The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 5.
Praja - Enhancing Democracy Through Access to Open Data: What Are the Roles of Government and Civil Society? (Delhi, Sep 08)
https://cis-india.org/openness/news/praja-enhancing-democracy-through-access-to-open-data-what-are-the-roles-of-government-and-civil-society-delhi-sep-08
<b> Open Government Data (OGD) is widely seen to be a key hallmark of contemporary democratic practice and is often linked to the passing of freedom of information legislation. OGD is a philosophy—and increasingly a set of policies—that promotes transparency, accountability and value creation by making government data available to all. Public bodies produce and commission huge quantities of data and information. By making their datasets available, public institutions become more transparent and accountable to citizens. By encouraging the use, reuse and free distribution of datasets, governments promote business creation and innovative, citizen-centric services. Praja is organising a symposium on "open data and civil society" on Friday, Sep 8, which is supported by European Union and Friedrich Naumann Stiftung fur die Freiheit. Sumandro Chattapadhyay (Research Director) will take part in this event as a speaker in the session on "data centric approach and role of stakeholders in the urban governance ecosystem."</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Details</h4>
<p><strong>Date:</strong> Friday, September 08 2017, 9:30 am - 5:00 pm</p>
<p><strong>Venue:</strong> Juniper Hall, India Habitat Centre (Entry from Gate 1)</p>
<p><strong>Invitees:</strong> Government representatives, elected representatives, civil society organisation and media representatives.</p>
<p><strong>Event Page:</strong> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/126667714642843/?ref=br_rs">Facebook</a></p>
<h4>Objectives</h4>
<ul><li>To study the intersectionality between transparency, accountability and consumption of data by stakeholders.</li>
<li>To explore opportunities for the civil society to simplify governance through access to data, privacy of stakeholders and to address challenges faced in data collection and analysis.</li></ul>
<h4>Outcomes</h4>
<p>The takeaway from the seminar should be to develop the idea of achieving data literacy. The presenters after a detailed interaction should take away the following from the event:</p>
<ul><li>Reflections on the use of Internet and technology as tools for better governance</li>
<li>Balance the development of open data and the strategies to use this data in terms of ownership and replication of data</li>
<li>Identify data sets which should be prioritised for release in order to maximise public value</li>
<li>Data Accessibility: Capitalize on the demand for democracy and transparency by making open data more accessible to the larger public</li></ul>
<h4>Sessions</h4>
<p>Through sessions, the aim is to specifically investigate the role of civil society and media in this effort. The participants will deliberate on the above-mentioned objectives of the seminar.</p>
<p><strong>Session I:</strong> Praja Foundation Website Launch</p>
<p><strong>Session II:</strong> Data centric approach and role of stakeholders in the urban governance ecosystem</p>
<p><strong>Session III:</strong> Open data-experiences; trends, challenges and opportunities, relationship between governance and data</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/news/praja-enhancing-democracy-through-access-to-open-data-what-are-the-roles-of-government-and-civil-society-delhi-sep-08'>https://cis-india.org/openness/news/praja-enhancing-democracy-through-access-to-open-data-what-are-the-roles-of-government-and-civil-society-delhi-sep-08</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen DataOpen Government DataData RevolutionData GovernanceOpenness2017-09-05T10:57:38ZBlog EntryComments on the Report of the Committee on Digital Payments (December 2016)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-report-of-the-committee-on-digital-payments-dec-2016
<b>The Committee on Digital Payments constituted by the Ministry of Finance and chaired by Ratan P. Watal, Principal Advisor, NITI Aayog, submitted its report on the "Medium Term Recommendations to Strengthen Digital Payments Ecosystem" on December 09, 2016. The report was made public on December 27, and comments were sought from the general public. Here are the comments submitted by the Centre for Internet and Society.</b>
<p> </p>
<h3><strong>1. Preliminary</strong></h3>
<p><strong>1.1.</strong> This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) <strong>[1]</strong> in response to the report of the Committee on Digital Payments, chaired by Mr. Ratan P. Watal, Principal Advisor, NITI Aayog, and constituted by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India (“the report”) <strong>[2]</strong>.</p>
<h3><strong>2. The Centre for Internet and Society</strong></h3>
<p><strong>2.1.</strong> The Centre for Internet and Society, CIS, is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, and open access), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security.</p>
<p><strong>2.2.</strong> CIS is not an expert organisation in the domain of banking in general and payments in particular. Our expertise is in matters of internet and communication governance, data privacy and security, and technology regulation. We deeply appreciate and are most inspired by the Ministry of Finance’s decision to invite entities from both the sectors of finance and information technology. This submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved, especially the citizens and the users. CIS is thankful to the Ministry of Finance for this opportunity to provide a general response on the report.</p>
<h3><strong>3. Comments</strong></h3>
<p><strong>3.1.</strong> CIS observes that the decision by the Government of India to withdraw the legal tender character of the old high denomination banknotes (that is, Rs. 500 Rs. 1,000 notes), declared on November 08, 2016 <strong>[3]</strong>, have generated <strong>unprecedented data about the user base and transaction patterns of digital payments systems in India, when pushed to its extreme use due to the circumstances</strong>. The majority of this data is available with the National Payments Corporation of India and the Reserve Bank of India. CIS requests the authorities concerned to consider <strong>opening up this data for analysis and discussion by public at large and experts in particular, before any specific policy and regulatory decisions are taken</strong> towards advancing digital payments proliferation in India. This is a crucial opportunity for the Ministry of Finance to embrace (open) data-driven regulation and policy-making.</p>
<p><strong>3.2.</strong> While the report makes a reference to the European General Data Protection Directive, it does not make a reference to any substantive provisions in the Directive which may be relevant to digital payments. Aside from the recommendation that privacy protections around the purpose limitation principle be relaxed to ensure that payment service providers be allowed to process data to improve fraud monitoring and anti-money laundering services, the report is silent on significant privacy and data protection concerns posed by digital payments services. <strong>CIS strongly warns that the existing data protection and security regulations under Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information), Rules are woefully inadequate in their scope and application to effectively deal with potential privacy concerns posed by digital payments applications and services.</strong> Some key privacy issues that must be addressed either under a comprehensive data protection legislation or a sector specific financial regulation are listed below. The process of obtaining consent must be specific, informed and unambiguous and through a clear affirmative action by the data subject based upon a genuine choice provided along with an option to opt out at any stage. The data subjects should have clear and easily enforceable right to access and correct their data. Further, data subjects should have the right to restrict the usage of their data in circumstances such as inaccuracy of data, unlawful purpose and data no longer required in order to fulfill the original purpose.</p>
<p><strong>3.3.</strong> The initial recommendation of the report is to “[m]ake regulation of payments independent from the function of central banking” (page 22). This involves a fundamental transformation of the payment and settlement system in India and its regulation. <strong>We submit that a decision regarding transformation of such scale and implications is taken after a more comprehensive policy discussion, especially involving a wider range of stakeholders</strong>. The report itself notes that “[d]igital payments also have the potential of becoming a gateway to other financial services such as credit facilities for small businesses and low-income households” (page 32). Thus, a clear functional, and hence regulatory, separation between the (digital) payments industry and the lending/borrowing industry may be either effective or desirable. Global experience tells us that digital transactions data, along with other alternative data, are fast becoming the basis of provision of financial and other services, by both banking and non-banking (payments) companies. We appeal to the Ministry of Finance to adopt a comprehensive and concerted approach to regulating, enabling competition, and upholding consumers’ rights in the banking sector at large.</p>
