In the past 6 months, commitments to end international public finance for fossil fuels have proliferated. At the 2022 UN Climate Change Conference (COP 26), 39 countries and public finance institutions signed the Glasgow Statement on International Public Support for the Clean Energy Transition. In the Glasgow Statement, signatories committed to ending new direct overseas support for fossil fuels and fully prioritizing their international public finance for a clean and just energy transition by the end of 2022. 

Then, in May 2022, G7 climate, energy, and environment ministers agreed on a nearly identical commitment, bringing Japan into the group of countries committed to ending international public finance for fossil fuels and shifting it to clean energy. 

But developments at last week’s meeting of G7 leaders threaten to make it harder for those commitments to prove effective in practice. In their communiqué, the G7 leaders repeated their pledge to end new direct international public support for “unabated” fossil fuels but extended the scope of exceptions to allow for continued investment in the gas sector.

This came in response to the war in Ukraine, which has highlighted the dangers of dependence on overseas oil and gas. Stressing the need to phase out reliance on Russian energy supplies, G7 leaders opened the door for “temporary response” investments in gas.

Despite the G7 leaders’ statement, the Glasgow Statement still stands. And its potential is vast.

Despite the G7 leaders’ statement, the Glasgow Statement still stands. And its potential is vast. If fully implemented, the Statement could shift USD 28 billion per year (USD 39 billion when including Japan) in international public finance from fossil fuels to clean energy, with a majority contribution coming from G7 members. More broadly, acting on the statement could leverage investments in clean energy from other sources of public and private finance and begin to establish a new norm for energy investment.

So how can signatories get back on track to meet their commitments by the 2022 deadline?

Improve Exclusion Policies for Fossil Fuels

Six months on from the Glasgow Statement, most signatories have yet to put in place fossil fuel exclusion policies that match the Statement’s ambition. Export credit agencies lag particularly far behind. This is concerning, given that they provided more than 80% of the signatories’ international public finance for fossil fuels between 2018 and 2020. 

Gas is a key area for improvement. Many signatories still allow full or partial support for gas exploration and production abroad, as well as for downstream end uses. Countries and institutions must close these loopholes if they are to fulfill their commitments.

Gas is a key area for improvement. Many signatories still allow full or partial support for gas exploration and production abroad, as well as for downstream end uses. Countries and institutions must close these loopholes if they are to fulfill their commitments.

The problem with gas investments, either at home or abroad, is threefold. First, very tight carbon budgets remain for limiting warming to the 1.5ºC Paris Agreement target. Under Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pathways, no new oil and gas fields can be developed, and no new exploration can be carried out if warming is to be limited to 1.5ºC. 

Second, gas is not needed to further economic development or improve energy access since clean, cost-competitive alternatives for most of its end uses already exist. Distributed renewables are also much better than gas for providing energy access to rural and remote households. 

Third, gas investments abroad pose significant socio-economic risks. Further investment in long-lived gas infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries would undermine development objectives, putting these countries in danger of being stuck with stranded assets, vulnerable to price spikes, and left behind in the global energy transition. 

Even “temporary” overseas investments in gas, as proposed by the G7, do not align with the Glasgow Statement’s ambition. Nor are they an effective way to tackle the short-term energy supply shortage.

Support Clean Energy Growth with International Public Finance

Right now, most high-income Glasgow Statement signatories lack publicly available, concrete targets or strategies to scale up international clean energy and energy efficiency financing. Yet investments in clean energy must more than triple by 2026 if the world is to stay below 1.5ºC.

Most of these investments are needed in middle- and low-income countries to support development and energy access needs. But between 2017 and 2019, middle- and low-income countries received only a quarter as much international public finance for wind and solar as they received for gas.

In the context of the war in Ukraine, there is an overwhelming need to prioritize international public finance for energy efficiency and clean energy solutions that can accelerate the transition to a more peaceful, sustainable, and secure future for all. 

Seize the Six-Month Window of Opportunity

Glasgow Statement signatories now have a critical window of opportunity to live up to their commitments. To do so, by the end of 2022, they must develop and adopt updated policies for ending international public finance for fossil fuels, including gas, and advancing a clean and just energy transition. 

Glasgow Statement signatories now have a critical window of opportunity to live up to their commitments.

Fortunately, signatories have strong existing policy examples to draw on, including those of the United Kingdom, Denmark, the FMO development bank in the Netherlands, and the European Investment Bank, which enforce a nearly full ban on new support for fossil fuel projects across the entire value chain, including unabated gas-fired power plants. 

Countries and institutions can also use the statement as an opportunity to shift the wider international public finance landscape. For example, because many signatories are shareholders at multilateral development banks, they can wield their voices and votes in these forums against new fossil fuel financing.

And those already signed on can work together to expand the Glasgow Statement’s signatory list, which so far does not include large fossil fuel financiers such as South Korea, China, and several multilateral development banks. COP 27 in November is a significant moment when updated policies—and potentially an expanded membership—could be announced.

