Amanda tells me there's a small technical issue she's trying to remove this brochure so that she can start. Let's just give her a couple of minutes. Thank you. Welcome everybody. My name is Massimo Tomazoli. I'm Director of Global Programs at International IDEA and I have the pleasure and honor to moderate today's launch event of the SDG16 data initiative report for 2023, entitled the bold new agenda is falling short, the perils and promises of SDG16. Just a few words of introduction about the SDG16 data initiative on whose behalf I'm moderating this panel. It's a consortium of 18 partner organizations that was established shortly after the adoption of the 2030 agenda and focused on the need to combine official and non-official data for monitoring progress on the implementation of the agenda with particular focus on the broad areas covered by SDG16, the areas of access to justice, peace, and accountable institutions. These 18 partner organizations cover these broad areas. In some cases, they are actually producers of non-official data. In other cases, they aggregate and analyze both official and non-official data. This is a very important year coming in a few weeks. There will be the year of the review of SDG16, basically halfway to the implementation of the 2030 agenda. So today's conversation, I'm pretty sure that we'll provide a fresh view at where we are and what needs to be done next. As SDG16 data initiative, we contribute to these analyses through this global annual report and also through our website where we provide the data, both the official and non-official data that cover all the targets of SDG16. Today, we will have seven speakers. For the sake of brevity, I will just introduce them by their institutional affiliation. They belong to different partner organizations that actually wrote chapters or provided comparative analysis in these years' report. We will start with Miguel Angel Lara Otaola, who is a Senior Advisor for Democracy Assessment and my good friend at International ADM. Miguel, over to you. Thank you. Thank you, the year, Massimo. I'm very happy to be here and share this space with you colleagues after our hard work this year, putting the report together. It is a document that I think we should be proud of. Thank you very much for your contributions. The report is now on our website. The link has been posted on the chat and I invite everyone to listen to us and with this sneak peek that we're giving, then go to the report, download it, read it and use it. It's really valuable. So I'll just jump directly to it and I wanted to start with a reflection.  That was the keyword. Of course, the adoption of this was unanimous by all 193 UN member states. But not only that, the agenda was met with a thunderous standing ovation, including many world leaders, presidents, prime ministers, ministers of foreign affairs. It was a big deal. However, as we all know, applauding and cheering is way easier than ending hunger, achieving gender equality and building effective and accountable institutions, which is the last part that we focus on in SDG 16. And today, at the midway point of the 2030 agenda, because it's 2023, this promise of leaving no one behind is in peril. And that's part of the title of our reports. The perils and promises of SDG 16. To give you some official information, the UN Special Report of the Secretary General, which is this official assessment of the 140 targets shows that only about 12% of targets are on track. About 50% are moderately or severely off track. And about 30% have either stagnated or regressed below the 2015 baseline, which is the year when this agenda was created and voted. As we'll be shown in this report, the report that we're launching today, the picture offered by non-official data is even bleaker. This report presents an outlook on the situation on SDG 16 and shows what non-official data reveals. The main challenges that we have and give some recommendations, not only for improving data collection and its quality, but also stepping up efforts to achieve SDG 16 by 2030, or at least to gain some ground. Sustainable Development Goal 16, SDG 16, as you know, seeks to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. And I want to emphasize this because SDG 16 is at the core of the 2030 agenda. It's not only just one of the 17 SDGs, but also a goal that serves as an enabler to achieve the other goals. This is because in a nutshell, SDG 16 is related to having a democratic government institutions and procedures from access to justice to access to information, accountable institutions. And this is very important because under a democracy, and I would say this is my main message, ordinary citizens like you and me, we are more able to influence the public agenda and policymaking, not only by voting, but also by exercising the many other democratic rights that are available to us. Think of this, and this is something that we sometimes take for granted. But in a democracy, you have different channels to voice your concerns, to take those concerns to the authorities and to make yourself heard without fear of any reprisals from losing your job to being imprisoned or even worse. In a democracy, yes, you can vote, but you can do independent research, the sort of research that we're doing now. You can become a journalist and I don't know, expose cases of corruption. You can take a case to court. You can contact your local radio station and tell them that your local water supply is polluted. You can write a letter to your representative in parliament to secure more funds for education. I mean, you can even take the streets, right? And this is only partially available or not available at all in non-democratic societies in authoritarian states. And these are democratic rights that can help us advance other issues. And therefore, this is why SDG 16 can help us achieve other SDGs. With these democratic rights, we can demand better education, that's goal four, better health services, that's goal three, decent working conditions, goal eight, a better environment, more equality amongst others. And these are the other SDGs. And this is because democracy gives voice and action. And it's a powerful incentive for governments to pay attention to and to address general needs. And it's also an incentive, I like this, for them to behave well or not so bad because they know that in the next election, they can be kicked out of power, right? So, and I'll conclude with this, as SDG 16 expands, so does democracy. And with it, the voice and the influence of the people grows, including, and especially those that aren't marginalized and are more vulnerable. So, basically, I invite you to read this report as a guide to see where we are in terms of meeting SDG 16 from diverse, reliable, solid sources of data from these wonderful organizations that make up the SDG 16 data initiative, but also as a beacon showing us where we should go in the future. