– 1 –
OHCHR/UNDP Expert Consultation
“Governance and human rights: Criteria and measurement proposals
for a post -2015 development agenda”
13 -14 November 2012, New York
ILR NYC Conference Center, Cornell Univ ersity School of Industrial and
Labour Relations (ILR), 16 East 34th Street, New York

OHCHR

Meeting Report

A. Background and meeting objectives

On 13 -14 November 2012, in New York, OHCHR and UNDP convened an expert consultation on
“Governance and human rights: Criteria and measurement proposals for a post -2015 development
agenda.” The concept note, agenda , list of participants and background materials are available at
https://www.worldwewant2015.org/node/277879 .

The meeting took place within the framework of the UN Development Group (UNDG)’s global
thematic consultation on governance, one of eleven thematic consultations which will provide
inputs to the work of the UN S ecretary -General’s :igh Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the post –
2015 development agenda, and to UN member States’ deliberations.

The present meeting brought together governance, human rights and measurement experts, along
with representatives of member States and national statistical offices, in order to take stock of
recent advances in the measurement of governance and human rights, and explore the practical
implications of this work for the design and measurement of a post -2015 development agenda.

Th e specific objectives of the meeting were to: (1) e nhance understanding of the role, impact and
trade -offs of measurement frameworks for global development goals; (2) propose criteria for the
identification of post -2015 measurement metrics to ensure they s trengthen governance and human
rights outcomes and enhance accountability; (3) discuss the application of these criteria to specific
areas of governance and human rights measurement; and (4) decide follow -up, including the use of
the meeting outputs to inf orm Member States’ and other deliberations.

B. Rationale and assumptions

Democratic governance , respect for human rights , and coherent global governance (e.g. in areas
such as trade, debt relief, intellectual property, and technology transfer) are vital in their own right
and important for sustainable economic and social development. 1A wide range of governance and
human rights commitments were included in the 2000 Millennium Declaration, from which the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were drawn. Certain international human rights
1UNDP Human Development Report 2002.

– 2 –
commitments (particularly those relating to economic, social and cultural rights), it could be said,
were implicitly reflected in the MDGs ; and some global commitments (notably related to trade
fairness and environmental sustainability) were mentioned without being a ssigned time -bound
targets . But governance and civil and political rightswere almost entirely excluded .

Alongside political concerns, t here werethree main reasons for this. Firstly, there was a view that
governance and civil and political rights could not , at the time, be subjected to satisfactory standards
of measurement , for the purposes of a global agenda .2Secondly, it was considered that governance
and civil and political rights – along with a host of other possible policy priorities – would overload
the MDGs and undermine their communications objective. Finally, some argued that the MDGs can
themselves be taken as a proxy measure of many governance and human rights concerns .3

The present meeting was designed to test and challenge the above assumptions, w ith a particular
focus on the first two (that governance and human rights variables necessarily overload the global
development agenda and cannot adequately be measured). The meeting took as a given, in line with
member States’ agreements at the Rio+20 con ference, that a new set of global goals should be
relatively few in number . T herefore a clear and defensible set of criteria will be needed in order to
help prioritise measurement options . Proposing a plausible set of selection criteria, through which
meas urement options for governance and human rights priorities could be weighed impartially and
effectively , was the meeting’s most important objective . Such criteria may also be useful in thematic
areas other than governance and human rights .