The opportunity presented by the Glasgow Statement remains pressing and salient, notwithstanding the G7 leaders’ communiqué. Successful implementation could catalyze a breakthrough in the collective effort to align financial flows with Paris objectives. It is clear what signatories must do. Now is the time for action.

The months leading up to the Stockholm+50 Conference in June 2022 have seen a frenzy of activity, as the international environmental community prepares to celebrate major milestones in its history and channel new momentum into efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Ambassador Johanna Lissinger-Peitz, Deputy Director, Ministry of Environment, Sweden sat down with our Earth Negotiations Bulletin team to examine why it matters that we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the original Stockholm Conference in 1972 and how we live up to its vision.

Follow our Earth Negotiations Bulletin team's coverage of Stockholm+50 and explore with IISD the history, lessons learned, and road ahead for sustainable development.

In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm set off a chain of events that rewrote how countries tackle environmental challenges. How do we take the lessons of the past half century and apply them to our triple planetary crisis?

Our Earth Negotiations Bulletin team sat down with environmental leaders to revisit the legacies of that original conference in Stockholm, from the development of the Rio Conventions and the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions to the establishment of national ministries on environmental issues around the world. They also look at what work still remains, from implementation to ensuring intergenerational justice.

Watch below to hear from:

• Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, Executive Secretary, United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UN CBD)
• Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, CEO and Chairperson of the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
• H.E. Ambassador Peter Thomson, United Nations Secretary-General's Special Envoy for the Ocean

Follow our Earth Negotiations Bulletin team's coverage of Stockholm+50 and explore with IISD the history, lessons learned, and road ahead for sustainable development.

World leaders will mark half a century since the 1972 Stockholm Conference ... and then depart. What comes next as we face accelerating societal and environmental challenges, including the growing threats posed by climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution?

Our Earth Negotiations Bulletin team sat down with environmental leaders to unpack some of the options for the way forward and hear why international cooperation, grounded in multilateralism, is now more important than ever.

Watch below to hear from:

• Achim Steiner, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
• Ibrahim Thiaw, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
• Andrea Meza Murillo, Deputy Executive Secretary, UNCCD
• Donald Kaniaru, 1972 Stockholm Conference delegate for Kenya.

Follow our Earth Negotiations Bulletin team's coverage of Stockholm+50 and explore with IISD the history, lessons learned, and road ahead for sustainable development.

This article originally appeared on the website of the NAP Global Network, whose secretariat is hosted by IISD, and is republished with permission.

As we enter the seventh year since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the international community has taken ambitious actions to address the climate crisis. But how much progress have we really made? The inaugural Global Stocktake (GST) will be an opportunity for us to see how well governments are doing in their collective efforts to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement—and where they will need to commit to doing more.

This will be a crucial moment for taking stock of progress on implementing national adaptation commitments. And with the Bonn Climate Change Conference coming up in June, we will see one of the components of the GST in action: that of technical assessment, which will continue from now until mid-2023. Notably, the results of National Adaptation Plan (NAP) processes are critical sources of information on assessing the progress of adaptation actions for the GST.

The NAP Global Network has prepared a briefing note demystifying the GST process and how it connects to the progress developing countries are making with their NAP. Here, we summarize the three key ways that the NAP process can be leveraged to inform the GST.

The NAP Process Provides a Coherent National Story on Developing Countries’ Adaptation Efforts and Progress

One of the key mandates of the GST is to recognize the efforts of developing countries toward enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, and reducing vulnerabilities to climate change. Robust NAP processes—including assessing vulnerabilities and risks, prioritizing adaptation options, identifying capacity gaps, and staging meaningful consultations with civil society—can operationalize how developing countries will achieve their national adaptation goals.

NAP processes can help tell a coherent story of how countries are mainstreaming adaptation at the national and subnational levels; how climate impacts are assessed and incorporated into fiscal frameworks; how adaptation actions are financed; and how local communities and Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and participation shape adaptation policies and actions, among other critical information. 

This acknowledgement of adaptation efforts and progress in planning and implementing adaptation policies and actions is especially important when considering equity in global climate action. This could further increase and accelerate global adaptation support in the most vulnerable countries.

The NAP Process and Its Progress Reporting Bring National and Local Lessons to the International Conversation

NAP processes offer valuable insights into what works and what doesn’t—in which contexts and why—at the national and subnational levels. The GST is an opportunity for countries to share these lessons learned and best practices from their NAP processes to inform the global conversation on adaptation and enhance mutual learning. Notably, the growing body of stories and experiences of adaptation from NAP progress reporting can contribute to the collective assessment of the state of adaptation planning and implementation.

Additionally, since NAP processes are informed by local realities and priorities, they situate adaptation in a local context. Although the GST takes on a global-level perspective of adaptation progress, including knowledge on how countries are tackling climate change at the subnational level through the NAP process is a useful approach to illustrate important policy links across levels of governance and across different sectors. For example, sectoral NAPs, submitted by countries like Saint Lucia, offer valuable insights into countries’ efforts and experiences of horizontal integration.