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Miguel. And let me now turn over to John Romano, coordinator of the Transparency Accountability and Participation TAP Network. John, over to you. Great. Thanks a lot, Massimo. And thanks to all of you for joining us. I know it's a busy time of the year, but it's an exciting topic. So thanks for being here. Just as a way of introduction, the TAP network is a global network of civil society organizations, over 400 organizations in over 90 countries at the moment, working on SDG 16 plus around the data, monitoring accountability, around advocacy, policy and commitments, policy commitments for SDG 16 on all fronts. One thing I just wanted to highlight is a complimentary report that we also launched through the SDG 16 now campaign, which was also launched earlier this year. It's a campaign to really, again, push on all fronts around SDG 16 for stronger commitments, better financing, and really recognizing the role of civil society when it comes to the SDG 16 plus. This report is called the halfway to 2030 report on SDG 16 plus. I'll share a link in the chat box so you can unpack it a bit further on your end. I won't go into too much detail, but just a few highlights from that report. I think similar to the data initiative report, it really takes a snapshot of progress around SDG 16 at this halfway point to 2030. I think overall, the picture of progress that it paints is not good. I think we, I don't need to go into detail on the fact that SDG 16 progress is lagging behind, in many cases, backsliding progress on many targets. According to the report, none of the 12 targets are on pace to be met by 2030, according to our analysis, and only a handful of indicators are actually showing positive signs of progress. I think an example of this is the indicator on gender representation in parliament, as an example, has made a little bit of progress in recent years, but this progress is still inadequate. I think by some estimates, it's estimated that gender equal representation in parliament would take anywhere between 60 to 80 years to achieve at this current rate, so obviously not good enough at this point. Only two targets, according to our analysis, have seen any signs of progress. Five have seen slight or severe backsliding of progress, and the other five have seen no progress since 2015. I think the report also takes a look at some of the challenges and acknowledges some of the data challenges, and as McGill mentioned, I think there is this need to bring non-official and official data systems together and say, you know, how can we paint the most accurate picture of progress that we possibly can. I think it's important, obviously, for identifying those areas where we are lagging behind and the areas then that need further action and commitments and financing at this halfway point. If we have any chance of achieving SDG 16 and the entire 2030 agenda by 2030. I think one thing I also just kind of wanted to highlight as an example, I think one question we have as it relates to how we bring non-official and data and official data together is kind of a big question on, you know, merging qualitative assessments of progress with quantitative data. I think that's kind of an open question for us and maybe something to discuss a little bit today. One example of a really great qualitative assessment of progress around an SDG 16 target is the Civicus Monitor. The Civicus Monitor has just been released, the 2023 version, and it's really a great tool and resource that relies on qualitative assessments from experts living in many countries around the world in different regions. Experts relies on lived experiences. So a big question for us is, in addition to the, you know, quantitative data that tells us where we are in terms of progress, how can we also take into account, again, the views of people. I think, you know, we can talk about the quantitative assessments and where we are when it comes to the data. But if people aren't feeling and experiencing progress, I think it's kind of an open question on, are we doing good enough? If the data says that we're making progress but people don't feel that progress, I think that's kind of an open question on, is that good enough still? So obviously, we can unpack that a bit further. We could spend an entire webinar on that, but I'll stop there for now and happy to answer any other questions and I'll also share the link to the halfway to 2030 report in the chat box. But thanks again, everyone. Thank you very much, John. I recommend the reading of the halfway report. It's a very, very interesting analytical tool. And what you mentioned about combining qualitative and quantitative assessment is a very important topic for us to an international idea. Let me give now the floor to Arellis Bellorini, Senior United Nations Representative at World Vision and also an author of a chapter in the report. Arellis? Thank you. Thank you, Massimo. And hello, everyone. Thank you for being here. You may know that World Vision is a child-focused organization working on both humanitarian and development. We're also a Christian-based organization. So SDG targets start with violence prevention. And this is not random. It only affirms that violence prevention is key to achieving a peaceful and inclusive society. Violence, as many of all of you know, have serious and long lasting consequences for these victims. Among these victims, children are the most vulnerable. For them, the consequence of violence can be irreversible. Protecting children from all forms of violence is actually a milestone right enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  So including a target in the SDGs aiming at ending