The meeting discussions were based on both principle and evidence , while taking full account of the
criteria for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Rio+20 outcome document (see below) and
other relevant international agreements. Political feasibility was a key consideration in the minds of
the organisers and participants . H owever the meeting deliberately avoided the path of self –
censorship, instead focusing as far as possible on the objective merits of the various i deas and
proposals put forward. The meeting’s objectives were realistic and modest: to propose (not
prescribe) a draft set of post -2015 selection criteria to help member States’ prioritise between
measurement options for various governance, human rights and other policy priorities, and to
illustrate – selectively – how candidate governance and civil and political rights variables might
adequately be measured. While the final shape of a post -2015 agenda will obviously be determined
by representatives of national governments, it was considered that consu ltations such as the present
one should leave on the negotiating table sufficient scope for prioritisation and potential trade -offs
among the various technically feasible measurement options that will emerge.
2It was noted soon afterwards that this statistical challenge should receive attention. The U.N. Statistical Commission, the
inter -governmental body responsible for reviewing and ap proving global summit indicators, agreed in 2001 that further
work on human rights and “good governance” indicators was needed. 2 Concerted empirical work in the ensuing decade in
academic and non -governmental organisations, international agencies, and a sc ore of national statistical offices in South
America, Anglophone Africa, and the far East was given cognisance by the “Sarkozy Commission ” (Joseph Stiglitz,
AmartyaSen and Jean -Paul Fitoussi , “Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performa nce and Social
Progress” (20 09) available at https://www.stiglitz -sen -fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm . It noted that sufficient progress had been
made in regard to issues like political voice and governance that “the types of question that have provedtheir value within
small -scale and unofficial surveys should be included in larger -scalesurveys undertaken by official statistical offices”. 3 This assumption now seems to be somewhat discredited in the face of uprisings in the Arab States and elsewhere that
were amo ng the better performing countries on the MDGs.

– 3 –

C. Objectives of a measurement framework for the post -2015 development agenda

The point of departure for the preparatory research for the meeting, and for the plenary and
working group discussions themselves, was the question: “What, based on the MDGs experience and
the conclusions at the Rio+20 Summit, are the objectives that the measurement framework of a
post -2015 development agenda could most effectively serve?”

In the case of the MDGs, the combination of a target and indicator, framed by global goals, appears
to have been a compelling driver of policy commitment. Nevertheless there have been a range of
critiques of the MDGs on questions of ambition, effectiveness, legitimacy and others. Progress
towards the MDGs at the national level has varied greatly, in the aggregate, let alone when
disaggr egated at national and sub -national levels. The need to take these lessons into account,
particularly on the relative weight between global and national measurement, provided the
backdrop for the participants’ thinking about how to determin e appropriate cr iteria for a
measurement framework for a new development agenda.
Member States at the Rio +20 conference have already agreed a number of parameters for new
Sustainable Development Goals. Member States have agreed that SDGs should be :
“aspirational” ;
global in nature and universally applicable to all countries while taking into account different
national realities;
co nsistent with international law ;
inclusive of all three dimensions of sustainable development and their inter -linkages in a
balanced way ;
act ion -oriented, concise and easy to communicate;
limited in number;
implemented “with the active involvement of all relevant stakeholders;” and
accompanied by targets and indicators (in order to facilitate measurement of progress, and
thereby, accountability). 4
These criteria can be taken as an important indication of member States’ outlook on post -2015
development goals more generally. However, it was also a cknowledged that changing geo -political
and economic power relations, changing patterns of poverty and supply -side crises also affect the
way we think about a new global development agenda , and how it will be negotiated. 5

The broad consensus in the meetin g was that new global goals with targets as agreed at Rio could
best serve three main functions: (1) a normative and ideational objective, both reflecting and
building consensusaround a new global development vision and approach ;(2) a “booster” function,
4 Rio +20 conference outcome, paragraph 247. 5 Malcolm Langford, “The Art of the =mpossible: The Post -2015 Agenda, Measurement Choices, and Human Rights and
Governance,” Conference Paper , OHCHR/UNDP Expert Co nsultation, “Governance and :uman Rights: Criteria and
Measurement Proposals for a Post -2015 Development Agenda,” Cornell University, New York, 13 -14 November 2012.

– 4 –
helping to give priority to i mportant but neglected policy issues ; and (3) strengthening accountability
for delivering on global promises, through target -driven incentives, more extensive and better
quality national and sub -national data, and better monito ring of both process and outcomes at
global, national and sub -national levels .A fourth possible purpose, that of supporting national
planning, was also discussed. However the MDGs as global goals did not serve national planning
purposes well . Global devel opment goals and targets need to be tailored or adapted to national
conditions, priorities and resource constraints, through participatory processes, if they are to be
useful for national planning purposes.

Across these three functions it was agreed that an important purpose of a measurement framework
with goals/targets is to communicate and popularise potentially complex issues in clear concepts
and language accessible to the lay person.