<p><strong>3.4.</strong> The report recognises “banking as an activity is separate from payments, which is more of a technology business” (page 154). Contemporary banking and payment businesses are both are primarily technology businesses where information technology particularly is deployed intimately to extract, process, and drive asset management decisions using financial transaction data. Further, with payment businesses (such as, pre-paid instruments) offering return on deposited money via other means (such as, cashbacks), and potentially competing and/or collaborating with established banks to use financial transaction data to drive lending decisions, including but not limited to micro-loans, it appears unproductive to create a separation between banking as an activity and payments as an activity merely in terms of the respective technology intensity of these sectors. <strong>CIS firmly recommends that regulation of these financial services and activities be undertaken in a technology-agnostic manner, and similar regulatory regimes be deployed on those entities offering similar services irrespective of their technology intensity or choice</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>3.5.</strong> The report highlights two major shortcomings of the current regulatory regime for payments. Firstly “the law does not impose any obligation on the regulator to promote competition and innovation in the payments market” (page 153). It appears to us that the regulator’s role should not be to promote market expansion and innovation but to ensure and oversee competition. <strong>We believe that the current regulator should focus on regulating the existing market, and the work of the expansion of the digital payments market in particular and the digital financial services market in general be carried out by another government agency, as it creates conflict of interest for the regulator otherwise.</strong> Secondly, the report mentions that Payment and Settlement Systems Act does not “focus the regulatory attention on the need for consumer protection in digital payments” and then it notes that a “provision was inserted to protect funds collected from customers” in 2015 (page 153). <strong>This indicates that the regulator already has the responsibility to ensure consumer protection in digital payments. The purview and modalities of how this function of course needs discussion and changes with the growth in digital payments</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>3.6.</strong> The report identifies the high cost of cash as a key reason for the government’s policy push towards digital payments. Further, it mentions that a “sample survey conducted in 2014 across urban and rural neighbourhoods in Delhi and Meerut, shows that despite being keenly aware of the costs associated with transacting in cash, most consumers see three main benefits of cash, viz. freedom of negotiations, faster settlements, and ensuring exact payments” (page 30). It further notes that “[d]igital payments have significant dependencies upon power and telecommunications infrastructure. Therefore, the roll out of robust and user friendly digital payments solutions to unelectrified areas/areas without telecommunications network coverage, remains a challenge.” <strong>CIS much appreciates the discussion of the barriers to universal adoption and rollout of digital payments in the report, and appeals to the Ministry of Finance to undertake a more comprehensive study of the key investments required by the Government of India to ensure that digital payments become ubiquitously viable as well as satisfy the demands of a vast range of consumers that India has</strong>. The estimates about investment required to create a robust digital payment infrastructure, cited in the report, provide a great basis for undertaking studies such as these.</p>
<p><strong>3.7.</strong> CIS is very encouraged to see the report highlighting that “[w]ith the rising number of users of digital payment services, it is absolutely necessary to develop consumer confidence on digital payments. Therefore, it is essential to have legislative safeguards to protect such consumers in-built into the primary law.” <strong>We second this recommendation and would like to add further that financial transaction data is governed under a common data protection and privacy regime, without making any differences between data collected by banking and non-banking entities</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>3.8.</strong> We are, however, very discouraged to see the overtly incorrect use of the word “Open Access” in this report in the context of a payment system disallowing service when the client wants to transact money with a specific entity <strong>[4]</strong>. This is not an uncommon anti-competitive measure adopted by various platform players and services providers so as to disallow users from using competing products (such as, not allowing competing apps in the app store controlled by one software company). <strong>The term “Open Access” is not only the appropriate word to describe the negation of such anti-competitive behaviour, its usage in this context undermines its accepted meaning and creates confusion regarding the recommendation being proposed by the report.</strong> The closest analogy to the recommendation of the report would perhaps be with the principle of “network neutrality” that stands for the network provider not discriminating between data packets being processed by them, either in terms of price or speed.</p>
<p><strong>3.9.</strong> A major recommendation by the report involves creation of “a fund from savings generated from cash-less transactions … by the Central Government,” which will use “the trinity of JAM (Jan Dhan, Adhaar, Mobile) [to] link financial inclusion with social protection, contributing to improved Social and Financial Security and Inclusion of vulnerable groups/ communities” (page 160-161). <strong>This amounts to making Aadhaar a mandatory ID for financial inclusion of citizens, especially the marginal and vulnerable ones, and is in direct contradiction to the government’s statements regarding the optional nature of the Aadhaar ID, as well as the orders by the Supreme Court on this topic</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>3.10.</strong> The report recommends that “Aadhaar should be made the primary identification for KYC with the option of using other IDs for people who have not yet obtained Aadhaar” (page 163) and further that “Aadhaar eKYC and eSign should be a replacement for paper based, costly, and shared central KYC registries” (page 162). <strong>Not only these measures would imply making Aadhaar a mandatory ID for undertaking any legal activity in the country, they assume that the UIDAI has verified and audited the personal documents submitted by Aadhaar number holders during enrollment.</strong> A mandate for <em>replacement</em> of the paper-based central KYC agencies will only remove a much needed redundancy in the the identity verification infrastructure of the government.</p>
<p><strong>3.11.</strong> The report suggests that “[t]ransactions which are permitted in cash without KYC should also be permitted on prepaid wallets without KYC” (page 164-165). This seems to negate the reality that physical verification of a person remains one of the most authoritative identity verification process for a natural person, apart from DNA testing perhaps. <strong>Thus, establishing full equivalency of procedure between a presence-less transaction and one involving a physically present person making the payment will only amount to removal of relatively greater security precautions for the former, and will lead to possibilities of fraud</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>3.12.</strong> In continuation with the previous point, the report recommends promotion of “Aadhaar based KYC where PAN has not been obtained” and making of “quoting Aadhaar compulsory in income tax return for natural persons” (page 163). Both these measures imply a replacement of the PAN by Aadhaar in the long term, and a sharp reduction in growth of new PAN holders in the short term. <strong>We appeal for this recommendation to be reconsidered as integration of all functionally separate national critical information infrastructures (such as PAN and Aadhaar) into a single unified and centralised system (such as Aadhaar) engenders massive national and personal security threats</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>3.13.</strong> The report suggest the establishment of “a ranking and reward framework” to recognise and encourage for the best performing state/district/agency in the proliferation of digital payments. <strong>It appears to us that creation of such a framework will only lead to making of an environment of competition among these entities concerned, which apart from its benefits may also have its costs. For example, the incentivisation of quick rollout of digital payment avenues by state government and various government agencies may lead to implementation without sufficient planning, coordination with stakeholders, and precautions regarding data security and privacy</strong>. The provision of central support for digital payments should be carried out in an environment of cooperation and not competition.</p>
<p><strong>3.14.</strong> CIS welcomes the recommendation by the report to generate greater awareness about cost of cash, including by ensuring that “large merchants including government agencies should account and disclose the cost of cash collection and cash payments incurred by them periodically” (page 164). It, however, is not clear to whom such periodic disclosures should be made. <strong>We would like to add here that the awareness building must simultaneously focus on making public how different entities shoulder these costs. Further, for reasons of comparison and evidence-driven policy making, it is necessary that data for equivalent variables are also made open for digital payments - the total and disaggregate cost, and what proportion of these costs are shouldered by which entities</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>3.15.</strong> The report acknowledges that “[t]oday, most merchants do not accept digital payments” and it goes on to recommend “that the Government should seize the initiative and require all government agencies and merchants where contracts are awarded by the government to provide at-least one suitable digital payment option to its consumers and vendors” (page 165). This requirement for offering digital payment option will only introduce an additional economic barrier for merchants bidding for government contracts. <strong>We appeal to the Ministry of Finance to reconsider this approach of raising the costs of non-digital payments to incentivise proliferation of digital payments, and instead lower the existing economic and other barriers to digital payments that keep the merchants away</strong>. The adoption of digital payments must not lead to increasing costs for merchants and end-users, but must decrease the same instead.</p>
