While the means of implementation adopted for the actualisation of the SDGs will not only need to be aware of these interlinkages but also incorporate them to be able to capitalise on the synergies and minimise the tradeoffs. It will be equally important for the indicators for measuring progress against the SDGs to also be attuned to these interlinkages. A blinkered approach in defining the indicators for any specific goal, that does not take into consideration the impacts of progress (or lack thereof) against that goal on other directly and indirectly linked goal areas may well prove counterproductive in the long term. This is because progress against one goal area may mask the tradeoffs with another goal. For example, an increase in agricultural production and therefore food security (linked to Goal 2) can well be a result of conversion of forest land to agricultural use, over-extraction of ground water resources or introduction of GMOs which would impinge respectively on the protective management of forests (linked to Goal 15), water security (linked to Goal 6) and maintenance of biodiversity (Goal 15). The negative feedback of all of this would, in the long term hinder the sustainability of the enhanced production achieved. The experience of the green revolution in Punjab is just one of the well documented cases that serves to illustrate the dangers of having a narrow focus on the achievement of one goal without being sensitive to its wider and long term repercussions.

While most of the goals have covered the three dimensions of sustainable development i.e. environmental, social and economic wellbeing across its multiple targets; the proposed indicators against each target must also address, where relevant, the three dimensions for conveying a holistic reflection of progress and being alert to tradeoffs. For example, one of the proposed indicators for Goal 15 on health of terrestrial ecosystems is ‘percentage of land that is degraded over total land’. While the indicator clearly captures the environmental dimension, it would also be important to understand the economic dimension as whether decrease in percentage of degraded land also reflects in enhanced productive potential of the land thus reported to have been regenerated. This is important as the enhancement of productive potential could be an incentive for the resident communities of such lands to continue to protect these from degradation, thereby rendering the progress sustainable. Similarly, it would also be necessary to understand the social dimension in terms of any change in access of the land by the resident communities, as for example, reversal of degradation achieved through the displacement of dependent communities without providing for alternative livelihoods would imply that the extractive pressures have simply been shifted elsewhere and not reduced.

The critical importance of correctly crafting the indicators also lies in these being not just tools for measuring progress but also informing the choice of strategies to be adopted based on an assessment of the relative effectiveness of different strategies in different contexts. Indicators thus are required not only for monitoring and evaluation purposes but also for timely recognition of the need for course correction, prioritising between strategy options by redistributing investments and even strengthening accountability. Again, taking an example, one of the indicators proposed for Goal 2 on food security is the ‘prevalence of under-nourishment’, but the indicator must also be able to distinguish between the different causes of under-nourishment such as poverty, drought and food distribution, if it is to inform the course correction in strategy required for improving the rate of progress. Disaggregation in indicators will be important not only in terms of understanding the causes (as in the above example) but also in the context of stakeholders, especially where communities are highly heterogeneous and inequities abound. Progress evaluation using indicators thus need not be an ‘end’ in itself but be a constructive ‘means’ for influencing improved rate of progress.

One of the ways in which to frame the indicators such that these are sensitive to tradeoffs is to define them in terms of investment efficiencies. For example, an indicator such as crop-per-drop or the water efficiency of food production can effectively forestall the possibility of enhancement in food production masking any inherent tradeoff in terms of over extraction of finite water resources. Such indicators are particularly important in informing the prioritised allocation of limited investment capacities such that multiple and maximum benefits can be obtained from the same unit of investment, whether in the form of finance, natural resources or human effort.

Additionally, the indicators must be able to communicate with not only an expert audience but also to the layperson because the achievement of the SDGs will require the participation of every person on the planet. Even the most robust intent and commitment at the global and national levels will not be adequate for achieving the SDGs if these are not adequately deconstructed and communicated at the district, block and panchayat levels. Ownership, and not just awareness of the goals, targets and indicators at these decentralised levels will ultimately enable the achievement of the SDGs. Simple and elegant indicators that the average person will be able to understand and relate to will help support the rallying cries of the goals and targets.

The global process of finalisation of the SDG indicators, which followed a fairly participatory process with expert groups anchoring the process and both civil society and academia contributing inputs and feedback, is now in its last lap with 230 indicators already having been agreed upon. Adoption of this indicator framework however abounds in challenges as some of these indicators are not yet possible to measure, with lack of data and accepted methodology and for many there is inadequate country coverage.

This article has dwelled on only some of the arguments and imperatives that have guided the global discussions for defining and finalising the set of SDG indicators, especially in the context of the interlinked nature of the framework. These imperatives will continue to remain relevant beyond the process of indicator development to the application of the same and actors involved will need to be sensitised to these. It is worth reiterating that it would be equally important to assess and strengthen the data collection and management infrastructure and capacities of the state, extending from the national to the local, to be able to handle the complex challenge of tracking the SDG implementation process. Looking beyond the traditional systems, it would also be necessary to integrate not only new age technologies such as mobile phones and GPS for data collection but also new approaches such as partnerships with civil society for crowd sourcing and validation of data. A commitment to the SDGs alone will not be adequate for achieving them. It will need to be complemented with an equal commitment to instituting and investing in a supportive monitoring and evaluation system, infrastructure and capacities. q