An agreement on these objectives – the reflection and building of normative consensus , “boosting”,
and accountability , with a cross -cutting element of communications – provide d the foundationfor
the discussionsinto criteria and measurement options for governance and human rights in the post –
2015 development agenda .

D. Definitions and conceptual categories – governance and human rights

“G overnance ” in this discussion was understood as having a democratic element , meaning that
people’s human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected, promoted and fulfilled, allowing
them to live with dignity. People have a say in decisions that affect their lives and can hold decision –
makers to account, based on inclusive and fair rules, institutions and practices that govern social
interactions. Women are equal partners with men in p rivate and public spheres of life and decision –
making, and all people are free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, class, gender or any
other attribute. Democratic governance feeds into economic and social policies that are responsive
to people’s needs and aspirations , that aim at eradicating poverty , expanding the choices that
people have in their lives , and that respect the needs of future generations .

The term “human rights” is shorthand for the full range of obligations undertaken by member S tates
under the UN’s core international human rights treaties, covering economic, civil, social, cultural and
political rights. These rights are, in theory and to a large degree in practice, inter -connected and
inter -related. The obligations pertaining to these rights have been elaborated extensively in
international, regional and national courts, tribunals and decision -making forums. The present
meeting dealt largely with civil and political rights 6 but recognised the importance of integrating a
rights fra mework across the broad development agenda.

6 This does not imply any hierarchy or artificial division between different “categories” o f universal human rights. Rather,
this choice stemmed from the near categorical exclusion of civil and political rights from the MDGs, as well as the close
consonance with many of these rights with the democratic governance agenda. Other (socio -economic) h uman rights
priorities are being given prominence in other UNDG -supported post -2015 global thematic consultations.

– 5 –
The working group sessions at the meeting were structured around conceptual categories that
reflected both governance and human rights priorities : (1) political
participation/voice/accountability; (2) access to justice/rule of law/legal empowerment; (3) peace
and security/physical integrity; and (4) public administration/transparency/corruption. These
groupings were not driven by conceptual rigour, are not mutually exclusive, and do not foreclose
many o ther possible configurations . Rather, this clustering was a practical device, reflecting and
accommodating the specific expertise reflected among the meeting’s participantsand ensuring that
that expertise could be brought out to greatest effect in working group discussions .

E. Post -2015 selection criteria – goals, targets, indicators

For the post -2015 development agenda , various scenarios have been discussed , includ ing staying the
MDGs course and extending the deadline (“MDGs 2.0”) ; “MDGs plus 2.0” (which w ould include new
or amended goals and targets) ; or at the highest level of ambition, a new global social contract.
Different combinations of global, regional, and national levels of measurement have also been
suggested :7
– Global goal(s), with global targets and global indicators similar to the existing Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). This would involve agreeing on core dimensions, established
proxies and using universal indicators drawing on existing or new global data sets.
– Global goal(s), with global targets and national indicators. The advantage in this approach would
be that countries could define indicators based on their national context and circumstances.
– Global goal(s), with regional targets and regional or national i ndicators. This approach would
take into account advances in various regions to develop regional standards and include
developing regional indicators. This would ensure regional legitimacy and may advance progress
on political issues at the regional level where progress at the global level is impeded.
– Global goal(s), with national targets and national indicators. Utilizing this approach, countries
can set the targets and indicators but work toward a global goal of better governance and
accountability.
The present meeting consideredthe advantages and disadvantages of a broad range of possible post –
2015 formats , without prior commitment to any .
The meeting participants agreed that governance and human rights variables are legitimate policy
priorities with a strong claim for inclusion in a post -2015 development agenda. Moreover, in the last
decade ,significant experience has been gained which means that governance and human rights
cannot be ‘taken off the table’ for measurement reasons. N ormative frameworksha ve been agreed
which provide quantitative and qualitative reviews of countries’ performance and adherence to
international principles relating to human rights, corruption and elections. At the global level ,
international human rights mechanisms (including human rights treaty monitoring bodies and the
Universal Periodic Review process of the UN Human Rights Council) and the UN Convention Against
Corruption provide review mechanisms on State efforts to uphold human rights and efforts to
combat corruption. At the regional level, the Africa Peer Review Mechanism , the African Union
7UNDP , “Measuring Democracy and Democratic Governance in a post -2015 Development Framework ,” Discussion Paper,
August 2012 .