<p><strong>3.16.</strong> As the report was submitted on December 09, 2016, and was made public only on December 27, 2016, <strong>it would have been much appreciated if at least a month-long window was provided to study and comment on the report, instead of fifteen days</strong>. This is especially crucial as the recently implemented demonetisation and the subsequent banking and fiscal policy decisions taken by the government have rapidly transformed the state and dynamics of the payments system landscape in India in general, and digital payments in particular.</p>
<h3><strong>Endnotes</strong></h3>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> See: <a href="http://cis-india.org/">http://cis-india.org/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> See: <a href="http://finmin.nic.in/reports/Note-watal-report.pdf">http://finmin.nic.in/reports/Note-watal-report.pdf</a> and <a href="http://finmin.nic.in/reports/watal_report271216.pdf">http://finmin.nic.in/reports/watal_report271216.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> See: <a href="http://finmin.nic.in/cancellation_high_denomination_notes.pdf">http://finmin.nic.in/cancellation_high_denomination_notes.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> Open Access refers to “free and unrestricted online availability” of scientific and non-scientific literature. See: <a href="http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read">http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-report-of-the-committee-on-digital-payments-dec-2016'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-report-of-the-committee-on-digital-payments-dec-2016</a>
</p>
No publisherSumandro Chattapadhyay and Amber SinhaUIDDigital IDBig DataDigital EconomyDigital AccessPrivacyDigital SecurityData RevolutionDigital PaymentInternet GovernanceDigital IndiaData ProtectionDemonetisationHomepageFeaturedAadhaar2017-01-12T12:32:22ZBlog EntryWorkshop on 'Privacy after Big Data' (Delhi, November 12)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/privacy-after-big-data-delhi-nov-12-2016
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and the Sarai programme, CSDS, invite you to a workshop on 'Privacy after Big Data: What Changes? What should Change?' on Saturday, November 12. This workshop aims to build a dialogue around some of the key government-led big data initiatives in India and elsewhere that are contributing significant new challenges and concerns to the ongoing debates on the right to privacy. It is an open event. Please register to participate.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Invitation note and agenda: <a href="https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/docs/CIS-Sarai_PrivacyAfterBigData_ConceptAgenda.pdf">Download</a> (PDF)</h4>
<hr />
<h3>Venue and RSVP</h3>
<p><strong>Venue:</strong> Centre for the Study of Developing Societies 29, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054.</p>
<p><strong>Location on Google Maps:</strong> <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/place/CSDS/@28.677775,77.2162523,17z/">https://www.google.com/maps/place/CSDS/@28.677775,77.2162523,17z/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Registration:</strong> <a href="https://goo.gl/forms/py0Q0u8rMppu4smE3">Complete this form</a>.</p>
<h3>Concept Note</h3>
<p>In this age of big data, discussions about privacy are intertwined with the use of technology and the data deluge. Though big data possesses enormous value for driving innovation and contributing to productivity and efficiency, privacy concerns have gained significance in the dialogue around regulated use of data and the means by which individual privacy might be compromised through means such as surveillance, or protected. The tremendous opportunities big data creates in varied sectors ranges from financial technology, governance, education, health, welfare schemes, smart cities to name a few.</p>
<p>With the UID (“Aadhaar”) project re-animating the Right to Privacy debate in India, and the financial technology ecosystem growing rapidly, striking a balance between benefits of big data and privacy concerns is a critical policy question that demands public dialogue and research to inform an evidence based decision.</p>
<p>Also, with the advent of potential big data initiatives like the ambitious Smart Cities Mission under the Digital India Scheme, which would rely on harvesting large data sets and the use of analytics in city subsystems to make public utilities and services efficient, the tasks of ensuring data security on one hand and protecting individual privacy on the other become harder.</p>
<p>As key privacy principles are at loggerheads with big data activities, it is important to consider privacy as an embedded component in the processes, systems and projects, rather than being considered as an afterthought. These examples highlight the current state of discourse around data protection and privacy in India and the shapes they are likely to take in near future.</p>
<p>This workshop aims to build a dialogue around some of the key government-led big data initiatives in India and elsewhere that are contributing significant new challenges and concerns to the ongoing debates on the right to privacy.</p>
<h3>Agenda</h3>
<h4>09:00-09:30 Tea and Coffee</h4>
<h4>09:30-10:00 Introduction</h4>
<p><a href="#amber">Mr. Amber Sinha</a> and <a href="#sandeep">Mr. Sandeep Mertia</a><br />
<em>This session will introduce the topic of the workshop in the context of the ongoing works at CIS and Sarai.</em></p>
<h4>10:00-11:00 From Privacy Bill(s) to ‘Habeas Data’</h4>
<p><a href="#usha">Dr. Usha Ramanathan</a> and <a href="#vipul">Mr. Vipul Kharbanda</a><br />
<em>This session will present a brief history of the privacy bill(s) in India and end with reflections on ‘habeas data’ as a lens for thinking and actualising privacy after big data.</em></p>
<h4>11:00-11:30 Tea and Coffee</h4>
<h4>11:30-12:30 Digital ID, Data Protection, and Exclusion</h4>
<p><a href="#amelia">Ms. Amelia Andersdotter</a> and <a href="#srikanth">Mr. Srikanth Lakshmanan</a><br />
<em>This session will discuss national centralised digital ID systems, often operating at a cross-functional scale, and highlight its implications for discussions on data protection, welfare governance, and exclusion from public and private services.</em></p>
<h4>12:30-13:30 Digital Money and Financial Inclusion</h4>
<p><a href="#anupam">Dr. Anupam Saraph</a> and <a href="#astha">Ms. Astha Kapoor</a><br />
<em>This session will focus on the rise of digital banking and online payments as core instruments of financial inclusion in India, especially in the context of the Jan Dhan Yojana and UPI, and reflect on the concerns around privacy and financial data.</em></p>
<h4>13:30-14:30 Lunch</h4>
<h4>14:30-15:30 Big Data and Mass Surveillance</h4>
<p><a href="#anja">Dr. Anja Kovacs</a> and <a href="#matthew">Mr. Matthew Rice</a><br />
<em>This session will reflect on the rise of mass communication surveillance across the world, and the evolving challenges of regulating il/legal surveillance by government agencies.</em></p>
<h4>15:30-16:15 Privacy is (a) Right</h4>
<p><a href="#apar">Mr. Apar Gupta</a> and <a href="#kritika">Ms. Kritika Bhardwaj</a><br />
<em>This brief session is to share initial ideas and strategies for articulating and actualising a constitutional right to privacy in India.</em></p>
<h4>16:15-16:30 Tea and Coffee</h4>
<h4>16:30-17:30 Round Table</h4>
<p><em>An open discussion session to conclude the workshop.</em></p>
<h3>Speakers</h3>
<h4 id="amber">Mr. Amber Sinha</h4>
<p>Amber works on issues surrounding privacy, big data, and cyber security. He is interested in the impact of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and learning algorithms on existing legal frameworks, and how they need to evolve in response. Amber studied humanities and law at National Law School of India University, Bangalore.</p>
<p>E-mail: amber at cis-india dot org.</p>
<p>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/ambersinha07">@ambersinha07</a>.</p>
<h4 id="amelia">Ms. Amelia Andersdotter</h4>
<p>Amelia Andersdotter has been a Member of the European Parliament. She works on practical implications of data protection laws and consumer information security in Sweden, and digital rights in the Europe in general. Presently she is residing in Bangalore, where she is a visiting scholar with Centre for Internet and Society. She holds a BSc in Mathematics.</p>
<p>URL: <a href="https://dataskydd.net">https://dataskydd.net</a>.</p>
<p>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/teirdes">@teirdes</a>.</p>
<h4 id="anja">Dr. Anja Kovacs</h4>
<p>Dr. Anja Kovacs directs the Internet Democracy Project in Delhi, India, which works for an Internet that supports free speech, democracy and social justice in India and beyond. Anja’s research and advocacy focuses especially on questions regarding freedom of expression, cybersecurity and the architecture of Internet governance. She has been a member of the of the Investment Committee of the Digital Defenders Partnership and of the Steering Committee of Best Bits, a global network of civil society members. She has also worked as an international consultant on Internet issues, including for the Independent Commission on Multilateralism, the United Nations Development Programme Asia Pacific and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue, as well as having been a Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India.</p>