violence against children is quite aligned with this overwhelming intent of the international community. The target refers to violence against children in all forms, physical, sexual, and emotional or psychological abuse, maltreatment, neglect, or negligent treatment, bullying, exploitation, injury, and homicide. Globally, I must say, it is estimated that approximately 1 billion children between the ages of 2 and 17, that is half of all children in the world, experience physical, sexual, or emotional violence every year. While all children are at risk of experiencing violence, some groups are especially vulnerable, and I wish to refer here on girls. Girls are at an increased risk of gender-based violence, child trafficking, online harassment, and bullying, child marriage, and female genital mutilation. It is estimated that an adolescent girl dies as a result of violence somewhere in the world every 10 minutes. And the thing is that multiple and overlapping crisis are exacerbating children's vulnerability to violence, notably increasing poverty, social and economic inequalities, forced displacement, conflict, climate change, environmental degradation, national disasters, food insecurity, widespread violence, and political instability. On top of it all, the COVID-19 pandemic is having a long-lasting negative consequence for progress with ending violence against children. And I wanted to mention this data because this is very important for achieving or in assessing progress regarding this particular target in this very important SDG. In the report that we are launching today, starting on page 28, you will find official data on the progress towards achieving SDG target 16.2. UNICEF is the custodian agency for these target indicators. And according to UNICEF, despite the increase in the availability of data on violence against children in recent years, there are still significant challenges in assessing progress on ending violence against children. Given that the phenomenon remains largely undocumented and the reported and unmeasured. And in here, I would like to build on something that John just said, which is the non-official data. I mean, we're still not maximizing and capitalizing the use of unofficial or citizen-driven data. So progress on ending violence against children is also hindered by the insufficient level of investment in violence prevention and child protection by most governments. A recent survey of 155 countries found that while 80% of them had at least one national action plan on preventing violence against children, fewer than one in four had fully funded these plans. So as regards to funding, the elimination and prevention of violence against children, World Vision, together with partners, has launched a series of reports titled Counting Penis, that offered a very rare glimpse into the state of donor investment and offers recommendations for how to improve the situation of funding, the elimination and ending of violence against children. As I was seeking about non-official data just now, let me now speak about children's views on violence against children. World Vision is constantly seeking children's views. Their voices and active engagement is a very high priority. Let us recall that the 2030 agenda affirms children and young people as agents of change, and it actually offers the agenda as a platform for them to unleash their infinite capacity. Children's views are one of the most important sources of non-official data on violence against children. The opinions that they offer and their perspectives are critical. World Vision facilitates child-led research. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example, child researchers investigating physical and psychological violence found that of the 36 percent of survey respondents who confirmed that they had been expressed, that they had been exposed to violence, 42 percent had reported violence. So the child researchers also found that violence was such an everyday occurrence that victims often did not know that they were a victim of abuse. One another example in Nicaragua, my home country, child researchers investigating family abuse found that the majority of parents used violence to educate and discipline their children, because they themselves had suffered abuse in their childhood and only knew how to educate their children in the same violent way. In closing, in the chapter, you will find a set of recommendations on page 35. We believe that these recommendations can support and contribute to improving progress towards achieving the targets. So I encourage you to read the last recommendation in particular, which is a call for each and every one to become a global champion for the prevention of violence against children. Thank you so much for your attention and back to you, Massimo. Thanks a lot, Relys, and now it's the turn of Grace Ostman, a senior research associate at the World Justice Project and also an author or a chapter in the report. Grace. Thank you, Massimo, and thank you, everyone, members of the data initiative and all of you who are joining us today for your support and interest in our work. So I will just briefly remark on chapter five of the report in which I focus on target 16.3, ultimately finding that despite the fact that we're more than halfway to 2030, progress on target 16.3 is severely lacking and furthermore is hindered by limited data availability. So what is target 16.3? This target seeks to promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and to ensure equal access to justice for all. There are three official indicators through which we measure progress on target 16.3. These indicators measure crime reporting rates, the proportion of unsentenced detainment, and access to dispute resolution mechanisms. Looking at data on these official indicators, we see that progress is lacking. For example, crime reporting, crime reporting rates remain relatively low in most countries and globally about one in three persons who are detained have not been convicted of a crime. Furthermore, the issue of limited data coverage makes it really hard to even assess progress on these indicators. Indicator 16.3.3 measures access to dispute resolution mechanisms and at present only five countries report official data on this indicator in the SDG indicators database. This makes