– 6 –
Charter on ‘democracy, governance and elections’ , and regional human rights treaty mechanisms
provide not only normative commitments but also specific mechanisms to evaluate
implementa tion. Additionally there has been methodological innovation in this area and there is now
a significant research and policy community with expertise in the area of measuring governance and
human rights, which can support both the international community and /or individual member States
in the measure ment of governance and human rights. 8 Indeed, participants stressed the need to
support the capacity of national statistical offices and other entities to collect whatever data is
required under new commitments.

The meeting did not set out to define possible new stand -alone goals in the governance or human
rights fields ( in deference to the meeting’s dominant focus on criteria and measurability), however it
was widely felt that mere “mainstreaming” or embedding of intrinsically and instrumentally
important variables such as political participation or personal security is insufficient, and that visible
stand -alone policy commitments (in self -standing goals or targets) are needed.
A new set of global targets should include indicators of national capacity and resource constraints, to
avoid a one -size -fits -all metric (a well -known problem with the MDGs, whether through
misunderstanding or conscious misappropriation). “ Process ” indicators ( designed to measure fiscal
and policy effort , reflecting human rights obligations of conduct as distinct from result ) should be
developed where consensus exists that the indicator is necessary, where international law provides
a basis for it, where outcome indicators might be less robust for a given variable, and to aid in
interpreting outcomes. “Structural” (or commitment) indicators 9, such as ratification of international
human rights treaties compiled by OHCHR , the existence of a strong national human rights
ins titution (complyin g with the Paris Principles adopted by the UN General Assembly ),10 and dates of
adoption of specific legal and policy frameworks, could be quantified and may help in integrating
human rights and governance priorities more effectively in international as wel l as national
development agendas.

Democratic legitimacy should be seen as a threshold criterion for a post -2015 menu of priorities.
Post -2015 priorities should be crafted and framed in a manner that draws from and reflects
individuals’ and communities’ e xpressed concerns. Consistent with the Rio+20 criteria for SDGs,
prioritisation should be ac corded to goals and targets that are relevant and have implications for
action in all countries. The post -2015 agenda should focus on promoting equality within and
between countries. Clarity and simplicity are important, in terms of how a new (small) global menu
of post -2015 goals and targets should be expressed. “Action orientation” is also important: post –
2015 commitments should be policy -relevant, provide standard s for active monitoring, and should
be easily tailored to national realities, starting points, needs and priorities, for accountability and (to
some extent) national planning purposes.
8See note 2 abov e. 9=nformation on structural, process and outcome indicators can be found in the O:C:R publication “:uman Rights
=ndicators: A Guide to Measurement and =mplementation” (2012) available at
www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx . 10See Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles), GA resolution 48/134, 30 December 1993.
Detailed information on these indicators (metadata) is also available on the OHCHR website.

– 7 –

Psychological evidence shows that cognitively easy facts and data are associated with a feeling of
familiarity, and that familiarity creates a ring of truth (even when the underlying facts are
complex). 11 People who cannot understand a target are unlikely to support it. There is also evidence
from moral psychology that people respond more viscerally to moral wrongs than mere utilitarian
calculations. 12 This evidence supports the framing of new global goals and targets (and to the extent
possible, also indicators) in simple and powerful terms that embrace negative (“do no harm”, for
example, “remove harmful trade barriers” , or “eliminate violence against women” ) as well as
positive duties (“achieve the 0.7% GDP target for ODA ”). Post -2015 proposals relating to voice,
democratic participation, elim inating violence against women, and promoting justice enjoy strong
political and cognitive salience.

Global g overnance issues were seen both as encompassing a specific set of issues 13, and being of
cross -cutting relevance in all thematic areas , that is not only in relation to governance and human
rights but across the range of issues to be incorporated in the deve lopment agenda ( for example,
sustainable energy ). Thus global governance should be addressed not only through a possible ‘stand –
alone’ goal (such as a reworked MDG8) but the global drivers of progress together with
differentiated responsibilities should a lso be identified as far as possible for each goal area.

