This section reviews the progress of the twelve targets in SDG16 and their twenty-four indicators. The chapters in this section were drafted by TAP partners with expertise in the subject areas who were asked to write of their opinions on the progress of the targets and individual indicators. Materials from UN bodies with the official data, when available, on progress, and other relevant information was also added.1 This information is supplemented with non-official information on the progress of the specific indicators from Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and other sources. Additional data from non-official sources, which highlights other aspects of the target not covered by the official indicators, is also included. The assessment on the progress of the targets is therefore taken as a whole, looking at the official indicators as well as any alternatives.
Summary: Little progress, much backsliding
Overall, the progress on SDG16 is insufficient. With the exception of a few promising developments, most of the targets and the indicators have not seen significant improvements since 2015, calling into question the ability and willingness of states to be able to implement them, as well as the rest of the SDGs, by 2030. Many are backsliding. Of particular concern are targets relating to peace and violence, which were already backsliding before the Ukraine conflict, following a few years of improvement. Violence against children remains high, even if a few additional countries have committed to ban violent punishment. Moreover, an increase in political repression and restrictions on civic space have negatively impacted civic society in its ability to help move SDG16 forward. Additionally, the rule of law as well as access to justice have been challenged by severe funding problems, and discrimination rates remains high, especially that which is gender related.
Two targets – birth registration (16.9) and adoption of independent national human rights institutions (16.a) – are showing overall positive progress, but neither is on track to be achieved by 2030. There are also some indicators under other targets which display positive trends but are also lagging; for example, gender-equal representation in parliaments has increased but it is estimated to take 70 years to achieve at current progress rates. Additionally, the adoption of access to information laws has reached 2/3 of countries worldwide but slowed in recent years with many countries facing implementation problems. There have also been positive moves on combating illicit financial flows and ensuring the return of stolen assets, but there is little official data to show exactly how much has improved.
The remaining five targets are showing little or no progress: corruption and bribery remain largely unchanged; many countries’ budgets show great deviations in spending from their approved budgets; arms flows are increasingly secretive while organized crime is pervasive; and there has been no virtually no change in 20 years on the voting representation of developing countries in global financial institutions
Challenges with official data
A major problem with SDG16 is the lack of monitoring; with many indicators only having sporadic data collected over a number of years from different jurisdictions, which does not facilitate a clear estimate of progress. Indeed, many indicators took considerable time to develop and are only being considered now. This is highlighted by the relatively low classifications that most have been assigned by the United Nations Statistical Division.2 Of the 24 indicators in SDG16, only 10 (and part of one other indicator) are classified as Tier I, meaning that they are “conceptually clear”, and that “internationally established methodology and standards are available”, and that data is “regularly produced by countries for at least 50 per cent of countries and of the population in every region where the indicator is relevant”. A majority – thirteen – are classified as Tier II, meaning that while they are conceptually clear, and that internationally established methodology and standards are available, data is not regularly collected by countries. Like the rest of the SDGs, there have been improvements in data collection for SDG16’s indicators: the 2023 count is up from seven Tier I in 2020, six Tier I and seven Tier III in 2018, and six Tier I and eight Tier III in 2016. But clearly, this is still not enough.
Further, many indicators simply do not encapsulate the spirit or breadth of the targets, which undermines their effectiveness. The relative novelty of SDG16 and its 12 targets, as well as their more governance-related focus, raises special challenges in terms of identifying, collecting and analysing data to assess progress. While it is relatively easy to find straightforward and statistically-measurable indicators for many SDG targets – such as sustaining economic growth, and ensuring access to energy, safe drinking water and education – the same is not true for most of the SDG16 targets. How can the rule of law or protection of fundamental freedoms be reduced to a number? One can easily measure whether a country has access to information law, and there is even a sophisticated methodology for assigning a number to how robust that law is,3 but quantifying implementation is quite another thing.
One of the consequences of this is that there is, in many cases, a tangible gap between the substance of the SDG16 targets and the indicators which have been agreed upon to assess progress towards those targets. Consider, for example, using a) the proportion of victims of violence who report their victimisation, or b) the proportion of unsentenced detainees in the prison population, as surrogates for the rule of law and equal access to justice respectively. Or indeed, government expenditures as a proportion of the budget, coupled with the proportion of people who are satisfied with public services, as a means of assessing whether institutions are “effective, accountable and transparent”. A candidate for the most serious gap is using the number of cases of killings, kidnappings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions and torture of journalists, trade unionists and human rights defenders as a way of measuring the protection of fundamental freedoms. This has led many civil society organisations to propose alternative indicators for the SDG16 targets.4
Beyond these general data dilemmas lie even more profound problems associated with having states collect the official data on many of these indicators. While no State is proud of having challenges in areas such as health care, education and access to clean water, the desire to deny or obfuscate challenges in areas such as the rule of law, effective and accountable institutions, and respect for fundamental freedoms, many of which arise more from a lack of political will than shortages of human or financial resources, is significantly greater. That is why democratic States allocate the task of overseeing respect for human rights to independent national human rights institutions rather than political actors.
Unfortunately, independent reporting, aside from non-official data collection and reporting by civil society organisations, is not built into the SDG processes. In many cases, states have not invested in the new forms of data collection and processing that are required to monitor progress on the indicators under SDG16. Essentially, it is all too simple for states to sidestep accountability for SDG16 failures, simply by failing to report on them at all.
All of this highlights the crucial nature of non-official data, relating both to indicators but also to wider means of measuring progress, in respect of SDG16. While, historically, States have been neither enthusiastic about nor outwardly opposed to assessing their own governance progress and failures, and inter-governmental actors have not always been proactive in this regard this either, civil society organisations have long been heavily engaged in this area. Indeed, this was an important rationale for creating the SDG16 Data Initiative in the first place, namely, to support and profile the excellent work being done by many civil society organisations in this field (see chapter 6). In addition, civil society organisations can bring distance and objectivity to these often very politically-sensitive areas of assessment, something States almost inevitably struggle with.
The following chapters in this section of the report are meant to provide a detailed analysis of progress towards each SDG16 target, utilizing both official and alternative indicators. Each chapter has been drafted by some of the foremost global experts from civil society on their respective topics, with many representing key data providers for measuring progress towards key indicators. Materials from UN bodies with the official data, when available, on progress, and other relevant information was also added. This information is supplemented with non-official information on the progress of the specific indicators from CSOs and other sources. Finally, additional data from non-official sources which highlight other aspects of the target which are not covered by the official indicators is included.
In addition to providing background and context regarding the state of progress towards specific official and alternative indicators, each chapter provides an overall qualitative assessment of progress towards the target as a whole, reflecting the expertise of the organizations drafting each respective chapter. Additional information and analysis, including supplemental resources and reports around each target, as well as key recommendations, case studies and additional charts and graphics are included in the online version of the Halfway to 2030 Report.