The follow-up and review process for the 2030 Agenda is intended to be “open, inclusive, participatory and transparent for all people and will support the reporting by all relevant stakeholders.” At the same time, managing SDG reporting efficiently requires extensive coordination, as it can be complex. There are four layers to SDG follow-up and review at the global, regional, national and thematic levels
A mechanism should be set up to report migration indicators. Reporting mechanisms could establish new processes or indicators could be integrated into existing reporting platforms, such as those reporting other local or national development progress against plans.
At the national level, either NSOs, migration or development planning agencies, or another coordinating body, should publish indicators.
At the local level, the relevant government agency or implementing body should do so using a locally-owned platform and could consider additionally reporting through a platform managed by the NSO.
The following should be features of any indicator reporting platform (UNECE, 2017):
- Transparency: An outline of relevant metadata and methodology should be included, including definitions of indicators and data sources.
- Timeliness: Reporting of indicators should be timely. Depending on the periodicity of measurement and on government capacity, indicators could be published either on a continuous basis or at agreed regular intervals. The time series should begin from 2015 if older data are available, otherwise at the first available date.
- Accessibility: The public should be able to access the indicators and they should be presented in an accessible way. For example, a simple table on a dedicated part of the website, or an Excel table available for download.
SDG monitoring and reporting processes provide a useful opportunity to create and strengthen vertical coherence on migration data.
At the national level, all migration indicators and information should be reported alongside any other national-level SDG reporting. National-level actors also must consider coherence with regional and global level reporting. Where national indicators are the same as any regional or global indicators, these should be fed into appropriate systems and aggregated directly if it uses the same methodology and is of the same standard of quality.
At the local level, actors must consider coherence with national-level reporting. Care must be taken to ensure that information gathered by local government is used in national reporting in so far as it can be. Where local and national-level indicators are the same and use the same methodology, local indicators should aggregate up to national indicators.
Implementing bodies seeking to coordinate with regional-level migration data processes should also consult the Global Migration Data Portal to take stock. Implementing bodies in countries where Voluntary National Reviews for the HLPF are being conducted should ensure migration indicators and any other migration-SDG developments are included.
Once monitoring and reporting mechanisms for SDG indicators are established, implementing bodies need to go further to evaluate progress made against the SDGs. Independent reviews may be conducted, regularly or on an ad-hoc basis, analyzing progress made towards migration targets. Indicators reflect progress against certain metrics, but a wider process of evaluation is needed to assess what is behind changes in the indicators.