F. Statistical criteria for indicators

Statistical criteria for the MDGs were established in 2001 by the UN Inter -Agency Group on MDG
Indicators. Those criteria are still largely relevant for the post -2015 agenda, however they may
benefit from modest revisions. For example, the “relevance and robustness” criterion should be
qualified by the need to measure “action” towards global goals. “Clarity and comparability” are
undoubtedly important, though nati onally specific indicators can also be developed, subject to
appropriate criteria for national tailoring. The criterion of “alignment with international standards,
recommendations and best practices” requires no change. :owever the criterion of data availa bility
should be amended or understood in a way that explicitly encourages the collection of new data.
The MDGs had a positive effect of stimulating improvements in statistical methods and data
collection and t he post -2015 agenda should be positioned as an opportunity to do the same .14

“Action -orientation” in the sense of stimulating policy change has not been helped by the fact that
the MDGs were calibrated by reference to a 1990 baseline. This was justified by the relative lack of
adequate data for a numb er of important variables encompassed by the MDGs, but may also have
11Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow (New York: Farrer, Straus and Giroux ,1st ed. , 2011 ). 12VarunGauri, “MDGs that Nudge : The Millennium Development Goals, Popular Mobilisation, and the Post -2015
Development Framework ”, Conference Paper , O:C:R/UNDP Expert Consultation, “Governance and :uman Rights: Criteria
and Measurement Proposals for a Post -2015 Development Agenda,” Cornell University, New York, 13 -14 November 2012. 13 Issues raised included: financing for development (including innovative methods of finance); curbing illicit financial flo ws;
a Tobin tax; coordinating macroeconomic policies and ensuring more effective regulation for global financial stability;
bridging the democratic governance deficit in global policy -making institutions; sustaining the global environment; and
creating kno wledge and technology for human well -being. It was recognised at the outset that these and related issues of
global governance would benefit from a separate, specialised expert discussion . 14 Malcolm Langford, note 5 above.

– 8 –
been motivated by a desire to capture progress in the 1990s (fuelled by high growth rates in Asia) as
part of the MDG narrative. For the post -2015 framework , a baseline year of 2010 would
accommodate the lag time needed to collect data on new targets and indicators, while minimising
the interpretation risks associated with a retrospective baseline. Additional criteria for post -2015
indicators could include “exter nal verifiability” and potential for citizen audit. The selection of MDGs
indicators had perverse effects on policy in certain cases. 15 The structure of post -2015 indicators
should be alert to these kinds of risks as well as how they may be mitigated , for e xample, through
the inclusion of complementary indicators.

G. Data sources

There was considerable discussion during the meeting on the relative merits and priority of different
data sources for the purposes of global monitoring . The advantages were noted of national
administrative data for the purposes of national ownership , data availability ,and to enable reliable
comparison across time . The advantages were noted of survey data for the evidence they supply
(when based on intern ational quality standards )of on -the -ground experience and perceptions they
offer of the actual implementation of governance and human rights commitments .In regard to
either kind of data , some participants pointed out the capacity constraints and domestic political
pressures that could affect data producers (including national statistical offices) , particularly in
regard to collecting data needed to construct reliable assessments of progress in meeting
governance and human rights commitments.

While opinions on this matter will almost certainly continue to differ and merit more detailed
discussion , it does not seem reasonable to categorically and a priori exclude any particular indicator
based on the source of possible data – be it statistical surveys, administrative data, standards -based
measures drawn from expert coding , or events -based data . Nevertheless, this does not preclude an
appropriate prioritisation according to objective and transparent criteria .

Among the criteria used to differentiate the different data sources one may consider the nature of
information captured (i.e. the subjective or objective character of that information ), the quality
standards of the method used to collect and pro cess data and indicators , the accountability of the
data generator (in terms of transparency, open and objective justification of methods, and feedback
channels), and feasibility . It was also suggested that c onsideration could be given to assigning
appropr iate international mechanisms responsibility for producing consolidated indicators for the
purpose of international monitoring .