Combined with case studies and examples from subnational levels, countries will have the opportunity to learn from each other, and the outcomes of the GST will help developing countries improve their NAPs and adaptation actions. The inclusion of these lessons from the national and local levels is crucial for the accuracy and the relevance of the GST’s final outcomes.

The NAP Process Offers Valuable Insights into Developing a Global Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning System on Adaptation

Monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) is a critical part of the iterative NAP process. But there are many methodological, conceptual, empirical, and political challenges associated with creating national MEL systems for NAPs. These difficulties are similarly mirrored at the international level when assessing the world’s collective adaptation progress.

Through the GST, existing national MEL systems for adaptation—like Fiji’s Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for its NAP process, or guidance for the development of Grenada’s MEL system—could inform the global-level discussion on the methodologies, objectives, indicators, and approaches of measuring progress and identifying gaps in adaptation. Conversely, the methodologies and indicators developed at the international level for the GST will support countries’ efforts in crafting effective MEL systems for national adaptation.

As the impacts of climate change become ever more apparent, we need to look at what we’ve learned from countries’ adaptation efforts so far and where we must improve. The NAP process will be a go-to source of information on countries’ priorities on adaptation and the progress they’ve made, shaping the global understanding of progress made toward the implementation of adaptation under the Paris Agreement.

Any opinions stated in this blog post are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of the NAP Global Network, its funders, or Network participants.
 

A key challenge in following through on the 2030 Agenda’s principle to address the needs of those who have been left behind is that their perspectives and values are not adequately reflected in official data collected by national statistical offices. People who have been left behind also suffer from data marginalization, with some groups being outright invisible in national statistics. Citizen-generated data can complement official data and provide important context for decision-makers. Investments in a rich data ecosystem that supports citizen-generated data alongside official data sources empower marginalized groups, provide a holistic understanding of marginalization, and support inclusive decision making to ensure that no one is left behind in SDG implementation. 

What is citizen-generated data? 

Put simply, citizen-generated data is “data generated by people, for people,” meaning that the individuals who stand to benefit from data collection are directly involved in the design, collection, analysis, and use of data that describes them. The CIVICUS DataShift program defines citizen-generated data as data that “people or their organizations produce to directly monitor, demand, or drive change on issues that affect them. It is actively given by citizens, providing direct representations of their perspectives and an alternative to datasets collected by governments or international institutions.”

Citizen-generated data includes a wide variety of approaches and methods. Depending on the purpose at hand, the term is used interchangeably with concepts like citizen science, community-driven data, or participatory data. All of these terms represent people taking an active role in one or several stages of the data value chain, from identifying questions and objectives to developing methods, collecting data, and analyzing and disseminating the results.  

In their 2012 study, Shirk et al. distinguish between contributory, collaborative, and co-created data depending on the extent of citizen engagement at different stages. Other forms of partial engagement are also possible; for example, consultations to determine the analysis and interpretation of data sets collected by official sources provide people with the opportunity to influence and correct the messages that are transported through the data in question.   

Why is citizen-generated data needed? 

The UN University Institute on Computing and Society identifies five types of data marginalization that can exclude the voices of marginalized groups in data collection and decision making. Like the factors causing marginalization, the factors of data exclusion can intersect so that a group's voice is missing from official data sets for multiple reasons. 

 Figure 2: Data marginalization (Source: UN University Institute on Computing and Society, 2018)

Data is never perfect. Data gaps and the challenges of adequately describing people’s needs, perspectives, and values are more prevalent for marginalized people than other groups, partly because marginalization results from a complex interplay of many factors, some of which also affect data collection (Figure 2). 

The causes of data exclusion vary between countries depending on their economic status and culture, but it is fair to say that marginalized groups in all countries struggle to make their voices heard. Decision-makers, on the other hand, lack adequate information to design effective interventions. Data marginalization of any kind means that even well-intentioned strategies and programs risk being ineffective at best and creating adverse outcomes, such as inflicting harm or reinforcing stigma, at worst.  

Citizen-generated data in action 

Citizen-generated data comprises many methods and approaches, as the following examples show. In each case, data was collected for a specific purpose that determined the process, how people engaged, and ultimately the outcome achieved.  

• In Canada, many communities participate in Everyone Counts, a community-level survey of sheltered and unsheltered homelessness conducted on a specific day (point-in-time), also referred to as a Street Census. Data collection is conducted by trained volunteers from the community using a toolkit and standard provided by Employment and Social Development Canada as part of Canada’s Homelessness Strategy. The data collected is used to determine community needs for shelter and housing and directly connect with the people affected. In Winnipeg, for example, a Street Census has been conducted in 2015, 2018, 2021 and 2022. The End Homelessness Winnipeg Initiative uses Street Census data to track the progress of its 10-year plan to end homelessness in the city. Some of the data is also made available on Peg, Winnipeg’s community indicator dashboard.  