it nearly impossible to know what the current state of play is in most countries, let alone at the regional or global levels. Beyond the issue of data coverage, some of the challenges regarding target 16.3 are related to the fact that the three official indicators only offer limited insights into the issues of the rule of law and access to justice. For example, the indicators don't offer insights into persons experiences within the justice system. For example, while we may know the proportion of detainees who have not been convicted of a crime, the data with that indicator doesn't offer any insights into what their experiences within the justice system are if they're receiving humane treatment or not, etc. Similarly, when we're talking about access to dispute resolution mechanisms, the indicator defined does not measure the efficiency of the services that people may receive or how accessible they are. So because of these limits related to the official indicators and the official data, I want to echo my colleagues in reiterating that unofficial data is really, really important for understanding progress on target 16.3. First, unofficial data can offer insights into other facets of the rule of law and access to justice that aren't captured by the official indicators. And secondly, unofficial data can offer insights into the current state of play in countries that have yet to report official data. For example, in July of this year, the World Justice Project published a new report called dissecting the justice gap, which was the first in two-part series, the second of which launched last week. And in this report, we were able to provide baseline estimates of SDG indicator 16.3.3 for 62 countries, 60 of which have not yet reported official data in the indicators database. So this is just one example of how members of civil society, such as the World Justice Project, can use unofficial data to offer insights into how countries are performing and demonstrates the use of existing data to provide proxy measures of these indicators. The report offers a few different recommendations for ways in which we can continue to advance the rule of law and access to justice globally. First, as I was just commenting, I recommend continuing to improve not only collection of official data, but also the opportunities for collaboration between unofficial and official data producers to synthesize that information to offer better insights. Additionally, there are opportunities to continue to drive action through evidence-based research, to continue engaging with justice actors from all sectors, including civil society, and to broaden the conversation around the rule of law and access to justice to most effectively achieve these goals. I'll close by echoing my colleagues and encouraging you to check out the entire report. I think there's some really fascinating insights not only into target 16.3, but into research from other colleagues that provide a really well-rounded view of the current state of play with regard to target 16. So thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for your time, and Massimo will turn it back to you. Thanks so much, Grace. Our next speaker is Noah Ashinov. He produced an insightful analysis in Focus. He is Interim Executive Director of Transparency International in Canada. So Noah, it's over to you. Great. Thank you, Massimo. And thank you to the organizers for inviting me and Transparency International Canada to be part of this publication and today in this event. I'm going to try and walk everyone through what is actually a bit of a success story. So I'll try and be a bit more positive and uplifting if I can, but the recommendations mentioned are still very accurate and I'll get to that. So our focus really in the publication was on SDG 16.5 and 16.5, the purpose of it is to substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms. That's a very broad statement for a number of reasons. Reducing corruption in all of its forms, corruption comes in many, many, many forms around the world and it looks different everywhere around the world. So our focus in Transparency International Canada obviously focuses on our domestic concerns, but Transparency International overall has been at the forefront of this work on a number of levels. And so many of the people joining the call, just so you know, Transparency International has national chapters in over 100 countries around the world. So there likely is a TI chapter wherever you're calling in from. Okay, so our specific focus on this was to advocate for greater transparency on what we call beneficial ownership. Just to define that really briefly, a beneficial owner is really the natural person who can be found at the end of an ownership chain. So I think a company, the person behind the company who has the right to some share of the legal entity's income or assets or the ability to control its activities. Beneficial ownership can really reveal how companies are controlled by their beneficial owners. And one of the issues that we had faced in Canada was that we didn't have any requirement for beneficial owners to be basically publicly listed. And so it was very difficult to find out who exactly might be behind a corporate entity. So realizing the opacity of company ownership was a significant hurdle to measuring how corporate vehicles were used for corrupt activity in Canada.  