The importance of meta -data information (“data about data”) to help interpret indicators was also
discussed in working group s. The role of such information to further highlight human rights and
governance considerations was also underlined, as illustrated in the meta -data sheets provided in
15Sakiko Fukuda -Parr, “ Global dev elopment goals as policy tools for global governance : intended and unintended
consequences, ” (Sept. 4, 2011); Alicia Ely Yamin& Kathryn L. Falb, “Counting what we know: Knowing what to count: Sexual
and reproductive rights, maternal health, and the Millen nium Development Goals”, Nordic Journal on Human Rights Vol. 3
(2012) , pp.350 -371 .

– 9 –
the O:C:R publication “:uman Rights =ndicators: A Guide to Measurement and =mplementation”
(2012) .

H. Draft selection criteria for post -2015 goals, targets and indicators

The diagram below summarises meeting outputs on the “criteria” issue, grouping those applicable to
goals and targets, to indicators, and to both. The diagram draws not only from the meeting
discussions as summarised in Sections E -G above , but also commissioned preparatory work for the
meeting , member States’ decisions on SDGs criteria at the Rio+20 summit , the three objectives of a
post -2015 measurement framework that participant s considered important (the reflection and
building of normative consensus; “boosting”; and accountability), and other sources . The diagram is
offered as the stimulus for critical reflection and further refinement. No one criterion should operate
as a veto, but should be weighed together with all other criteria.

Criteria 16 applicable to :
Goals , targets and statistical
indicators Goals and targets Statistical indicators
1. Global applicability
1. Constitute a
“balanced” agenda
and powerful
normative vision
1. Relevance
2. Equality focus
2. ”Boosting” effect 2. Data availability
3. Communicability
3. Democratic legitimacy 3. Robustness, reliability,
validity
4. Consistency with
international law 4. Limited in number 4. Externally verifiable
and amenable to audit
5. Cognitive or moral
salience
5. Focus mainly on ends,
rather than means, of
development
5. Measure effort as well
as outcomes
6. Action oriented
6. Aspirational (for goals
only; targets should
be ambitious but
achievable)
6. Risk of perverse
incentives

The criteria reflected in the above table were discussed and tested in working group sessions
organised in the four themes discussed earlier: (1) political participation/voice/ accountability; (2)
access to justice/rule of law/legal empowerment; (3) peace and security/physical integrity; and (4)
16 Table adapted from Langford, note 5 above, and the definitions of thematic and statistical criteria on pp.16 -26 thereof,
and discussions with Mark Orkin.

– 10 –
public administration/transparency/corruption. The working groups identified proposed targets,
indicators and discussed data sources, within the framework of the given criteria and plausible post –
2015 objectives (the re flection and building of normative consensus; “boosting”; and accountability).

=llustrative examples for two candidate “rule of law/access to justice” indicators – dealing with birth
registration and intentional homicides – were developed in more detail in Malcolm Langford’s
background paper for the meeting, 17 taking into account the working group outcomes. Additional
illustrative examples of the application of these criteria will be developed in the first quarter of 2013.

I. Conclusions and follow -up

Go vernance and human rights have a strong claim for inclusion in a post -2015 development
framework. Governance and human rights variables can be measured objectively and reliably, to
meet the triple objectives of a measurement framework – the reflection and building of normative
consensus, boosting and accountability .

Criteria can be used to help develop an appropriate measurement framework and prioritise among
candidate measures . This will help ensur e that the framework is ambitious enough to inspire action
but realistic enough not to cause despair , and be legitimate and mobilizing while at the same time
sufficiently measurable.

These conclusions are consistent with and draw upon member States’ agreed commitments in the
Rio+20 outcome document, 2010 MDGs Review Summit, 2000 Millennium Declaration and the core
UN human rights treaties to which all member States have to varying degrees subscribed.

This meeting report will serve as an input tothe UNDG global them atic consultation on governance .
Key findings and recommendations will be submitted to the UN Secretary -General’s :igh Level Panel
of Eminent Persons on the post -2015 development agenda. Th is report , the meeting summary
and background research including illus trative indicators applying the criteria discussed above will be
made publicly available on www.worldwewant2015.org .

Finally, c ontact will be made with the UN Statistical Commission in 2013 in order to explore possible
follow -up work through a mechanism such as a “ Friends of the Chair” on governance and civil and
political rights, in order to more directly inform and enrich member States’ deliberations on global
summit indicators.

OHCHR & UNDP
27 December 201 2
17Langford, note 5 above.