<p>Internet Democracy Project: <a href="https://internetdemocracy.in/">https://internetdemocracy.in</a>.</p>
<p>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/anjakovacs">@anjakovacs</a>.</p>
<h4 id="anupam">Dr. Anupam Saraph</h4>
<p>Anupam Saraph has extensively researched India's UID number that has been widely regarded as the game changer in development programs. It has come to be linked with both public and private databases and become the requirement for access to entitlements, benefits, services and rights. Dr. Saraph, who has the design of at least two identification programs to his credit has researched the UID’s functional creep since its inception.</p>
<p>He has been dissecting the myths of what the UID is or is not. He has also tracked the consequences of its linkages on databases that protect national security, sovereignty, democratic status and the entire banking and money system in India. He has also highlighted the implications of its use for targeted delivery of cash subsidies from the Consolidated Fund of India. He has written and lectured widely about the devastating impact of the UID number on development programs, national security and the governability of India.</p>
<p>As a Professor of Systems, Governance and Decision Sciences, Environmental Systems and Business he mentors students and teaches systems, information systems, environmental systems and sustainable development at universities in Europe, Asia and the Americas. He has worked with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rijksuniversitiet Groningen, RIVM, University of Edinburgh, Resource Use Institute, Systems Research Institute among others. Dr. Saraph has had the unique distinction of being India’s only person who has held the only office of a City CIO in India, in a PPP arrangement with government, industry and himself. He has also been the first e-governance Advisor to a State government. Dr. Saraph has held CxO and ministerial level positions and serves as an independent director on the boards of Public and Private Sector companies and NGOs. He is also the President of the Nagrik Chetna Manch, an NGO charged with the mission to bring accountability in governance.</p>
<p>Dr. Saraph is also actively engaged in civil society where he participates in several environmental, resource and nature conservation initiatives, has authored draft legislations for river and natural resource conservation, right to good governance and has contributed to governance, election and democratic reforms. Dr. Saraph is a regular columnist in newspapers and writes on issues of governance, future design, technology and education from a systems perspective.</p>
<p>Dr. Saraph is also actively engaged in civil society where he participates in several environmental, resource and nature conservation initiatives, has authored draft legislations for river and natural resource conservation, right to good governance and has contributed to governance, election and democratic reforms. Dr. Saraph is a regular columnist in newspapers and writes on issues of governance, future design, technology and education from a systems perspective.</p>
<p>Dr. Saraph is also actively engaged in civil society where he participates in several environmental, resource and nature conservation initiatives, has authored draft legislations for river and natural resource conservation, right to good governance and has contributed to governance, election and democratic reforms. Dr. Saraph is a regular columnist in newspapers and writes on issues of governance, future design, technology and education from a systems perspective.</p>
<p>As a future designer and recognized as a global expert on complex systems he helps individuals and organisations understand and design the future of their worlds. Together they address the toughest challenges, accomplish missions and achieve business goals. He also supports building capacity to address the challenges of today as well as to build future designs through teams and effective leadership. Since the eighties Dr. Saraph has modeled complex systems of cities, countries, regions and even the planet. His models have been awarded internationally and even placed in 10-year permanent exhibitions.</p>
<p>Dr Saraph works with business and government executives, civil society leaders, politicians, generals, civil servants, police, trade unionists, community activists, United Nations and ASEAN officials, judges, writers, media, architects, designers, technologists, scientists, entrepreneurs, board members and business leaders of small, mid and large single and trans-national companies, religious leaders and artists across a dozen countries and various industry sectors to help them and their organisations succeed in their missions. He advises the World Economic Forum through its Global Agenda Council for Complex Systems and the Club of Rome, Indian National Association as a founder life member.</p>
<p>Dr Saraph holds a PhD in designing sustainable systems from the faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands.</p>
<p>Website: <a href="http://anupam.saraph.in/">http://anupam.saraph.in</a>.</p>
<p>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/anupamsaraph">@anupamsaraph</a>.</p>
<h4 id="apar">Mr. Apar Gupta</h4>
<p>Apar Gupta practices law in Delhi. He is also one of the co-founders of the Internet Freedom Foundation. His work and writing on public interest issues can be accessed at his personal website <a href="http://www.apargupta.com/">www.apargupta.com</a>.</p>
<p>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/aparatbar">@aparatbar</a>.</p>
<h4 id="astha">Ms. Astha Kapoor</h4>
<p>Astha Kapoor is a public policy strategy consultant working on financial inclusion and digital payments. Currently, she is working with MicroSave. Her tasks involve a focus on government to people (G2P) payments - and her work spans strategy, advisory and evaluation with the DBT Mission, Office of the Chief Economic Advisor, NITI Aayog and ministries pertaining to food, fuel and fertilizer. She recently designed a pilot to digitize uptake of fertilizers in Krishna district, and evaluated the newly introduced coupon system in the Public Distribution System in Bengaluru.</p>
<p>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/kapoorastha">@kapoorastha</a>.</p>
<h4 id="kritika">Ms. Kritika Bhardwaj</h4>
<p>Kritika Bhardwaj works as a Programme Officer at the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University, Delhi. Her main areas of research are privacy and data protection. At CCG, she has written about the privacy implications of several contemporary issues such as Aadhaar (India's unique identification project), cloud computing and the right to be forgotten. A lawyer by training, Kritika has a keen interest in information law and human rights law.</p>
<p>Centre for Communication Governance, NLU Delhi: <a href="http://ccgdelhi.org/">http://ccgdelhi.org</a>.</p>
<p>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/Kritika12">@Kritika12</a>.</p>
<h4 id="matthew">Mr. Matthew Rice</h4>
<p>Matthew Rice is an Advocacy Officer at Privacy International working across the organisation engaging with international partners and strengthening their capacity on communications surveillance issues. He has previously worked at Privacy International as a consultant building the Surveillance Industry Index, the largest publicly available database on the private surveillance sector ever assembled. Matthew graduated from University of Aberdeen with an LLB (Hons.) and also has an MA in Human Rights from University College London.</p>
<p>Privacy International: <a href="https://privacyinternational.org/">https://privacyinternational.org</a>.</p>
<p>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/mattr3">@mattr3</a>.</p>
<h4 id="sandeep">Mr. Sandeep Mertia</h4>
<p>Sandeep Mertia is a Research Associate at The Sarai Programme, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. He is an ICT engineer by training with research interests in Science & Technology Studies, Software Studies
and Anthropology. He is conducting an ethnographic study of emerging modes of data-driven knowledge production in the social sector.</p>
<p>Sarai: <a href="http://sarai.net/">http://sarai.net</a>.</p>
<p>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/SandeepMertia">@SandeepMertia</a>.</p>
<p>Academia: <a href="https://daiict.academia.edu/SandeepMertia">https://daiict.academia.edu/SandeepMertia</a>.</p>
<h4 id="srikanth">Mr. Srikanth Lakshmanan</h4>
<p>Srikanth is a software professional with interests in Internet, follower of Internet policy discussions, volunteers for multiple online campaigns related to Internet. He is also fascinated by FOSS, opendata, localization,
Wikipedia, maps, public transit, civic tech and occasionally contributes to them.</p>
<p>Site: <a href="http://www.srik.me/">http://www.srik.me</a>.</p>
<p>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/logic">@logic</a>.</p>
<h4 id="vipul">Mr. Vipul Kharbanda</h4>
<p>Vipul Kharbanda is a consultant with the Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore. After finishing his BA.LLB.(Hons.) from National Law School of India University in Bangalore, he worked for India’s largest corporate law firm for two and a half years in their Mumbai office for two years working primarily on the financing of various infrastructure projects such as Power Plants, Roads, Airports, etc. Since quitting his corporate law job, Vipul has been working as the Associate Editor in a legal publishing house which has been publishing legal books and journals for the last 90 years in India. He has also been involved with the Center for Internet and Society as a Consultant working primarily on issues related to privacy and surveillance.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/privacy-after-big-data-delhi-nov-12-2016'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/privacy-after-big-data-delhi-nov-12-2016</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroData SystemsDigital GovernancePrivacyData RevolutionSurveillanceBig DataDigital IndiaInternet GovernanceBig Data for DevelopmentDigital Rights2016-11-12T10:14:52ZEventMonitoring Sustainable Development Goals in India: Availability and Openness of Data (Part II)