The first one was to create a coalition, which we affectionately call the End Snowwashing Coalition. Snowwashing is kind of a term that was coined to describe a particular type of money laundering that happens in Canada. So quite fitting in the sense it makes you think of Canada. But what we did, our coalition included a few other NGOs. And the purpose really was with that coalition to change the mindset in Canada from one where we were really defenders of corporate secrecy to one where we could advance to the point where we could get legislation in place, which would then really kind of, if you will, to stick with the metaphors, get the snowball rolling to increase transparency. So the big question is how did we do that? And this is where data came into play. So back in 2016, TI Canada revealed in a report, which was called No Reason to Hide, Unmasking the Anonymous Owners of Canadian Companies, the key finding in that report was that no one really knows who owns almost half of Vancouver's most valuable properties. So Vancouver, one of Canada's largest cities on the west coast of Canada, we have, to give you a little bit of context, we have really what's been described as a fairly overheated housing market. And so real estate has been very front and center in this discussion about money laundering and corruption in Canada. And Vancouver has probably the most expensive housing market in all of Canada. So there is this question of who really owns all of this luxurious real estate in Vancouver. And yeah, and so basically we couldn't really tell because it was owned by a number of these companies where you couldn't decipher who the ultimate beneficial owner was of those companies. In 2019, we followed that up by just really changing which market we looked at and looked at the opacity in the Toronto real estate market, which is the largest real estate market in the country. And the way we collected data was to analyze more than or approximately one and a half million residential property transactions in the Toronto area. And again, a similar thing was found was essentially, it was about 28 billion Canadian dollars had been acquired, 28 billion dollars worth of real estate had been acquired through companies where you couldn't figure out who the ultimate beneficial owner was. So clearly, there was a problem and this problem needed fixing and we needed to come up with a bit of a solution. So the solution was that with gathering all of that evidence and that data, and again, so non-official data, the importance of this kind of non-official data that TI Canada had managed to put together, we were able to advocate for changes within our federal government to the point where they actually put forward a piece of legislation to basically to implement a beneficial ownership transparency registry, which means that if you were then to incorporate a company, that would be, you know, you'd be able to search and find out who the ultimate beneficial owner was behind that company. So a drastic change from what we started with to where we ended up. And the big success in this, which is what I kind of started out with, is that that bill was actually just passed in Parliament this past November. So we now actually have legislation that has gone through our parliamentary system that is passed. We will have a beneficial ownership transparency registry that will be implemented and put forward. And so it's in that sense, I think we've been able to use non-official data to obtain a real success at one level. And I think it shows that while hurdles remain, you know, the use of non-official data can really, it can be very difficult to acquire, but if we do it, there is the potential that it will lead to good outcomes. Yeah. So I think I'll end there. Thank you very much, Noah. This is a very good example of the power of non-official data. Thank you for sharing that. Our next speaker is Laura Becana-Bowl, Advocacy Policy Manager, Global Forum for Media Development, who wrote on SDG 1610. So Laura, it's over to you. Thank you, Massimo, and thank you all for joining us today. Actually, I co-authored the chapter with the Center for Law and Democracy, Toby Mendel, who you will hear next. And just a brief introduction about Global Forum for Media Development. We are a network of organizations and to support media and journalists worldwide, so we do not collect the data ourselves, but it's true that we gather much of the information shared by our members and partners. And that's why we are also in this partnership. So first, I also want to begin with two disclaimers, I guess. Sorry for that. The first, it is very crucial to mention a limitation in the approach for the chapter on these fundamental rights. So my contribution, I don't want to initially blame her. My contribution to this chapter focuses solely on the data available on journalists and media workers. And it doesn't fully encapsulate the broader spectrum of the indicator 1610.1. Recognizing this methodological note, I would also, and sorry, well, I think Miga will appreciate that, but I also would like to invite organizations involved in the data collection, not only on indicators 1610.1, but also on other related targets and indicators to join the initiative and to help us also collect this data. And so that being said, I just want to make clear that this first part of the chapter is mostly about assessing the progress from a perspective based on press freedom and access to information, not also all fundamental rights. Secondly, my second disclaimer, and relatively, I have also to address a grim reality. Since the drafting of this chapter, the killings of journalists have considerably increased probably because of the current situations worldwide. And although in the chapter we mentioned more known threats to press freedom that come also from this non-official data, we must never lose sight of the fact that the murder of a journalist is the most severe and violent action against press freedom. It's not only a tragic loss of life, aligning with the also concerns of target 16.1 and the forms of violence, but it's also actually, it has also a chilling effect on other and future journalists. And it also deprives communities of accessing essential and trustworthy information. So back to the chapter, sorry for the disclaimers. The data available is also collected by UNESCO and some of the data we use also from the committee to protect journalists, a reserve and others. And it shows like a very nuanced landscape. So the number of journalist killings has was actually decreasing from 2015 to 2020. But in the last three years, as I've said, we have seen a sharp increase probably to the violent wars in Ukraine and Gaza and Israel. Also, it's against targeting journalists in war. It's like a crime against just to make that also clear. And additionally, apart from that, it's through the rate of journalists imprisonments show also like a warring increase. This escalation serves as a harrowing reminder of the dangers that journalists face daily and the profound impact that their loss has on society. And as noted by the analysis of the committee to protect journalists, the number of journalists who have been imprisoned has nearly doubled since 2015. So there was not even