• Making Voices Heard and Count is a global initiative by the International Civil Society Center that promotes the use of community-driven data to give a voice and agency to marginalized groups that are at risk of being excluded from official data. National coalitions of civil society organizations and other actors use various community-driven methods to collect data on the most marginalized groups. In Nepal, for example, a local coalition uses community scorecards to collect data on young women and girls to assess gender equality. In India, civil society organizations trained thousands of volunteers to collect community data on 20 marginalized groups across the country.  

• Open street mapping allows citizens to annotate maps with data on physical features like buildings and infrastructure, as well as data on the incidence of violence, damage resulting from extreme weather events, or the quality of services available. The Humanitarian Open Street Map team supports open mapping to improve disaster management and reduce risks. The IDEAMAPS (Integrated DEprived Area MAPing) Network facilitates the combination of data from geospatial, statistical, and community-driven sources to improve information about informal “slum” dwellings in many counties. In Canada, Statistics Canada has used open mapping to crowdsource data collection about building footprints for the Open Database of Buildings to fill a critical data gap on housing.  

Challenges  

Citizen-generated data is not without challenges and limitations. Any data collection is naturally limited in scope and scale. Citizen-led data collection tends to focus on a smaller set of issues, is conducted in a limited geographic area like a city, or involves only individuals of specific groups. Another constraint is that citizen-generated data cannot easily be joined with other data sets, as it is designed for the purpose at hand and is often incompatible with the standards of official data collection. Finally, like all participatory processes, empowering citizens to collect, analyze, and disseminate their own data takes time and resources to build capacity, develop relationships, and compensate those shouldering the work. Insufficient long-term support or a failure to realize benefits for those involved can quickly lead to a loss of momentum and volunteer fatigue. Citizen-generated data is best thought of as a necessary complementary effort that can reveal gaps and inadequacies in the data used to support marginalized groups, highlight misconceptions, and provide a more holistic picture of the situation of those left behind.  

None of these challenges is insurmountable, but overcoming them requires a coordinated approach by different stakeholders. For example, governments can adopt regulations that create a data ecosystem that supports citizen-generated data and recognizes its legitimacy as a separate but equally important source of information for decision making. National statistical offices can support the ecosystem by acting not only as data stewards but also as partners for organizations collecting data by providing technical support and ensuring that data and its benefits are owned by the organization. Governments and donors should invest in the capacity of people and their organizations to collect and use data. Enhanced data literacy and engagement will create tangible benefits for marginalized groups while boosting the ability of people to engage in the overall implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.  

The Bern Data Compact for the Decade of Action on the SDGs, adopted at the 2021 World Data Forum, includes a strong call to build trust in data by investing in rich data ecosystems and strengthening the role of all data stakeholders. Citizen-generated data is an essential part of those ecosystems to ensure that no one is left behind.  

These governance structures were created largely in response to the growing recognition of the need for global efforts to address shared challenges. Also in response to the growing recognition of their importance, climate change and, increasingly, biodiversity are joining economic and security issues in the “high politics” of multilateralism. It’s the business of world leaders to routinely discuss climate change and for activists to hold them to account. The United Nations (UN) Secretary-General recently linked the war in Ukraine with the ongoing crises of climate change, COVID, and droughts. The war, he said, shows “how the global addiction to fossil fuels is placing energy security, climate action and the entire global economy at the mercy of geopolitics.”

Yet, environmental politics was once completely missing from global discussions and action. Fifty years ago, the UN Conference on the Human Environment changed that and put environmental politics on the global agenda. The legacies are many. The Stockholm Conference created the framework that still guides how we negotiate environmental deals and action.

To mark a half century of environmental multilateralism, Sweden is again hosting the world in Stockholm, on June 2 and 3, for Stockholm+50. It will be both a commemoration and a call to action. The conference aims to accelerate the implementation of the UN Decade of Action to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals—including the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the post-2020 global biodiversity framework—and to encourage the adoption of green post-COVID-19 recovery plans. 

These are lofty goals, but key lessons from the last 50 years could expedite the next half-century of multilateral action to better the environment—if we embrace them. The incentive to apply these lessons could not be clearer as the accelerating “triple planetary crisis” of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution threatens life on our planet.  

Legacies of Stockholm 

Environmental politics is near the core of global politics. Stockholm was the first "mega conference" to discuss environmental issues. It convened in 1972, a time of turbulence in global politics. The Cold War was as tense as ever. The global economic system was in transition after Richard Nixon announced the U.S. dollar would no longer be converted into gold. More fundamentally, former colonies were becoming independent states. By 1970, there were 127 members of the UN, a huge increase from the 35 members in 1945. The world was undergoing enormous change.

In this context, developing countries were wary of a conference devoted to environmental issues. They worried this could be colonialism under a new guise. The Global North consumed the majority of the world’s resources, developing countries pointed out. Why should environmental issues be a concern for the Global South? They worried about green issues as a way to interfere with their development. This worry was not far-fetched. In the 1970s, newly independent countries prioritized building their economies and institutions on their own terms. It was not immediately apparent how a conference initiated and hosted by developed countries on a new set of issues could assist with poverty eradication.