https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02
<b>The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an internationally agreed upon set of developmental targets to be achieved by 2030. There are 17 SDGs with 169 targets, and each target is mapped to one or more indicators as a measure of evaluation. In this and the next blog post, Kiran AB is documenting the availability and openness of data sets in India that are relevant for monitoring the targets under the SDGs. This post offers the findings for the last 10 Goals. The first 7 has already been discussed in the earlier post.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><em>The first part of the post can be accessed <a href="http://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-01/">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr />
<h3>Goal #08: <em>Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all</em></h3>
<p>There are fourteen indicators to monitor the goal 8 and the data is available for all the indicators mapped to their respective targets. For most of the indicators, the data availability is not what the indicator demands, but has to be derived from the available dataset.</p>
<p>The data can be accessed freely in the public domain for all the indicators. However, for the subparts in some of the indicators, the data is not accessible freely. There is a cross agency dependency over the data, to arrive at the required indicator.</p>
<p>Data is collected annually for most of the indicators, while the indicators, viz., Indicator 8.3.1.: Share of informal employment in non-agriculture employment by sex; Indicator 8.5.2: Unemployment rate by sex, age-group and persons with disabilities, which are measured by the Census or the planning commission the frequency of data collection becomes decennial or quinquennial. And the Indicator 8.8.2 : Number of ILO conventions ratified by type of convention, which lists the number of conventions the frequency cannot be determined as it's just a list updated whenever there is a ratification of any ILO conventions. Some of the available data are restricted to particular years and most of them are not till date.</p>
<p>Two indicators, i.e., Indicator 8.5.2 and Indicator 8.10.1: Number of commercial bank branches and ATMs per 100,000 adults, which are measured at the level of districts, whereas Indicator 8.7.1: Percentage and number of children aged 5-17 years engaged in child labour, per sex and age group; Indicator 8.8.1: Frequency rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries by sex and migrant status, are measured at the state level. The remaining are measured only at the national level.</p>
<p>Most of the data are collected from the international organisations like ILO, UNEP, UNWTO, etc., from whose source the data are not updated regularly. There is also a need to disaggregate according to the indicator.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #09: <em>Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation</em></h3>
<p>When development is through industrialization, sustainable and inclusiveness should be the necessary conditions to attain it. Having said this, the data is available for all the indicators, i.e., twelve indicators, corresponding to the targets as defined for the goal 9. For most of the indicators, the data have to be derived for the required measure to monitor the goal.</p>
<p>From among these indicators, the data is collected annually for most of the indicators, while for the two indicators, Indicator 9.3.1: Percentage share of small scale industries in total industry value added; Indicator 9.3.2: Percentage of small scale industries with a loan or line of credit, the frequency of data collection is once in five years.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Excluding two indicators, i.e., Indicator 9.2.2: Manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment; Indicator 9.1.1: Share of the rural population who live within 2km of an all season road, for which the data is available at the state level and district level respectively, for the remaining indicators the data is available only at the national level.</p>
<p>The data pertaining to eleven indicators are freely accessible in the public domain, however, for the Indicator 9.b.1: Percentage share of medium and high-tech (MHT) industry value added in total value added, the data is not freely accessible. Most of the freely available data are obtained from the international organisations, along with the official data from the government in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #10: <em>Reduce inequality within and among countries</em></h3>
<p>Bridging the gap between the global north-south divide through co-operation – social, economical, political, etc., would promote equality. There are twelve indicators for measuring this goal, of which the data is not available for one of the indicators and are available for the remaining indicators.</p>
<p>From the data available, for six of the indicators the data is accessible freely in the public domain, whereas for the five of the indicators – Indicator 10.2.1; Indicator 10.3.1; Indicator 10.4.1; Indicator 10.7.3; Indicator 10.a.1, the data is closed.</p>
<p>Most of the data available are of the national level and for the Indicator 10.7.3: Number of detected and non-detected victims of human trafficking per 100,000, the data includes from the states as well. However, since the goal refers to inequalities within the country as well, the granularity of the data should have been from the state/district level as well.</p>
<p>And, the frequency of data collected are annually for some of the indicators and for some the details cannot be determined or not valid. For most of the indicators the data has to be derived from the available dataset and disaggregated as needed. Also, for some indicators the data is partially available.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 10.7.1: Recruitment cost borne by employee as percentage of yearly income earned in country of destination</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #11: <em>Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable</em></h3>
<p>Housing and the type of settlements determines the human development and the progress of development of a nation. Therefore for monitoring the goal 11 is implicit to human development. There are thirteen indicators to monitor this goal and out of which the data is available for ten indicators and for the three indicators the data is not available.</p>
<p>For three of the indicators the available data is not freely accessible, while for the remaining ones the data is accessible. And for most of the indicators the data has to be derived as needed.</p>
<p>The data is collected annually for most of the indicators and quinquennially for the Indicator 11.5.1, and for some data the data pertains to particular year and there lacks a sequence of data availability.</p>
<p>For four of the indicators – Indicator 11.2.1; Indicator 11.3.1; Indicator 11.6.1; Indicator 11.a.1, the data is available at the state/city level along with national level. And for the remaining indicators the data is available at the national level alone. Also, some of the data are not up-to-date and refers to data more than 3 or years old.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 11.3.2: Percentage of cities with direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management, which operate regularly and democratically</li>
<li>Indicator 11.7.1: The average share of the built-up areas of cities that is open space in public use for all, disaggregated by age, sex, and persons with disabilities</li>
<li>Indicator 11.b.1: Percentage of cities implementing risk reduction and resilience strategies aligned with accepted international frameworks (such as the successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action on Disaster Risk Reduction) that include vulnerable and marginalised groups in their design, implementation and monitoring</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #12: <em>Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns</em></h3>
<p>Production and consumption should go hand in hand, but over consumption or over production would only lead to destruction of the environment. Therefore goal 12 seeks to ensure a sustainability in both. The data is available for ten indicators out of twelve indicators, and for the two indicators the data is not available, so as to monitor the respective goals. Some of the data are partially available and using the available data the indicators can be derived.</p>
<p>Moreover, the data for six of the indicators which are available are freely accessible in the public domain whereas for the remaining four indicators – Indicator 12.4.1; Indicator 12.4.2; Indicator 12.5.1; Indicator 12.b.1, the data is not open.</p>
<p>While for most of the indicators say, Indicator 12.2.1; Indicator 12.3.1; Indicator 12.5.1; Indicator 12.a.1; Indicator 12.c.1, the data is collected annually, whereas for the others, the data which are available are for particular years or cannot be determined. Except for the Indicator 12.5.1, for which the data is available at the city level, the data for the remaining are of the national order. The data is collected from both the national institutions, ministries and also from the international organisations.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 12.1.1: Number of countries with SCP National Actions Plans or SCP mainstreamed as a priority or target into national policies.</li>