a decrease there. And it set a new record in 2022, considering that the data from 2023 is not available yet. And although the causes for disemplacement are also wanting to mention like a new trend that has been captured in a report by one of our members, the Center for International Media Assistance, SEMA, that stresses how new types of legislations to combat disinformation and misinformation are misused by governments against journalists and also human rights defenders. These laws are often weaponized, shifting like the dissent and the critical reporting under the pretext of maintaining public order and combatting fake news. And again, this is just one of the means where national security or protecting democracies or protecting their countries is used to silence journalists and against journalists and against human rights. And I'm bringing this up also to look beyond the indicator. So and how important it is to contextualize and analyze the data, both official and unofficial, because that shows in the case of these indicators, and a continued erosion of fundamental rights and press freedoms in particular by and through different means and causes, including repressive legal frameworks, restriction on other fundamental rights, and lack of preventive or remedial measures for such violations. So these violations go further than the ones that actually these indicator captures and include threats and the chilling effect posed by those physical assaults, digital attacks, surveillance and gender-based harassment on journalists, media workers and human rights defenders. And it is very important also to look at these contextual data that's collected by regional monitoring organizations, such as the media freedom rapid response or the data collection collected by the Fundación Paraliberta de Prensa in Colombia, because these nuances in the data and this kind of like collection of multiple assaults to the press freedom actually highlight the unpredictable and volatile nature of the threats that journalists face. So it shows also that the landscape of press freedom is not solely defined by physical harm, but also by the broader context of governmental policies and societal attitudes towards journalists and press freedom overall. So I will stop there. Sorry. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Laura. Yes, I mentioned that you are an author, but actually you are a co-author of the chapter together with our next speaker, Tobi Mendel, who is also the author of the concluding chapter for which we're asking you to conclude this first round of interventions in the panel. So Tobi is the executive director of the Center for Law and Democracy. Tobi? Thank you. And just to mention that the Center for Law and Democracy is a human rights organization based in that same snowy country that Noah talked about. I'm going to focus on the second half of 1610, target 1610, Laura talked about the first half. And that's the adoption and implementation of access to information laws in line with international standards. And on the first part, adoption. I mean, it's very easy to count how many countries have adopted laws and we can see how progress is going on that. It's sort of going forward, not as quickly as we like, but it's a little bit more difficult to assess whether those laws are in line with international standards, slightly more complicated assessment. And looking at whether the laws are implemented properly is actually pretty complex because these laws are implemented separately by each public authority in the country. So, you know, the ministry of this and the ministry of that does their own implementation. If you really want to understand how well implementation is going, you've got to look at all of those things. And so quite a complicated thing to measure. I'm not going to talk about the chapter so much. It's chapter seven in the report. Please go and read it if you're interested. What I really want to focus on in my brief comments is, you know, how our chapter really highlights the super importance of unofficial or non-official data. And for this indicator, UNESCO is the custodian agency. And it measures progress by putting a survey to states to fill in to say how well they're doing on the adoption and implementation of these laws. And UNESCO then allocates a score based on the responses it receives from states. And I don't want to be rude about the UNESCO data. So I'm not going to say it's rubbish, but it is absolutely fundamentally flawed. And just to give you a couple of examples of this. In both 21 and 22, if you look at the top 50% of all of the states that responded to the UNESCO survey, their average score in both of those years was 92%. I really wish that were true. If it were, we'd be doing really well on access to information. But it's just an absolutely non-incredible figure. In the 22 report called a steady path forward, UNESCO concluded, based on the information provided by states, that the exemptions or the exceptions to access to information were, generally speaking, limited. Again, I really wish that were true. But my organization has actually studied all of the 138 national laws in the world. And we have produced a very sophisticated and detailed rating of them, the RTI rating, which you can find online. And we know exactly how broad or narrow those regimes of exemptions are. And our data shows that those exceptions are actually a significantly weak point in the vast majority of those laws. So again, I think our data very directly and point-to-point contradicts the UNESCO claim. And I think it's really, for me, what this highlights is, I mean, the official data can work reasonably if the target or if the indicator, sorry, can be reduced to a simple objective statistical number for which we can have clear and verifiable methodologies. Then states can apply those methodologies and generate reasonable data. When you have more complex targets, and I started my comments by mentioning that this is quite a complex indicator, when indicators or targets get more complex, and especially when there are political stakes involved. So states want to pretend that they're doing well on access to information because it looks bad if they're not. When you get into that context, I think that official data is likely to be seriously flawed. And I think this example