What emerged was a call to merge the poverty and environmental agendas in a way to protect developing countries’ right to development. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi famously asked those gathered in Stockholm, “Are not poverty and need the greatest polluters?” This call would ripple for decades to come. The concept of sustainable development as defined in 1987, the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals, and intervening mega conferences centred on advancing environmental protection and economic and social development, with poverty reduction at the heart of many discussions.

But developing countries’ initial concerns have at least partially been born out. For example, national parks proliferated, built on Western ideas of “unspoiled nature” that drove Indigenous Peoples from their lands or regulated how they could use the land. Rights abuses are also evident in modern forms of forest conservation, including Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation initiatives.

Climate change was not on the Stockholm agenda—or even an issue foreseen by those in Stockholm. This year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognized colonialism as a driver of climate change for the first time. Economic and political legacies continue today and are threatening our planet. The poorest are the most vulnerable to climate change. More frequent droughts, floods, storms, and diseases (to name a few impacts) could undermine all the development gains made to date. Support for adapting to the effects of climate change is a fraction of overall climate funding; the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developments estimate of 20% is, by some measures, generous. A recent report of climate change finance flows shows that most climate funding remains well below what was promised and is mostly loans, increasing developing countries’ debt burden. Low-carbon, climate-resilient development requires support for developing countries to realize their goals and priorities. After 50 years, on both the material and ideational, there are gaps.

Stockholm’s central challenge—and ultimate insight—was that equity and the environment go hand in hand and that equity is fundamental to multilateralism. It has become more relevant over time. Ongoing colonialism continues to hamper the prospects and rights of people around the world. Technological changes have given us affordable, clean power, which still needs to be made available for all. It has also created new waste problems, including plastics and electronic waste.

In this context, the 2030 Agenda strives to integrate the idea of “leaving no one behind.” It is an evolution of the discussions in Stockholm, built on experience. In Stockholm, delegates sought to mainstream poverty alleviation in environmental action—and vice versa. It was a broad, conceptual starting point. The 2030 Agenda’s focus on the need for universal implementation has taken the agenda to a new level. Everyone matters and must be included in the deliberation, design, and delivery of environmental and poverty alleviation efforts. It is ambitious—and very necessary. Equity is fundamental to effective multilateralism. As we’ve recently seen, all types of equity matter. Vaccine inequities create challenges for delegates and civil society representatives to attend global meetings, while the digital divide proved a barrier to online negotiations.

Equity and the environment are ever more intertwined. Whether it is a downward spiral or a virtuous circle will largely determine if we can stay within the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals. The right to development and all forms of equity must be at the heart of environmental action. Multilateralism will be crucial. Even now, as the war in Ukraine joins other conflicts and pressures in stretching multilateralism to its limits, only truly global action can realize the vision put forward in Stockholm.

The commitment of the 2030 Agenda to leave no one behind and to address the needs of the “furthest behind first” acknowledges that previous efforts to reduce poverty and end marginalization have failed to reach some of the individuals, communities, and countries that need them the most. While poverty has been reduced in many countries, the most marginalized have seen little to no benefit. One reason is that official statistics and measures of poverty do not fully capture the causes of marginalization and how they intersect and interact. The 2030 Agenda is catalyzing a shift in how the world thinks about data to better reflect the needs of the most marginalized. 

Recognizing that better data will be required to achieve the SDGs while leaving no one behind, the UN Statistics Division established the World Data Forum on Sustainable Development Data. The Forum is intended to be a platform for improved cooperation between data stakeholders at the national and international levels to mobilize data for sustainable development and to fill data gaps. At its first session in 2017, the Data Forum adopted the Cape Town Global Action Plan for Sustainable Development Data, which calls for integrating new and innovative data generated outside the official statistical system—including administrative data and geospatial data—into official statistics. The Plan also encourages the development of multistakeholder partnerships involving national statistical offices (NSOs), governments, academia, civil society, private sector, and other stakeholders involved in the production and use of data for sustainable development.  

In subsequent discussions, participants in the Data Forum increasingly recognized that NSOs must collaborate with the entire data ecosystem—that is, all stakeholders involved in producing and using data, including communities, government, business, and civil society—to produce data fit for the task of leaving no one behind. Participants highlighted innovative data sources and citizen-driven data as essential tools to “fill data gaps on the status and needs of people by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability and geographic location and other characteristics.” The discussion also shifted from a focus on “integrating” non-official data sources into statistical systems, which requires other data stakeholders to apply standards and procedures used by NSOs, to a focus on complementing official data with data from alternative sources using their respective standards.  

The concept of alternative data thus encompasses any data collected by stakeholders other than the NSO using a minimum of standards to ensure privacy, confidentiality, transparency, and accessibility. This broad definition allows for drawing on a wide variety of potentially useful data sources, several of which are emerging as particularly important for leaving no one behind.  

• Citizen-generated data, where the individuals concerned participate in the development of frameworks and data collection and decide over the use of data that describes them. Citizen-generated data is purpose driven and provides important insights into the drivers of marginalization affecting certain groups or localities.  
• Human rights data, which includes data on human rights cases and data on legislative review. This data helps understand where marginalization is the consequence of systemic racism or a failure to protect the rights of individuals and groups  
• Geospatial data, which in combination with other statistical data can identify where marginalized groups live and how geography and locally specific factors influence marginalization. Geospatial data can overcome challenges of data collection arising from the fact that marginalized people often live in informal settlements, lack a permanent address, or are reluctant to share their data for fear of further marginalization.  
• Administrative data, which is collected by government agencies and non-governmental organizations serving marginalized groups as part of routine operations. While not intended for statistical purposes, this data can be turned into datasets that can fill specific data gaps in official data sources.  
• Private sector data collected by companies as part of efforts to report on the environmental, social, and governance impacts (ESG). ESG data can enable companies to assess their impact on marginalized groups through their activities as well as their employees, but public access to data is often limited, and common foundations for impact measurement that would enable broader use of ESG data are still being developed.  

These are some examples of a rapidly growing field of alternative data sources and innovative uses of existing data to leave no one behind. In addition to what alternative data can be used to complement existing sources, the 2030 Agenda is also catalyzing a discussion on how data should be used. Traditionally, NSOs or equivalent institutions act as the main data steward for a country, responsible for collecting and publishing high-quality data adhering to agreed standards to protect data privacy and safety. This means that decisions on what data is collected, how it is disaggregated, and ultimately how it is used are centralized in a top-down fashion. 

This model is coming under scrutiny as mounting evidence shows that data can be used far more effectively if people have a say in the collection and use of data describing them. Participation in decisions on what data is collected and how it is disaggregated and communicated ensures that data reflects the experience, values, and perspectives of marginalized groups and that data collection ultimately provides benefits to those who agreed to sharing data about themselves. There are several initiatives that support this transformation in data governance from different perspectives, including, for example, principles for a human rights-based approach to data, the definition of common data values, or best practices for the responsible use of data.  

The latest edition of the World Data Forum, held in Bern, Switzerland, in late 2021, also captured these trends in its final declaration, the Bern Data Compact for the Decade of Action on the SDGs. The compact appeals to all members of the data ecosystem to develop data partnerships and urges investments in data literacy and trust in data to better understand the world through data and leave no one behind. Speakers at the Forum echoed these ambitions, noting that “data is power” and we “have it in our hands to give that power to the people.” 

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the underlying racial inequalities that plague our society. Globally, wide disparities in infection and death rates by race and ethnicity reveal the true fault lines in our society. Racialized data on risk exposure and health impacts can help understand these inequities and support preventive policy decisions, but collection to date is haphazard. The federal government should take a cue from provincial and non-governmental initiatives and be more deliberate about collecting and safely using race-disaggregated data.

As evident in data compiled in the United States, racialized individuals are at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 due to socio-economic factors and higher likelihood of occupying low-paid and precarious positions, such as work in the food, sanitation, transportation, and health sectors. Those positions took on even greater levels of risk than usual during the pandemic, as they were considered “essential,” meaning they were largely exempt from lockdowns and other safety restrictions. This effectively increased those individuals’ exposure to the virus.

Within Canada, data collected by the Public Health Ontario reveals that ethnoculturally diverse neighbourhoods experienced incidence rates of COVID-19 at a rate three times higher than the least diverse neighbourhoods. Death rates were twice as high. These rates point to the existence of systemic inequalities, but the available data cannot determine the causes of higher risk for more diverse neighbourhoods. Globally, studies have shown that social determinants of health, i.e., income, employment, and housing, vary vastly between racialized and non-racialized groups, which feeds into racial health disparities.

It is harder to get a clear picture of the depth of inequality across Canada as only a few efforts to collect racialized data exist. Despite increasing evidence that racialized peoples are disproportionately vulnerable to and affected by COVID-19, the Canadian data landscape remains ill equipped to relay the depth of this issue. Race-disaggregated data concerning COVID-19 was initially not considered worthy of collection outside of the elderly and individuals with underlying health conditions, as expressed by government representatives. But the widening knowledge gap, coupled with public calls for race-disaggregated data, invigorated the conversation. The topic has been brought back into the conversation with greater consideration of collecting race-based data in several Canadian provinces.

Over the course of the pandemic, the White population accounted for one fifth of the COVID-19 cases despite representing two thirds of the population.

