Memorial Seminar for Ian Castles

1. Relevance of Ian Castles's concerns with the 1999 Human Development Report for Brazil Eduardo Pereira Nunes President of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) Memorial Seminar for Ian Castles Side Event of 42nd session of the United Nations Statistical Commission New York, 22 - 25 February 2011 Wednesday, 23 February, 2011 1 1 1

2. Relevance of the concerns with the 1999 HDR raised by Mr. Ian Castles Ian Castles ideas are very inspiring and in my point of view, this Memorial Seminar is welcome and will give us an opportunity to discuss once more about his and our concerns with indicators released by United Nations Agencies. I would like to stress that there is a growing cooperation between IBGE and Brazilian Ministries with UN Agencies. We are going in the right direction and we hope to continue working to improve relationship and the outcomes of these partnerships. 2

3. I will basically deal with two major issues: • Disclose the concerns of IBGE related with indicators used by the international agencies • Contribute with our experience in helping cope with the same or similar issues disclosed by Mr. Castles ... that subsist today

4. First evidence that Mr. Castles concerns in 1999 are still current is the Report presented by Brazil, Morocco and South Africa which will be discussed during this 42nd UNSC. This Report focuses on the same issues. Report of Brazil, Morocco and South Africa on Member States’ concerns with indicators released by the United Nations agencies Background The debate centres on two main concerns repeatedly raised by Member States: concerns about the choice of indicators and their methodology on the one hand and concerns about the choice and use of source data on the other hand. A number of issues subsist today, considering that the PPP issue – also highlighted by Castles – has been solved.

5. As disclosed by the exchange of 1999-2001 (Mr. Castles - HDRO - ESC Statistical Commission), discrepancies are still often spotted in Reports issued by international agencies. South African contribution is a good example. II. Member States concerns South Africa It is regrettable that the Human Development Report continues to carry discrepant results that contradict other national data … As regards Goal 1, on proportion of population below US $1.25 in South Africa, the Human Development Index reports 26.2 per cent, while the Millennium Development Goals Report records a reducing proportion from 17 per cent, in 2000, to 9.7 per cent, in 2006. The sources of data to estimate that Index are not known… We know that there are different objectives for each Report; material and non-material errors ... and differences. Seeing this South African contribution, there are indeed material differences between 26.2 and 9.7. How NSO can explain these differences to the users? How NSO canfollowthe UNSC Fundamental Principle 3 onTransparence?

6. What have we been doing to cope with it? • Coordination and Metadata efforts by countries, even though there still a long way to go… • There are also efforts endeavored by UN Agencies, like the MDG Labs Project to disclose differences • Example of Bolivia: 6

7. Example of Bolivia on How NSO can explain these differences to the users ExampleonHow UN Agencies canfollowthe UNSC Fundamental Principle 3 onTransparence

8. Three points of criticism that Brazil brings to this Report II. Member States concerns BRAZIL (a) the non-use of the official statistics produced by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics and Brazilian ministries in the production of the HD Index and other indicators; (b) the lack of transparency about the data sources used by UNDP and about the methodological approaches implemented and assumptions made in calculating the Index; and (c) the lack of cooperation between UNDP and the Brazilian authorities as well as between UNDP and the global statistical community. Brazil finds this practice in violation to the recommendations adopted in Economic and Social Council Resolution 2006/6 on strengthening statistical capacity. 8

9. BRAZIL • (a) the non-use of the official statistics produced by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics and Brazilian ministries in the production of the HD Index and other indicators; • According to our view, why does that happen? • Problems at the international community level • Problems at the national administrations level • What has been done by IBGE to improve the relationship? • Growing integration among Brazilian Administrations at the Federal level, with highlight to the Brazilian Social Statistical Committee (CES) created in 2008 and coordinated by IBGE. • Another successful IBGE initiative is the creation of a specific division to answer all data demands of international organizations (mediated or not by Brazilian diplomacy). 9

10. BRAZIL (b) the lack of transparency about the data sources used by UNDP and about the methodological approaches implemented and assumptions made in calculating the Index; IBGE hopes to see a further improvement in the creation of metadata and methodological appendices in publications. We are ready to help validating these outputs! UNDP's Multi-dimensional Poverty Index is a recent example of these dysfunctions concerning transparency, data imputations, etc. More communication and cooperation between UNDP and country members is a good way to develop analytical skills of countries with incipient statistical systems. It would be an advantage for both country and UNDP. 10

11. BRAZIL (c) the lack of cooperation between UNDP and the Brazilian authorities as well as between UNDP and the global statistical community. Brazil finds this practice in violation to the recommendations adopted in Economic and Social Council resolution 2006/6 on strengthening statistical capacity. Brazil has already made efforts to improve cooperation from the country side ... as for UNDP and global statistical community we tend to see a half full glass ... Quoting Castles in an article about GDP comparisons: “We hope that the arguments we have advanced here will help to increase awareness, to widen professional debate, and to extend the area of agreement” and cooperation. 11

12. Twelve years after IAN CASTLES Report on Development Indicators, when he stressed the importance of independency, objectivity and integrity of statistical work for public policy, mainly at international level, National Statistical Offices deal with the same issues, and 2015 is arriving, when all countries should present your Reports on achievement of MDG! We need more cooperation to improve International Statistical System. As UNDP has no enough staff members to cooperate with all countries, usually, recruites some ”independent” consultants to make national estimates, without any conection with NSO and Ministries, nor transparence. How to solve this statistical and political problem? UNSC could create an UNWG, inviting more developed NSO to cooperate with UNDP to improve Official National and International Statistical System, following IAN CASTLES Report. This Group could be named WG Ian Castles!