Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Comments on Goals 2 and 3 Responded

1 Civilian oversight indicator: DFID, France and the EU requested an indicator to gauge civilian oversight over the security sector: This has been (re)introduced an indicator under Goal 2.

Uncertain
Cautions about the use of expert surveys: DFID raised some general concerns about the limitations of expert surveys. While they welcome balance between administrative, perception and expert surveys, they wondered how expert opinions can be tested for validity and bias? I would think this depends on the quality and effectiveness of the survey teams and the survey design and would suggest they stay in. G&+ suggestions for a range of indicators: Many of the indicators on the G7+ ppt are simply not acceptable or useful measures of change. Moreover, the specific G7+ request for an indicator on UN spending on peacekeeping and police-keeping is intriguing, but not clear. What, for example, would this measure? It does not measure security, nor does it measure national response but rather a political determinations made in New York. UN women request for more disaggregated gender indicators despite the fact that many are already disaggregated or not possible to disaggregate with adding new questions: for example, they note that the earlier indicators 2.4, 3.3 and 3.5 should have an explicit mention of sex disaggregation: In the case of 3.5, one solution would be to add a sentence It would also be useful to examine the proportion of women justice personnel since such data appears to be available. Reporting biases: Saferworld notes the widely recognised challenges of distinguishing between increased reporting and increased incidence of particular phenomena: For example, increases in 2.2 and 2.3 may be attributable to changes in reporting (indicating improved capacity to collect data or increased confidence in reporting systems) as opposed to changes in the underlying phenomena being observed. This is a standard challenge in any monitoring system and underlines the need for judicious interpretation of trends with complementary explanations.

Rejected
G7 rejection of perception data: We will use perception surveys sparingly since they are (a) an effective measurement of change, (b) they offer insight into end user satisfaction, (c) there are routine data collection facilities available. Their demand is not going to be acceptable.

More sex disaggregation: France, WFP and UN Women requested more obvious disaggregated data in Goal 2 and 3. Wording has been made clearer in indicators 2.2. and 2.3 as well as in relation to vetting new personnel and new recruits. These indicators are drawn from DPKO and OHCHR (a request by France).

G7+ suggestion of including non-comparable data: While the priority is of course on measuring change within countries over time, it is also recognized to be important to be able to draw some comparisons across time and space between countries. We have tried to create a careful balance, otherwise this entire exercise is fraught. Saferworld comment on moving guaranteed tenure: Indeed, guaranteed tenure will remain where it is since it assumes a more accessible and fair access to legitimate judges rendering more legitimate decisions.

Clarify wording of intermediate goals: DFID, Canada and Saferworld noted how certain subtitles for Goals 2 and 3 did not describe the indicators as defined. Some adjustments made in wording of subtitles and additional points added about disaggregation according to specific identity groups (to account for responsiveness and fairness)

Corruption indicator: Both DFID and France recommended a corruption indicator, particularly in relation to Goal 3 on justice. While it was felt that this is better covered in other Goals (particularly 1 or 4 and 5), an alternate indicator on bribery was added in Goal 2.

UNDP-Yemen comment on indicator standards: The complaint is that the indicators do not meet Eurostat, EC or UNDP standards according to SMART. The focus is primarily on Goal 1 with one small reference to Goal 2 (though it is incorrect). Given the political nature of this exercise and the consultative process entailed, it is unlikely that the basket of indicators would pass the standards mentioned.

More attention to informal justice: Both DFID and France called for more attention to informal justice mechanisms. While an entire section of indicators was devoted to informal or non-authorized justice provision, it was taken out during the consultation period. There are no routine data collection facilities examining informal justice in any fashion. Nevertheless, a new indicator was included under Goal 3 and as an alternate indicator. More indicators on access to justice: Belgium, DFID and others called for more access to justice indicators, particularly in relation to legal aid or free legal assistance. This is now addressed as a new indicator in Goal 3. Consult additional references: Belgium requested the use of the UNDP users guide to fragility. This was actively consulted in the course of developing Goals 2 and 3. Likewise, suggestions were raised about the use of other datasets, which were rejected as noted in the third column. France requested more on corrections and penal services: These were stripped out during a series of consultations but can be re-introduced if there is adequate interest. I have added new penal-specific indicators under Goal 3 just in case. France concerned with definition of pre-trial detention: It indicates that number of days on remand is inadequate to capture so-called extra-legal detention. There is a risk that by focusing on extralegal detention we are addressing political prisoners, again a complex issue to measure with any degree of precision. Changes made.

DFID comments about risks of creating silos through this exercise: This general comment is fair, but cannot be addressed by the consultants on their own. Rather, it should be noted as a caution in the introductory preamble.

DFID concern with certain indicators also serve as indirect measures of other phenomenon: The specific reference is incorrect in DFIDs note and thus discarded.

Linking indicators with other monitoring mechanisms: EU comments on linking the indicators with the country results framework and more explicit mention of the caveats or limitations of the process in fragile settings. France concerned that the police are left out of the Justice indicators: As noted in earlier drafts, a strategic decision was made to insert police in the Security Goals. It is possible to go either way.

Most donors raised questions about the process of collecting data: Belgium, Japan, DFID and France all raised concerns about how to rely on data collection systems that may not be comprehensive and the implications of non-comparable data.

France suggested the use of Transparency International: This is rejected based on consultations with experts in the security and justice fields who feel they do not have adequate confidence. It is also fully rejected by the G7+ who treat it as flawed in their Juba presentation. France called for explicit indicators on human rights violations: The current proposal includes a range of victimization and other indicators that are fully consistent with breaches of first generation human rights. There is a risk in the security and justice goals of extending beyond to more structural factors. France suggested indicators on the number of political prisoners and torture cases: This is considered for the purposes of this exercise to be too narrow and politically contentious. France noted an inconsistency in 3.1 between citizens and selected actors: This is kept the same since CIVICUS measures civilian actors used as a proxy for wider civilian engagement.

10

France suggested a change to the wording of an indicator in Goal 3: emphasis on independence of the judiciary rather than guaranteed tenure. But guaranteed tenure is precisely the proxy for judicial independence.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi