indicator is prioritized for policy monitoring. The relevance and national priorities are both highly dependent on the political and policy context and, while remaining useful for national assessments, could distort the comparability when applied to regional or global data gap assessment.
An objective assessment of indicator applicability is essential for the accurate and meaningful assessment of SDG data availability.
Why can’t all indicators apply to all countries?
In this assessment, indicator applicability is defined as a condition where a particular SDG indicator cannot be compiled for one or a group of countries. This may happen due to the following reasons:
Indicator is designed for specific groups of countries: Some SDG indicators are formulated to monitor the circumstances of particular country groups. For example, certain indicators are only relevant to developing countries, reflecting their unique developmental challenges.
Geographical features: Indicators that measure attributes of specific geographical features, such as mountains or seas, are not applicable to countries that lack these features. For instance, maritime indicators are irrelevant to landlocked countries, and indicators related to mountainous ecosystems do not apply to flat, low-lying countries.
Other national contexts: Some indicators necessitate specific contextual factors that are not universally present. This includes economic, social, or environmental contexts that may only exist in certain regions or countries. It may also include limitations in the calculation process or data availability from providers. For example, the agricultural export subsidies do not apply to non-WTO members, and ODA related indicators are only applicable to ODA donors or recipients.
A thorough assessment shows that 17 per cent (39 out of 231) of the global SDG indicators have limited applicability to ESCAP member States and associate members in the region. While for 12 out of 17 goals some indicators are not universally applicable, the applicability was particularly evident in areas of environmental sustainability and development assistance. For Goal 14 on life below water, most of the indicators do not apply to at least one country. Additionally, half of the indicators under Goal 9 are not prevalently applicable.
Figure 2: Number of indicators not universally applicable by Goal
The effect of applicability on the SDG data availability in Asia-Pacific
Taking into account the applicability of indicators, on average, 2.6 per cent of the indicators without data are considered not applicable to the Asia-Pacific countries. This reduces the data gap from 36.3 per cent (without considering applicability) to 33.7 per cent. In total, countries across the region have sufficient data for around 51 per cent of the SDG indicators
Figure 3: Percentage of Total Data Availability
The most impacted goal is Goal 13 on climate action where lack of data on 19 per cent of the indicators is attributed to non-applicability. This is mainly because of indicators 13.a.1 and 13.b.1 targeting parties of international treaties. In second place is Goal 14 on life below water where 14 per cent of data gap is due to the inapplicability of indicators to landlocked countries.
Figure 4: Data Availability by Goals
Challenges and Future Directions
Some indicators are suspected to be inapplicable to certain countries, but objective evidence is lacking. For instance, agricultural-related indicators might not apply to countries or territories with minimal agricultural activities, and rural-related indicators might not apply to those without rural areas. However, these circumstances need to be confirmed by the countries themselves during the data collection process. Enhanced collaboration between data custodian agencies and national statistical systems is essential to accurately identify these situations and, more fundamentally, to address real data gaps in SDG indicators.
