img src: (page 8) PDF download: Survey-on-the-Implementation-of-the-Cape-Town-Global-Action-Plan-for-Sustainable-Development-Data
First we have to ask why are much of SDG and UN policy formation referred to three organizations?
- The World Bank
- UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNSD)
- PARIS21
wikipedia – “The Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century, or PARIS21, was established in November 1999 by the United Nations, the European Commission, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank as a response to the UN Economic and Social Council resolution on the goals of the UN International Conference on Financing for Development. PARIS21’s main objective is “to achieve national and international development goals and to reduce poverty in low and middle income countries”.[1]
So let me understand, ALL 3 of the analysis come from your internal business structure with “contributors,” I see…
Generally we call that a conflict of interest when the overall report, or “survey” as you call it is an internal survey of what you’re doing or not doing.
Before we get into the meat and potatoes of sustainable development goals 2030, and no one wants to hear about them anymore since they’re now seen interlaced with genocide and depopulation no matter how many smiling face youtube videos of Indians and Africans displayed to the world, I would advise to be taken seriously you would consider outside input from entity other than your internal organizations doing the reports.
Just a thought on credibility – the theme of the week.
Yes my language is harsh, but after examining thousands of pages of work long hours through the night into the morrow of the day, I do not have time to sugarcoat reality. That’s for newspaper journalists to feed mounds of baloney to the public. I must be candid for the grown-ups who actually make decisions, rather than paid-personnel writing 400 pages of legal speak mumbo-jumbo no one is going to read.
from the Foreword of the document,
“Yet the pandemic has shown us that, while there has been progress, the playing field among national statistical systems is deeply uneven. Even before COVID-19, many countries
struggled to produce and use the data and statistics they needed to monitor and work towards the Sustainable Development Goals, which the health crisis has only exacerbated.”
So here you begin to understand that CTGAP (Cape Town Global Action Plan) is about statistical systems.
“The pandemic presented only part of the picture of global development. With less than ten years left to achieve the 2030 Agenda, the Cape Town Global Action Plan for Sustainable Development Data (CTGAP) is more relevant than ever. However, within it, many gaps have remained, particularly with regards to national statistical capacity in low- and middle-income countries, and financing of data and statistics.”
And now for the kicker…
“In many ways, the past two years have catalyzed innovation among national statistical systems, with many embracing public-private partnerships, mobile data, satellite imagery, and other technologies to better understand the effects of the crisis on health, jobs, migration, violence against women, and a wide range of other issues.”
Do I need to translate that statement?
“Catalyzed innovation among national statistical systems…” and in which we know based on evidence from just about every country, over 100 in the survey mind you, the rampant fraud of statistical data.
“With more than one hundred NSOs surveyed between August and September 2021, this was the largest exercise ever carried out.”
NSO – National Statistical Offices. And who governs national statistical offices – stakeholders, business partners, friends and family?
We’ll be sure to keep that in context through Security Council meetings concerning interplay between agencies vying for legislation policy and mandates per “district” border-to-border negotiations.
I’m not a fan of someones internal data telling my organization how it needs to read and answer that data. Which brings us to statistical law per nation.
“All the countries that responded to the survey reported having a national statistical law. One interesting indication that emerged from the survey was that the age of the statistical laws was not correlated with income levels. Among the sample of 101 countries, 47 reported having statistical laws older than ten years (see Figure 2).”
The main focus of the data here to make a point:
- Sanctions for non-compliance
- Privacy obligations
- Functions of your office in your nation
- Coordination of data through the UN
- Sanctions for not responding to mandatory statistic requirements
- Required role and status of the CEO running the office
So without painting a 300 page legal response every “national” government can recognize what a form of “blackmail” is. And I really don’t care about flowery explanations. I’m tired of hearing people talk out the sides of their mouth. Tell me what you want and what you’re doing or get out of my face, I don’t have time for shenanigan’s.
This report, as you call it “more relevant than ever” is as relevant as a cheap suit from five years ago. I call it shoddy, lack of depth, lack of insight, an advertisement to run statistics out of your organization and be santioned if we don’t do what you require, when you require, based on how you want it done.
NO.
That’s why there is such pushback to these SDG’s and the only players are your “stakeholders” who are bleeding capital now that you have limited their prosperity in the future through non-sustainable goals.
Look, I’ll be realistic. It was a well coordinated effort to gobble gobble billions into this effort, jumbled and ineffective as it is, with the grand philosophy of, let’s see here,
“..countries lacked data privacy and access safeguards, which highlighted the need for keeping statistical legal frameworks up to date,”
For what purpose?