really shows that. So for me, it really highlights. And I think that's not true across the whole of SDG-16, but quite a few of the targets and indicators under SDG-16 are more complex, more political. So I think that in those areas, unofficial data or non-official data really is supremely important. So I'll stop with those comments and I hope you answer any questions if they come up. Thank you very much, Tobi. I'm trying to guess how you could sound when you're less diplomatic after your statement. Anyway, yeah, I mean, this is something true and it cuts across all the interventions. I think it's a common element that many speakers have addressed. There is a role for non-official data to complement official data, but we have also to accept that there is also a role for non-official data, sometimes also to challenge official data. And we have to take that into account because of the role played by some of the key players that produce non-official data. And we saw, for example, how civil society organizations may influence policy making by making use of non-official data in a way that official data would probably not have justified or sponsored. So we consider these as an important byproduct of monitoring progress by combining official and non-official data. Let me just pose some quick guiding questions for you before we open up to the audience. And let me recall also that Miguel has announced in the chat that there will be a mentee survey that we have prepared and is going to share the details of how you can participate through the website and with the code shortly. Here it is, it's in the chat section. Now the first question, maybe I will address it to John, it's about interlinkages. We heard the mentions of linkages between different targets of SDG 16 on one hand and also interlinkages among different goals. So what do you think you may say at this point halfway to 2030 about interlinkages? Great, thanks Massimo. I mean how much longer do we have? Because I think we could talk for hours about the interlinkages. And I think interlinkages is something that's also very specific to different targets. I mean those of us that work on different SDG 16 targets and issues know where our issues link with across the entire 2030 agenda. But I think the one thing that I will say is that Miguel mentioned this at the beginning that we very much see SDG 16 as an enabler and an outcome of sustainable development. So that the SDG 16 underpins progress towards every other SDG and the entire 2030 agenda as a whole. So I mean I don't want to go into too much detail on why peace or why justice or why fundamental freedoms are essential for the entire 2030 agenda. But I may just reference another resource that we have put together. I can also link in the chat box. It's called the SDG 16 civil society toolkit. And this is a resource guide for colleagues that work on SDG 16 particularly from civil society and particularly at the national level to understand you know how different approaches to working with or convincing your government to take action on SDG 16 or the things that you can do. And part of that is around monitoring and reporting. Civil society obviously plays a big role in holding governments accountable through reporting. And so one of the guides that we have in that toolkit is a target guide that explores all of the interlinkages between every SDG 16 target and all of the targets in the 2030 agenda. So can help maybe unpack those interlinkages there if if you're interested. It also provides interlinkages between SDG 16 targets and other key international agreements because I think that's also important for us to think about as well is yes okay we have the SDGs to you know pressure and advocate to our governments that they need to take action on these issues. But there are also other processes or even in some cases human rights treaty bodies that may also be another forum for us to push and where governments have made commitments to advancing these issues. So explore some of those interlinkages between other international agreements. And then also has a really detailed indicators guide as well with you know a really comprehensive list of alternative indicators that you can use to measure progress. And also data sets including many of them data sets that come from SDG 16 data initiative partners to help colleagues really think about how how they can report on each of these targets and the interlinkages in around the entire 2030 agenda. So I'll leave it there. I'll put a link in the chat box in case any of you are interested in exploring a little bit further. Okay thank you. Just one last question to any of the panelists who want to intervene before we do the minty exercise. And this is about well what would be your really one sentence about why there is this stagnation on SDG 16? Why? Why is this happening? How would you qualify it? How would you characterize the reason for this? Who wants to intervene? Yes, Toby. Can I have two minutes instead of one sentence? I can't answer that in one sentence. Okay. I mean I think I think basically what we're seeing is a broader human rights and democratic backsliding which is sort of what lies at the heart of SDG 16. And I think there's a number of elements to that. We are seeing an aggressive push against democracy by some very powerful non-democracies in Russia, China among the leading players there. COVID-19 didn't help. We also have a crisis in our information space and that's often characterized by the sort of the maelstrom of disinformation and hate speech online. But I would pair that with the essentially the collapse of our traditional media markets. I mean our media just aren't playing remotely the same informing and positive role in our society and they're not able to because they just don't have the money and resources. What to do about it? That's a lot more complicated. I think that civil society has to redouble its efforts in this space. And I think we just need a lot more solidarity and support from states who do believe in democracy and that support should be money to fund pro-democracy efforts, but also much stronger and much more bold advocacy in support of democracy, calling out bad actors, calling out anti-democratic moves. And then finally I really think we need to continue, a wood user would continue there, to