<li>Indicator 12.8.1: Percentage of educational institutions with formal and informal education curricula on sustainable development and lifestyle topics</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #13: <em>Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts</em></h3>
<p>The impact of climate change is severe, therefore taking an urgent action ensures could reduce the impact. The data is available for four of the indicators out of five, and for one of indicators the data is not available.</p>
<p>The data for three indicators are freely accessible in the public domain, whereas for the Indicator 13.3.1: Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning into primary, secondary and tertiary curricula, the data is not open and also not specific to the indicator. The data for some of the indicators are partially available and have to be derived.</p>
<p>The frequency of the data is not uniform and cannot be determined, by the virtue of the indicator itself. For example, the occurrence of a disaster event is random. However, for some of the indicators the reporting is either annual or quadrennial.</p>
<p>The data availability is at the national level and in case of the Indicator 13.3.1., the data is available for two states – Orissa and Tamil Nadu. Data for almost all the indicators are obtained from international organizations and very less data availability from the national databases.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 13.2.1.: Number of countries that have formally communicated the establishment of integrated low-carbon, climate-resilient, disaster risk reduction development strategies</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #14: <em>Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>Oceans are the torchbearers for all the countries. Therefore everything related to oceans, seas and marine resources have an impact on the human life. There are ten indicators corresponding to the targets, of which the data is available for nine indicators and for one indicator the data is not available. The data for some of the indicators are not direct, but need to be derived, while for some indicators the data is partially available. To derive some indicators we need to rely on cross agency data.</p>
<p>For the Indicator 14.a.1: Budget allocation to research in the field of marine technology as a percentage of total budget to research, the data on budgetary allocation doesn't specify to marine technology.</p>
<p>The frequency of data collected for most of the indicators are not available or cannot be determined or not applicable, whereas for some the data is collected annually. And for most of the indicators the data is available at the national level and for the Indicator 14.5.1: Coverage of protected areas in relation to marine areas, the data is available for the states also.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 14.6.1: Dollar value of negative fishery subsidies against 2015 baseline</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #15: <em>Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>This goal on restoring, promoting ecosystem and stopping biodiversity loss, etc., has fifteen indicators mapped to twelve corresponding targets. Of which, the data is available for fourteen of the indicators and the data is not available for the one of the indicators. Data for some of the indicators exist partially and for some the data has to be derived to match the indicators. To arrive at the indicators, the data has to be derived from different datasets available.</p>
<p>Most of the data which are available are closed and only five are accessible in the public platform – Indicator 15.1.1 : Forest area as a percentage of total land area; Indicator 15.4.2: Mountain Green Cover Index; Indicator 15.8.1: Adoption of national legislation relevant to the prevention or control of invasive alien species; Indicator 15.9.1: Number of national development plans and processes integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services values; Indicator 15.a.1: Official development assistance and public expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems.</p>
<p>The frequency of data collected is not available or cannot be determined for majority of the indicators, while the data is annually collected for the ones which can be determined. Furthermore, the data is available at the national level for all the indicators, except the Indicator 15.b.1: Forestry official development assistance and forestry FDI, for which the data is available at the level of states as well.</p>
<p>The data available are collected by international organisations like OECD, FAO, Convention on Biological Diversity, etc., as well as by the national institutions and ministries like Planning Commission, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, etc.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 15.2.2: Net permanent forest loss</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #16: <em>Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>A society which is inclusive, peaceful, provides justice and accountable in all its forms would ensure sustainable development, therefore to promote the aforementioned parameters one has to monitor them through an established measure. There are twenty-one indicators for this goal mapped to the respective targets and out of which the data is not available for five indicators to monitor the goal. From the available dataset, the values need to be derived for some of the indicators and for some indicators the data is directly/partially available.</p>
<p>From among the data which are available, for nine indicators the data is not freely accessible in the public platform, while the remaining six data set are open to access. They are available both from national and international agencies and most of the data are not up to the date.</p>
<p>The data which are available are collected/reported annually. And, excluding four indicators. i.e.; Indicator 16.1.3, Indicator 16.3.1, Indicator 16.4.2, Indicator 16.b.1, the data is available at the state level, while for the remaining indicators the data is available only at the national level. Most of the indicators require data from past 12 months, but the available dataset does not cater the needs, as they are not updated regularly. Finally, the indicators seeks disaggregated data for monitoring the goal.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 16.1.4: Proportion of people that feel safe walking alone around the area they live</li>
<li>Indicator 16.2.3. Percentage of young women and men aged 18-24 years who experienced sexual violence by age 18</li>
<li>Indicator 16.6.2: Percentage of population satisfied with their last experience of public services</li>
<li>Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of countries that address young people's multisectoral needs with their national development plans and poverty reduction strategies</li>
<li>Indicator 16.a.1: Percentage of victims who report physical and/or sexual crime to law enforcement agencies during past 12 months disaggregated by age, sex, region and population group</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #17: <em>Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>Moving towards achieving SDGs in the global scenario requires support – financial, technological, etc. This support can be strengthened the relationship between the developing and the developed countries. There are twenty-four indicators to monitor the goal 17, out of which the data is available for twenty-three of the indicators and for one of the indicators the data does not exist.</p>
<p>The data which are available are direct as per the indicators, whereas for most of the indicators the data need to be derived. Data is partially available for the Indicator 17.16.1: Indicator 7 from Global Partnership Monitoring Exercise: Mutual accountability among development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews.</p>
<p>From the data available for twenty-three indicators, fourteen of the data set are freely accessible and the nine are not open. Also, some of the data which are open are not up to date or the latest data is not open.</p>
<p>The data is collected annually for most of the indicators and for some the data is available for particular year. Also for some of the indicators like Indicator 17.5.1: Number of national & investment policy reforms adopted that incorporate sustainable development objectives or safeguards x country; Indicator 17.6.1: Access to patent information and use of the international intellectual property (IP) system; Indicator 17.18.2: Number of countries that have national statistical legislation that complies with the Fundamental Principles of Official statistics, the frequency cannot be determined or not valid.</p>
<p>Since this indicator speaks at the national level, the granularity of the data pertains to the nation. Most of the data are obtained from the international organisations say UN, World Bank, IMF, OECD, etc., and some are from the national institutions/ministries like Planning Commission, Finance Ministry, etc.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 17.17.1: Amount of US$ committed to public-private partnerships and civil society partnerships</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Decision making depends on data, a data should be representative, with high quality and has to be timely collected, which ensures precise assessment of the decision being made. From the analysis it was found that, most of the data which are available are either not freely accessible, outdated and not precise to the need. Most of the SDG indicators are based on disaggregation. The disaggregation is a key to measure to the precision, especially incidences like poverty, food security, health, etc. Therefore, to monitor different parameters we need to identify the different levels prevailing in the parameter to ensure inclusivity.</p>
