Tools for National MDG monitoring in India

1. Tools for National MDG monitoring in India H. Borah DIRECTOR, CSO,INDIA

2. Introduction • Since independence, India has followed a planned system of development. • All its plans and programmes are statutorily and structurally supported. • At the national level, the Planning Commission draws up Five-Year Plans in consultation with various Ministries and State Governments, reflecting the nation’s priorities.

3. Introduction • The country has a fairly uniform pattern of devolution of responsibility between the Centre and the States and between the States and the local bodies. • The country is at present going through the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-12). It would be appropriate to mention that MDGs have been incorporated in India’s plans. • Five Year Plan(FYP) targets are more ambitious. • MDG targets are not integrated with the National Development Programme(NDP) Framework.

4. Introduction • The indicators in India’s MDG framework are mostly direct indicators which obviates the need for imputation or indirect derivation of the measures the identified indicators. This simplifies the review exercise and eliminates the need to depend on assumptions. • Following is the schematic description of the tracking methodology adopted for the review exercise of this report.

5. Introduction • India follows indicator-framework given in the United Nations Development Group UNDG (2003): “Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals” for the purpose of statistical tracking of the MDGs. • A revised indicator-framework drawn up by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group (IAEG) on MDGs in keeping with the recommendations made by the Secretary-General in his report to the 61st Session of the UN General Assembly for inclusion of four new targets came into being in 2007. • India has not endorsed this revised framework.

6. Alignment with NDP framework National Statistical System is aligned with FYP - India’s development framework Derives strategies from track record Sets goals and targets Identifies intervention mechanism Defines approach to programmes Allocates resources National Policies and Action Plans Political Agenda

7. Eleventh Five Year Plan(2007-12) Targets • The Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2007-2012) has set several targets for socio-economic development by the end of the Plan period in keeping with the MDGs and is going to put Government’s commitment to a more inclusive development agenda. • India is on track or fast in respect of 3 out of 12 MDG targets and nearly on track for 3 more targets. • Progress is, however, slow in respect of 1 target. For the remaining targets, India is slow by some indicators and on-track by other corresponding indicators

8. MDGs- another framework Poses new challenges Compatibility with NDP framework Reformation of existing Statistical objectives/processes Relevance of the indicators – contextuality Optimality of choice Transformation burden Degrees of freedom

9. Tool 1: Harmonizing MDG in National systemHarmonization Principles in India Recognizing the potentiality of existing processes Minimum conflict with NDP framework Intervention Programmes independent low-key troubleshooting for lack of statistics Reliance on alternatives Allowance for invisibility/No imputation for non-availability of data

10. India’s MDG Framework • As per the original framework adopted by India, there are 18 targets corresponding to the 8 Millennium Development Goals. • However, for India, not all the 18 targets are relevant. Only 12 out of the 18 targets (Targets 1 to 11 and Target 18), which are relevant to India, are statistically monitored. • The remaining ones are related to land-locked/island/least developed countries. • Corresponding to the 12 monitorable targets, India has adopted 35 of the 48 prescribed indicators (by United Nations) as relevant for statistical tracking.

11. Targets by Types

12. Tool 2: Statistical Tracking MethodTracking Progress Principles • Keep it simple • Most MDG indicators move relatively slowly over time • Data gaps and number of observations don’t allow sophisticated time series analysis • Use all the information available which will lead to more efficient estimates

13. Indicator Selection Criteria • Indicators that are directly related to a target • Indicators relevant to India are those which are directly related to the targets for which progress is measured for developing countries, i.e. excludes those related to developed countries and least developed or island countries

14. Quantitative Benchmarking • 12 targets set quantitative benchmarks for achievements by 2015 • Explicit target values for 2015 • Relative (reduce by ½, 2/3, ¾ ) • Absolute (full enrolment, gender parity) • Reversal of trends • “Halt and begun to reverse….” (Goal 6) • “Reverse the loss of environmental resources”(Goal 7, Target 9)

15. Indicator Tracking Technique • Calculate ‘required’ rate of change, from the latest available value, for the target to be met on time, i.e., by 2015 • Calculate ‘historical’ rate of change between 1990 and the latest year for which an indicator value is available • Compare the required with the historical rates of change

16. Cut-offs • Target is considered to have been achieved if indicator has reached a certain pre-defined absolute value called ‘cut-off’ value. The rationale for having a cut-off value is as follows: • Reducing e.g. child mortality rates by 2/3 from some already achieved low levels might be tremendously costly • Prevents countries/regions or areas that slightly slip back from high achievement being classified as ‘regressing’

17. Cut-offs

18. Cut-offs

19. Cut-offs

20. Tool 3: Defining Database structure Wherefrom data are coming Data are coming from: • Census • National Surveys • Administrative Records/Reports • No bottom-up System for data aggregation • State-wise situation analyzed mainly for major States in India

21. Classification of Indicators Identical Similar Alternative Invisible having exact conformity with the standard definitions definitionally modified as per data availability or for contextual reasons different indicatorin the absence of quality data for the prescribed left out either for reasons of contextual irrelevancy or for complete lack of data

22. Size of Indicator classes No. of Indicators in each class

23. Actionable MDG Indicators-India The set comprises those which are monitorable in some sense 40 out of 53 (48 prime+5 variants) are relevant, hence considered actionable 35 out of 40 for tracking – (in any case) 34 of 35 are visible in MDGR 6 out of 40 are missing – in the lab/left out

24. Relative loss 1/3rd of actionable set are identical – matching globally internationally 67% loss of information for Global comparison 50% of actionable set are of altered kind (similar+alternative) – includes 7.5% of real proxy type internally 85% available for tracking 15% are missing/left-out

25. Indicator 1-a: PHRType=Similar Proportion of the national population whose incomes fall below the national poverty line Proportion of the national population whose monthly consumption expenditure falls below the national poverty line State specific poverty lines for rural and urban areas – sub-national National poverty lines for rural and urban areas differ from States’ poverty lines Percentage of population below the national poverty line [= PHR] is weighted average of States’ PHRs • It is income related • Income is generally more difficult to measure and does not accord well with the standard of living • Only one poverty line for national and sub-national levels is implied- not very well in large countries having wide difference in prices and lifestyles from place to place

26. Indicator 4: Underweight Children Type=Similar Percentage of children under 5 years of age whose weight for age is less than minus two standard deviation from the median for the international reference population ages 0-59 months. Percentage of children under 3 years of age whose weight for age is less than minus two standard deviation from the median for the international reference population ages 0-35 months. India’s data is based of National Family Health Survey (NFHS) conducted for the years 1992-93, 1998-99 and 2005-06 Last two surveys has reference age 0-35 months while the first one has 0-47 months Results of last 2 NFHSs are not comparable with first NFHS results Reference age of 0-59 months also used in NFHS-III (2005-06) • International (WHO) standard age group makes the data internationally comparable, but it fails to distinguish between short children of adequate body weight and tall, thin children • Country condition and height factor are less pronounced in ages less than 36 months

27. Indicator 6: Primary enrolmentType= Alternative • NER shows proportion of children of primary school age who are enrolled in primary school • NER below 100% provides a measure of the proportion of school age children who are not enrolled at the primary level • GER includes children of any age and hence may exceed 100% as is the case in India at present • NER is being estimated at present and used as the indicator for MDG tracking NER is the ratio of children of official school age who are enrolled in primary school to the total population of children of official school age. GER is the ratio of children of regardless of age who are enrolled in primary school to the total population of children of age 6-11(normative in India).

28. Indicator 8 &10: Youth LiteracyType=Similar • India reports in MDGR • Adult literacy rate for the age group (15yrs+) for Indicator 8 towards Target 3 • Literacy gender parity index for (7yrs+) for Indicator 10 towards Target 4 • For ensuring primary schooling literacy of all adults (15 yr+) is important in India and for eliminating gender disparity in all levels, targeting literacy of women and men alike in all ages 7 yrs+ is important For Target 3: Towards ensuring full course of primary schooling of children (General Youth Literacy) and For Target 4: Towards eliminating gender disparity in all levels of education (women to men ratio of literate Youths) The reference age group is 15-24 years for international comparison but it is aligned to NLM objectives in India. Data tailored to ref. age group is feasible for MDGR.

29. Where national data is missing • Dietary energy consumption is a basic component of consumption poverty estimate – thus there is no real reason to have it separately by indicator 5 not it could be substituted by some other indicator of ‘similar’ type • No ‘alternative’ or ‘similar’ type indicator is possible for Indicator 20 in absence of data for it • Area protected, terrestrial or marine does not get changed regularly, hence it has not much relevance to developing countries • Unemployment rate is not generated for people aged 15-24 years; it is estimated for the whole population; it requires segregation of the labour force by age-groups Indicator 5: Prop of popln below minimum level of dietary energy consumption Indicator 20: School attendance of Orphans Indicator 26: area protected to maintain biological diversity Indicator 45:Unemployment rate of young people Indicator 46: Access to Affordable Essential Drugs Where the Indicators are not being tracked for MDGR

30. Tool 4: Trend and Gap Analysis National level State-level No sub-state analysis at present

33. Growing poverty burden in the heartland • 320 million (36% of total population) BPL in 1993-94 • 301 million (27.6% of total population) BPL in 2004-05 • 279 million of people (22.1%) likely BPL in the year 2015.

34. 21 States/UTs are likely to halve their 1990 levels of the poverty ratio earlier than 2015 and 4 more States are on track to achieving the targets

35. Survival rate in primary grade tends to plateauing

39. Prevalence of Malaria in Malaria prone States has declined considerably

40. Prevalence of TB has declined by more than 50% in last 17 years

41. Measures to stabilise bio-diversity are on fast track • Total protected area coverage stands at 4.83% of country’s geographical area in March 2009 against 4.74% in 2006

42. Consumption of ODS drastically reduced

43. Energy Consumption increase much slower than GDP growth • Energy consumption per unit (Rupee) of GDP at 1999-2000 prices decreased from 0.17 in 1989-90 to 0.13 in 2007-08.

44. Tool 5: Use of DevInfo mapping for Spatial distribution over time Measles immunisation 1998-99 Measles immunisation 2005-06

45. Tool 6: Overall Target level direction setting • Take table from brief