Certain provinces have also taken concrete steps toward data collection. Since May 2020, Manitoba has started collecting race, ethnicity, and Indigeneity data from people who have tested positive for COVID-19. The results revealed that racialized persons, including people belonging to the Filipino, African, Indigenous, or South Asian communities, represented half of the total of COVID-19 cases despite only accounting for 35% of Manitoba's population. Racialized groups were also overrepresented in the manufacturing sector—the sector with the highest number of COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, in Ontario, data on racialized groups with COVID-19 has been collected since June 2020 through a series of questions on race, income, and language. The data highlighted the wide disparities in COVID-19 cases and rates of hospitalization for COVID-19 between the White and racialized populations. Over the course of the pandemic, the White population accounted for one fifth of the COVID-19 cases despite representing two thirds of the population. In contrast, members of the Latino and Middle Eastern populations experienced nine times and seven times higher hospitalization rates compared to White individuals, respectively.

Both sets of data critically demonstrate the importance of collecting race-disaggregated data. The lack of statistical evidence of racialized and inequitable health outcomes inadvertently perpetuates systemic racism in Canada. In times of crisis, like the COVID pandemic, decision-makers lack critical information to take the measures needed to prevent disproportionate harm to racialized populations. Race-based data enables the necessary introspection into the wide disparities between members of our society.

Outside of government initiatives, communities are taking the reins in ensuring better representation in data, as evident in the case of the “Our Data Indigenous” app. The app, created by University of Manitoba researchers, enables community health directors to gather timely health data with the distribution of questionnaires. It is holistic in practice as it accounts for the social determinants of Indigenous health and well-being. This is particularly crucial as such factors largely account for the degree of racial and ethnic health disparities.

This app reflects an acknowledgment that Indigenous health data is limited and the legitimate fears that further isolation of these communities would create inequitable health outcomes. In addition, to ensure data ownership and transparency, communities stay in control of their data, including the final say about sharing their information.

But until the federal government and all provinces mandate the collection and dissemination of race-based data, marginalized groups will continue to face institutional barriers to equitable health care. To accurately assess racial disparities in health, it is necessary to understand the severity and intricacies of crises in view of varied experiences across regions. Without such an approach, policies are likely to be based on flawed conclusions.

The importance and usefulness of race-based data cannot be overstated when considering response efforts to health crises. Race-disaggregated data helps reveal systematic issues that would otherwise go unseen.

Case studies across the United States show evidence of how inclusive data contributes to the development of robust social and health protection for racial minorities. In Hawaii, race-disaggregated COVID-19 data revealed significant disparities in cases and mortality rates among Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, White and Asian populations. For instance, despite only accounting for 5% of the population, Pacific Islanders represented 22% of COVID-19 cases in Hawaii. In response, the Hawaii State Department of Health created the Pacific Islander Priority Investigations and Outreach Team, featuring culturally and linguistically aware health workers and contact tracers. The team improved access to COVID-19 prevention information and related resources that incorporated cultural values and norms. It highlighted the value of race-based data in developing culturally and community-responsive efforts—key to targeting racial and ethnic minorities.

Following analysis of race-disaggregated data, various states in the United States developed targeted COVID-19 response initiatives, cognizant of the racial disparities in health access. Government officials rolled out various new testing sites in Austin, Texas noting the communities’ particular challenges with access. Similarly, the cities of Baltimore, Maryland and Orange County, California created testing sites in specific communities that reported high incidences of COVID-19 and developed long-term partnerships with organizations to ensure other similar communities are covered as well.

But collecting COVID-19-related data on race should just be the start. The impacts of crises cut across all socio-demographic groups, and policy-makers need tools to understand the pathways and system structures that create racialized experiences. Across Canada, health profiles will vary based on several factors including race, and disaggregated data is the tool to reveal the true depth of disparities.

Despite the clear benefits of collecting racialized data, currently this knowledge is restricted within provincial jurisdictions. It must be extended federally.

Racialized data would help us contextualize the overrepresentations of certain racial groups in data sets on social outcomes including housing, employment, poverty, police-related deaths and more. Also, race-based data complements other types of data to provide a clearer picture of diverse experiences across Canada.

Objecting to race-based data or failing to collect it is a willfully neglectful choice against prioritizing health for all racial groups equally. What does this absence leave in its place? The semblance of colour-blind treatment, perpetuating systematic racism, and standing in the way of policies that could affect systemic change.

Even a patchwork approach to collecting race-disaggregated data in Canada comes at a disservice to racialized groups and their lived experiences. A nationwide system of data collection works for the benefit of policy-makers, researchers, public institutions, and communities alike.

To advance racial equity and the values Canada espouses, comprehensive race-disaggregated data is a critical and key step. 

The 2030 Agenda aims to ensure that no one is left behind in pursuit of a more just and sustainable world. To fulfill this commitment, it is necessary to first ask the question, "Who is currently being left behind?" While the question may seem simple, empirically answering it can be technically and methodologically difficult. This is because the data used to monitor and evaluate the impact of the SDGs come largely from National Statistical Offices (NSOs)—national agencies responsible for the conceptualization, collection, and dissemination of statistics. NSOs typically operate using standardized approaches (e.g., censuses and surveys), and many populations experiencing marginalization—such as those experiencing homelessness or undocumented individuals—can fall through the gaps. If NSOs are unable to collect information on those left behind, they also don’t know where those being left behind are. In this way, it is not just a question of who is being left behind, but where they are located. 