“…to achieve the scope and intent of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and to mobilize funding for the modernization of national statistical systems across the world.”
Oh that’s right, YOUR PURPOSE. YOUR GOALS, not ours, YOURS.
And yours appear to be broken garbage according to the data I’m examining. I don’t invest in shoddy mutual funds pal.
No thank you. Your policies are inept as I understand and I think any half-intelligent human examining this data will see it’s sanctions wrapped in a bow telling countries you’ll give them money if you follow your rules and installed directors, in every endeavor mind you. I can see why BRICS is anti-you.
More importantly the data is crap. The majority is simply internal depositions, if we can call them that, from your people.
Generally we refer to that in the insurance policy world as a farce.
Who is actuary? Oh, that’s right, you are. That’s a farce. So first off you need to provide real data not this crap.
And BTW we are examining the real data while reading your crap and our data says your breaking industry with a nervous smile on your face pretending it’s not happening.
I like to be kissed first before paying the bill for everything and going home empty handed. That’s your SDG 2030 agenda summed up in a nutshell for analytica and anyone with half a brain.
Or am I being too candid?
Lets continue then.
“Areas that were considered a priority by a smaller share of respondents wereconcentrated among non-traditional data sources, such as scanner and credit card data (high priority for 33 percent of respondents), social media data (28 percent), and
citizen-generated and crowd sourced data (26 percent). This likely reflected the need to focus first on strengthening basic statistical production programs, before investing in new methods where coverage and other key quality attributes remained still uncertain (see Figure 9).”
Credit card and scanner data? Now I think I’m talking with children. I’m sorry but five years from now the industry is far from what you have envisioned in your report. Who could possibly take this report as relevant data? Again it displays a need for replacement of your people in this field. You’re too slow to examine, write, and disseminate the data for reports let alone be given the responsible task to handle “world governance” nation to nation through interior SDG governance. This report in my opinion is a fireable offense.
I would terminate my employee if they wrote this piece.
Over the last three decades I want a summary of ALL the achievements. Send me that report to be examined and I’ll have that data analysed and we can see if your organization is fit to oversee or run anything at all. I think that’s a better assessment that should be included in this report.
“The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted statistical production activities everywhere and caused sudden shifts in the demand for data and statistics by policy and decision makers.”
Thank you for informing us of reality. Please tell me how my car drives with unleaded gasoline rather than electricity and why there is no possible way to achieve such a ridiculous vision in this catabolic biome. Never mind your employees are unable to figure that out.
“Engaging and partnering with stakeholders, also involved educating and informing them and the general public about the different functions of the NSS, and their relevance in society. The survey uncovered a gulf between NSOs from low- and lower middle-income countries and those from higher-income countries in the extent to which they engaged in social media, publication programs targeted at specific user groups, seminars, e-learning platforms, live chat sessions, and podcasts.”
Imagine debating a hand in puppet Elmo. This displays the significance of this CTGAP report.
That’s because in the higher income countries you have an education system in which you can absorb employees, re-educate them on how to be un-intelligible parrots or pay media personnel to advocate on your behalf the fallacy of SDG’s that your organization already knows is unsustainable and stubbornly clings to like the Captain of the Titanic.
“In their last fiscal year, 59 percent of IDA countries received on-budget support for their statistical activities from providers of development aid (see Figure 26a).”
Pay 2 play. We are familiar.
The ship must go down however, and you must take as many dimwits with you as possible. I think Singapore will be a litmus for financial hegemony separate from collective Borg stupidity.
“Five years after the Cape Town Global Action Plan for Sustainable Development Data (CTGAP) was launched, the results of a global survey of NSOs paint a mixed picture of the progress made toward its implementation: despite gradual progress towards the strategic areas of the CTGAP and the strength and resilience of NSOs, a step change in terms of the capacity of national statistical systems has yet to be realized.”
I recommend termination of the project. Twenty years, billions of dollars – ZERO results. Complete failure across the board as we all know.
An embarrassment of an initiative that showed promise decades ago, held together by inept salesmen who lost every fight and act like they’re world champ never having won a fight – a sorry excuse for any legitimate financial institution or organization.
Parroting 2030 goals are large organizations who would like to control all policy – nation to nation. All mandates, CEO’s, economic interest and policy while sanctioning anyone who doesn’t follow their particularly unsuccessful rules and topics. The Agenda 2030 manufacturers do not understand you are a meme to culture, a pariah, one in which has already been universally rejected and in which you think you can force upon the vulgar through bogus, biased reports and fictional language.
Again, I would fire these employees and hire new personnel, move on to another idea and toss this failure of a project in the trash bin with grouch.