<p>Said above, the frequency of data collection is either annual, quinquennial and decennial. To enable real time evaluation, the data should be up-to-date. Moreover, for most of the indicators the data availability is at the national level or at the state level and sometimes at the district level. The granularity of data ensures geographic inclusiveness.</p>
<p>In a country like India for close monitoring of progress/development of any sort the data availability should be;</p>
<ul><li>at a granular level of district/block,</li>
<li>collected and updated regularly,</li>
<li>disaggregated by age, sex, and also by social group, and</li>
<li>the data should be open to be able to access in the public domain freely.</li></ul>
<p>Open data will be a crucial tool for governments to meet the transparency and efficiency challenges. For this reason, government data should be open – freely accessible, presented in a format that is comparable and reusable and, ideally, released in a timely manner.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Author</h3>
<p>Kiran A B, is a student of Master of Public Policy (MPP) at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Kiran has an undergraduate degree in electronics and communications engineering, and he has three years full-time work experience as a software engineer, working in different technological platforms. His research interest includes interdisciplinary linkages between policy, law and technology.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02'>https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroDevelopmentOpen DataOpen Government DataData RevolutionOpennessSustainable Development Goals2016-04-12T04:14:27ZBlog EntryMonitoring Sustainable Development Goals in India: Availability and Openness of Data (Part I)
https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-01
<b>The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an internationally agreed upon set of developmental targets to be achieved by 2030. There are 17 SDGs with 169 targets, and each target is mapped to one or more indicators as a measure of evaluation. In this and the next blog post, Kiran AB is documenting the availability and openness of data sets in India that are relevant for monitoring the targets under the SDGs. This post offers the findings for the first 7 Goals, while the next post will cover the last 10.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><em>The second part of the post can be accessed <a href="http://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02/">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr />
<h3>Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals</h3>
<p>The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an internationally agreed upon set of developmental targets to be achieved by 2030. These are universal goals and targets which involve the entire world, developed and developing countries alike. They aim at integrating and balancing the three dimensions of the sustainable development – economic development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. There are <a href="http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/">17 SDGs with 169 targets</a>, and each target is mapped to one or more indicators as a measure of evaluation, covering a broad range of sustainable development issues <strong>[1]</strong>.</p>
<p>To initiate the visioning process for the SDGs, the United Nations established a High Level Panel in the year 2012, comprising of 27 members. The notion of "data revolution for sustainable development" has been one of the most remarkable categories of imagination and operational requirement to emerge from the final report of this High Level Panel. It identified a significant need for massive restructuring of infrastructures for generating global,
reliable, comparable, and timely data. The Independent Expert Advisory Group (IEAG) on "data revolution for sustainable development" has also raised the need for opening up development data. It proposes that open data must be considered as an instrument of ensuring transparency and accountability of the government <strong>[2]</strong>. Further, in a recent post from the World Economic Forum meeting, Stephen Walker and Jose Alonso have noted that "Not only will governments that embrace open data improve their public accountability and efficiency, they will also reap the social and economic benefits of opening up data for citizens" <strong>[3]</strong>. Opening up of government data is expected to transform the relationship between the government and the various stakeholders.</p>
<p>Currently the data is used by the governmental institutions for self-monitoring and making only a limited data available for public access and usage. But SDGs are not only for the government to monitor and realise, the
responsibility lies with various other actors as well.</p>
<p>Open data has a major role to play in transforming the vision of the SDGs into reality, by enabling the informed participation of multiple actors – private companies, non-government organisations, academic and research institutes, civic activists, etc. To plan, monitor, and actualise the path being traversed by a country, open data becomes essential. Also to facilitate public participation in the governance.</p>
<p>In this and the next blog post, I am documenting the availability and openness of data sets in India, which are relevant for the indicators identified for monitoring of targets under the 17 SDGs. This post offers the findings for the first 7 Goals, while the next post will cover the last 10. Along with questions of availability and openness, I have also documented the technical format of the available data, the level of granularity, and also the frequency of its collection, when applicable. The chart below describe the overall situation of availability and openness of data for monitoring SDGs in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<iframe src="https://cis-india.github.io/charts/2016.02.21_monitoring-SDGs-India_01/index.html" frameborder="0" height="580" width="600"></iframe>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #01: <em>End poverty in all its forms everywhere</em></h3>
<p>The data is available for most of the indicators either directly or need to be derived, however, data doesn't exist for one of the indicators.</p>
<p>The data exists at the national level and at the state level or both, but data availability at the district/city level would give a better picture. Though NSSO sample survey data includes representative data at the state/UT level, such data is often not made freely accessible. Not all data which have been collected, i.e., from agencies like NSSO, National Family Health Survey, etc., are open in the public domain.</p>
<p>Also, the frequency of data collected for most of the indicators are either decennial or quinquennial, rather an annual survey would facilitate better/close monitoring. Health is an important measure associated with poverty, but the data is decennially collected. There is a need for regular data updation, while considering those data which are supposed to be collected annually.</p>
<p>In this context, to derive certain indicators, say Indicator 1.3.1., there is a cross agency dependency on data, and lacks disaggregation of data. The disaggregation is a key to measure inequality, especially incidences like poverty. So to monitor poverty we need to identify the different strata of poverty and policy can be formulated accordingly.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 1.3.1. Percentage of population covered by social protection floors /systems disaggregated by sex, and distinguishing children, unemployed, old age, people with disabilities, pregnant women/new-borns, work injury victims, poor and vulnerable</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #02: <em>End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture</em></h3>
<p>Indicators and the data corresponding to them reflects two things, what has been done and what has to be done. The data for fifteen indicators mapped to the targets in goal 2 are available for thirteen of the indicators. The data which are available are likely to match the indicator directly or the data has to be derived for most of the indicators. And for the remaining two indicators the data is not available.</p>
<p>For most of the indicators that have to be derived, there is a strong dependency on the dataset from NSSO sample survey for arriving at the requirement. This dependency comes at a cost, as NSSO sample data are not freely available in the public domain, thus making the overall monitoring dependent on closed data. There is a cross agency reliance on data, for arriving at the indicator, and the data on public platform are not up to date.</p>
<p>Also, the data for majority of the indicators are measured at the national as well as state level, but a goal like ending hunger – providing food security, would definitely require data in the order of district/village level. Though data is available for the Indicator 2.2.1: Prevalence of stunting (height for age <-2 SD from the median of the WHO Child Growth Standards) among children under five years of age, but, the data is from eight states only and the national data is derived from it, too small sample size to extrapolate as the nation's data.</p>
<p>On the frequency of data collection, Indicator 2.c.1: Indicator of (food) Price Anomalies (IPA), are collected monthly and some of the data are quinquennial or decennial. However, most of them are annually collected, enabling better accountability and close monitoring of the goals and to frame actionable policy steps.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 2.5.1: Ex Situ Crop Collections Enrichment index</li>
<li>b. Indicator 2.5.2: Percentage of local crops and breeds and their wild relatives, classified as being at risk, not-at-risk or unknown level of risk of extinction</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #03: <em>Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages</em></h3>
<p>Data is available for all the twenty-five indicators corresponding to the thirteen targets set to measure goal 3 on health and well-being. Some of the data are direct to the indicator, while some have to be derived from various data set to arrive at the indicator.</p>