To improve data collection regarding those left behind, there is a push among the global statistical community to utilize georeferenced data—data that can be ascribed to a particular location. This type of data is also referred to as geospatial data, spatial data, or geographical information. The benefits of georeferenced data are obvious; you cannot implement policy to improve housing conditions if you cannot locate where inadequate housing exists. Therefore, data are most effective when information relates to location. However, bridging the gap between information and location can be difficult for NSOs for several reasons. This article explores efforts to improve the availability of geospatial data by NSOs and showcases how other organizations are filling data gaps. 

To promote the availability of georeferenced data among NSOs, the Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century (PARIS21) and Statistics Sweden released a comprehensive, eight-step guide for NSOs to integrate their statistics and geospatial data seamlessly across all geographic scales (PARIS 21, 2021). The guide was motivated by the realization that the NSOs of many low- and middle-income countries rely on outdated technology or lack the capacity required to develop the geospatial data necessary for effective and efficient decision making. The eight steps comprise a sequential process to guide NSOs from identifying the groups that need to be mapped and setting up a basic framework for geographies, all the way to the final step of making sure data is interoperable. In short, it supports countries in operationalizing the complex process of developing georeferenced data. By providing this guide, PARIS21 hopes to help achieve the 2030 Agenda by making available the data necessary to determine not only who is being left behind, but where they are. 

You cannot implement policy to improve housing conditions if you cannot locate where inadequate housing exists.

One significant barrier to NSOs’ ability to identify populations being left behind is the statistical method of enumerating households. To administer surveys, NSOs need a method to send and receive them. Traditionally this is done by mailing physical copies of the surveys to households, which excludes people who do not have an address. The World Bank estimates that in 2018 nearly 30% of the urban population lived in informal settlements and potentially without an address. Therefore, even if NSOs can georeference their data, these individuals would never be accounted for. 

Alternative approaches are arising to fill the data gaps left by this surveying method. IDEAMAPS was founded in 2020 with the aim of developing informed slum maps—georeferenced data about slums and their inhabitants. Inhabitants of slums are often underrepresented in both general information and georeferenced data due to their informal status, often unrecognized by governments. By combining community-based field mapping with digitized imagery and machine learning, IDEAMAPS has developed a "deprived area map" of slums that provides key georeferenced data for evidence-based decision making.  

The need to identify those left behind is not just a problem of informal settlements in low- and middle-income countries. In Canada, the method of enumeration used by Statistics Canada to conduct the census excludes the population experiencing homelessness. In Winnipeg, Canada, community organizations have initiated a way to address this gap, by conducting a Street Census—a point-in-time count of Winnipeg’s population experiencing homelessness. The survey asks questions similar to the national census and helps to identify service needs  

While surveying is one example where georeferenced data is important, surveys are typically conducted annually or even less frequently in the case of censuses. To achieve the SDGs, there is a need for georeferenced data that is up-to-date and available in real time. As part of its strategy for the prevention and control of snakebite envenoming, the World Health Organization launched the Snakebite Information and Data Platform. Using geospatial software built by Esri, the platform allows users to both identify the potential location of venomous snakes and upload geo-tagged sightings of venomous snakes. The availability of this data to the public not only helps educate individuals on the presence and identity of venomous snakes, but it also provides resources on how and where to treat potentially fatal bites. The tool puts geospatial data into the immediate service of those who may find themselves in desperate need. 

The World Bank estimates that in 2018 nearly 30% of the urban population lived in informal settlements and potentially without an address

Geospatial data can do more than just provide real-time information; it can also be used to analyze data for decision making. One of the earliest instances of geospatial data was compiled in 1854 by English physician John Snow. During this time, London was experiencing a cholera outbreak, and it was believed that pollution was causing the disease to spread. By mapping outbreak locations, Snow began to see patterns emerge and determined that the clusters of outbreaks were related to drinking water sources. This type of mapping, first conducted over 150 years ago, has become commonplace in how we present and analyze data, and it is once again proving important as we endure the most severe pandemic of our time.  

Using the same principle, in 2020, the government of Ontario launched the COVID-19 School Dashboard to track cases in schools across the province. The tool also tracks the percentage of low-income households and the number of immigrant families near the schools to help identify disparities in socio-economic exposure to COVID-19. This type of platform has become widely available since COVID-19 began, due to growing demand to identify cases and locate potential areas of transmission. Access to localized data has helped governments to make evidence-based decisions that have slowed the spread of the virus. One only needs to imagine how difficult it would be to plan for a pandemic if we could not locate outbreaks to understand the importance of georeferenced data.   

These case studies highlight the varied uses of geospatial data. While there are many applications, no single actor or agency is responsible for georeferencing data. Instead, data projects must pursue a marriage between information and location to identify and account for those who are left behind. Only when we know where those who are marginalized are located can we make the evidence-based decisions required to make sure they are no longer left behind.