<p>Data is open and accessible freely in the public domain for all the indicators, most of the data are from World Health Organisation (WHO) database. However, for finer tunings and up to date data there is dependency on National Family Health Survey (NFHS) which is collected decennially.</p>
<p>The WHO data lacks updation and ones which are available are pertaining to an year, thus making the analysis of the annual trend difficult. While the frequency of data collected for most of the data are annual.</p>
<p>The dataset available are at the national and state level, and two of the data set is measured in the order of cities. Most of the WHO dataset provides data at the national level, whereas NFHS, District Family Health Surveys and other agencies provide data at the lowest order, but such dataset are not freely accessible on the public domain. The updated data on health are not made available freely accessible in the public domain which are derived through health surveys.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #04: <em>Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all</em></h3>
<p>Education in India is a fundamental right of every citizen, therefore achieving inclusive, equitable and quality education for all becomes necessary. Said this, to monitor goal 4, data is available for nine indicators out of eleven indicators, and for the remaining two indicators, the data is not accessible or in public domain for free access, and for the sub-part of the indicator on proficiency level. Though data exists for all the indicators, however, for most of the indicators we need to derive from multiple sources. Data does not exist for subparts like psychosocial wellbeing, in the Indicator 4.2.1 and proficiency in functional literacy and numeracy skills as in the Indicator 4.6.1.</p>
<p>The data are collected annually for seven indicators and for the two indicators Indicator 4.3.1 and Indicator 4.6.1, which relies on NFHS and Census data respectively, the data is collected decennially. Also, for some of the indicators the data availability is restricted to particular years or are not up to date.</p>
<p>The data which exists are collected at the national and state level for some of them and for some data set the data exists at the national level only, whereas for the Indicator 4.6.1, the data set is of the order of city. And the disaggregation issue prevails here as well, so to sort data based on the given parameter one has to consult NSSO sample survey or derive from the existing data.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 4.7.1: Percentage of 15-year old students enrolled in secondary school demonstrating at least a fixed level of knowledge across a selection of topics in environmental science and geo science. The exact choice/range of topics will depend on the survey or assessment in which the indicator is collected. Disaggregation: sex and location</li>
<li>Indicator 4.a.1: Percentage of schools with access to (i) electricity; (ii) Internet for pedagogical purposes; (iii) computers for pedagogical purposes; (iv) adapted infrastructure and materials for students with disabilities; (v) single-sex basic sanitation facilities; (vi) basic hand washing facilities</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #05: <em>Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls</em></h3>
<p>Gender as a social construct has been deprived of equality and equity, therefore, achieving equality and empowering women and girls lays down the path for an inclusive development. In this direction, to monitor the goal 5, data is available for eleven indicators and do not exist for three indicators out of fourteen indicators. However, the Indicator 5.3.2, is not relevant as India does not acknowledge FGM/C. Also, for most of the indicators, the data need to be derived from the given dataset.</p>
<p>For most of the data, the data is collected at the National or state level. Whereas for the Indicator 5.a.1, the data is available at the district/tehasil level and it is based on Agricultural census of India, carried out once in five years.</p>
<p>The collection of data is annual in most cases, decennial in the cases of NFHS data, quinquennial with regard to data on land ownership and rights based on gender. Also, in cases of proportion of women in parliament or number of legal framework – domestic/international, the frequency cannot be determined as its subject to change.</p>
<p>Regarding openness, though data exists, the data is not available to access freely. These data are either from NSSO sample survey and NFHS. For most of the indicators the data exists in general without disaggregation, but, as the goal demands sex based disaggregation, we need to derive from the existing data.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 5.3.2: Percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), by age group (for relevant countries only)</li>
<li>Indicator 5.6.2. Number of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee women aged 15-49 access to sexual and reproductive health care, information and education</li>
<li>Indicator 5.c.1: Percentage of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #06: <em>Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all</em></h3>
<p>Water is a life giving source, but ensuring water and sanitation in a sustainable way is a challenge indeed. Data is available for all the ten indicators to monitor the goal 6. While for most of the indicators the data has to be derived from the given data set or from other data set. The data set available are in absolute numbers, need to modify as per the indicators.</p>
<p>The data is collected annually for most of the indicators, however, for the indicators, Indicator 6.3.2: Percentage of water bodies with good ambient water quality; Indicator 6.4.1: Percentage change in water use efficiency over time, the data pertains to the specific year, without a time series.</p>
<p>Three of the data are measured at the state level, one at the district level – Indicator 6.2.1, and another at the level of cities – Indicator 6.3.1. For most of the indicators, the data are from international agencies like WHO, UNEP, FAO, etc.</p>
<p>The data for four of the indicators are not freely accessible on the public domain, though data exists. Also, for the Indicator 6.a.1, the available data is not specific to it, but gives an overview. Overall, for the close monitoring of the goal 6, the granularity of the data should be at the district/block level, and must be freely accessible.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #07: <em>Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all</em></h3>
<p>Energy is considered one of the basic needs of human life, therefore, providing energy which is reliable and affordable has to ensure sustainability and the kind of energy being produced. The data exists for five of the indicators out of six indicators, however, the data does not exist for one of the indicators. The data for two of the indicators – Indicator 7.2.1, Indicator 7.3.1, have to be derived from the given data set.</p>
<p>For most of the data, the data is collected annually and the data is collected at the national level. However, as to the data availability for the Indicator 7.2.1, the data is available at the state level.</p>
<p>To arrive at the required indicator, there is a dependency over other dataset. Though most of the data are available, for three of the indicators – Indicator 7.2.1: Renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption (%); Indicator 7.3.1. Energy intensity (%) measured in terms of primary energy and GDP; Indicator 7.a.1: Mobilized amount of USD per year starting in 2020 accountable towards the US 100 billion commitment, the data is not freely accessible.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 7.b.1. Ratio of value added to net domestic energy use, by industry</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>References</h3>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> "Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals." Sustainable Development Solutions Network. March 20, 2015. Accessed February 16, 2016. <a href="http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/150320-SDSN-Indicator-Report.pdf">http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/150320-SDSN-Indicator-Report.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> "A World That Counts - Mobilising the Data Revolution for Sustainable Development." Report. Independent Expert Advisory Group Secretariat, 2014. Accessed February 19, 2016.
<a href="http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/A-World-That-Counts.pdf">http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/A-World-That-Counts.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> Walker, Stephen, and Jose M. Alonso. "Data Will Only Get Us so Far. We Need It to Be Open." World Economic Forum. January 29, 2016. Accessed February 16, 2016. <a href="http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/data-will-only-get-us-so-far-we-need-it-to-be-open">http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/data-will-only-get-us-so-far-we-need-it-to-be-open</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Author</h3>
<p>Kiran A B, is a student of Master of Public Policy (MPP) at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Kiran has an undergraduate degree in electronics and communications engineering, and he has three years full-time work experience as a software engineer, working in different technological platforms. His research interest includes interdisciplinary linkages between policy, law and technology.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-01'>https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-01</a>
</p>
No publisherKiran ABOpen DataOpen Government DataData RevolutionOpennessSustainable Development Goals2017-01-02T14:12:58ZBlog Entry