strengthen international human rights institutions. I mean they're a very important part of the system here and we just, they're not strong enough. Thanks Tobi. Anybody else wants to add? Yes Miguel. It's not on this I think Tobi has covered everything. I just wanted to add something on the importance of non-official data. I know a number of aspects have been raised, you know, that 92% that Tobi mentioned, that's a very good example. I would say that the short answer of why non-official data is so important is that it complements official data and also fills some of the gaps, but I would say it's so much more than that, it's much deeper. And I'll give you an example that I like sharing. Goal 16.3, if I'm not mistaken, that's the one related to promoting justice and the rule of law, the one that Grace just covered and the World Justice Project covers. And the official indicators for this goal, rule of law, which is a big thing, it's only three official indicators. The number of victims of violence, number of unsentenced detainees, and people who access a dispute resolution mechanism. And that's it. But this is not enough because the rule of law is so much more than that. The rule of law is about access to justice, respecting the due process, transparency and fairness in trials, and not only accessing a dispute resolution mechanism, but that dispute resolution mechanism is competent, is professional, is independent. So, you know, that's a clear way of how non-official citizen-driven data is a great complement and can give us a more accurate, even though it's bleaker, as we have seen picture on things. Thank you. Thank you, Miguel, for building on why non-official data is so important. In a way, you have addressed these from different points of view. For example, the importance of perception-based data or experience-based data. Then the role of citizens' surveys. And I would also recall what Laura said about the need to contextualize data, which is also linked to how the data are used. And we saw an example from Noah's presentation, but also Arelli's point on violence against children. And I think there is also the introduction of this dialogue that should take place also with the custodian agencies, that both Laura and Tobi addressed at the same time. And so, I think we may stop here for the moment because I would like to give Miguel the opportunity to launch the Mentimeter, and then we'll resume by opening up two questions and answers from the cyberspace. Miguel. Thank you, Massimo. Sorry, I didn't unmute myself. I just shared the chat so you can see the name of the website, which is www.menti.com, and the access code. You'll see a simple space bar and ask you for an access code. The access code is 86701990. And now I'm sharing my screen where you will be able to see this and also for people following us on YouTube. So give me a second. I'm sharing my PowerPoint. Okay. It should be visible. Please let me know if you can see it. Yes. Yeah. Great. So that is the question we would like you to answer. What is the biggest challenge for implementing SDG 16? You will see that there are seven options. And what you have to do is rank those options. So if you think that corruption is the number one cause, you just click on that box and you drag it to the top. And then your second option, let's say insufficient investment, goes to the second place.  And we'll just give you two or three minutes. So you have enough time to think about the question and to complete the survey. And after that, I will show the results. And perhaps we can have a discussion. If you have any comments, if you have any questions, please feel free to write them up in the chat box. And also, of course, the participants, the speakers are welcome to discuss the findings of the survey. Also, if you have any questions about accessing mentee or any problems with the access code, let me know through the chat. And I'm happy to assist you. I'll reply through there. I see already also an answer in the chat, which combines the different elements of the survey responses. Lack of knowledge due to corrupt means of acquiring office among leaders, which alludes to both the fourth, the democracy value, and the corruption number three. And she adds also these lack of knowledge element. I will share the screen for 30 seconds more, because then I have to stop sharing so I can go to the website and visit the results and then share that screen if that's okay. However, if someone needs a little bit more time, please indicate it in the chat. So I leave it for a few seconds more. We have about 20 minutes more, Miguel. Great. Good time for discussion. Okay, I will stop sharing this and I will go to the results page. So far, we have 22 answers. Let me show you what we have. 23 answers. Sorry, it's still moving. Let me share my screen again. Please let me know if you can see my Chrome window. Yes, we can. We can. Okay. Great. So, Massimo, over to you. These are the results. Thank you very much. I'm always interested in any statement of a problem in terms of lack of something, because when I was in my previous incarnation working on evaluation, lack of looks like an absent solution, a solution that you have already in mind and you frame as a problem. Anyway, lack of political will is the first ranked challenge. Probably there is something that he says about our audience. Our audience is engaged in influencing policy makers. So lack of political will may mirror that idea that policy makers should act and that we should influence them. However, the other challenges are more related to actual problems. For example, corruption. We had a very good example of a success story of how to turn the narrative, change the narrative in order to act on that issue in particular by putting pressure for lawmaking that discloses information. And there we can talk of the power of non-official data in disclosure. Third comes a not clear understanding of democracy's value. This could be framed also as a lack of problem, maybe because all of us are actually believers in the importance of democratic institutions and processes. But as many of you indicated, democracy in this perspective should be considered as a value in itself and also in its instrumental value. So when we talk of these as a challenge, we have to unbundle what we mean as democracy's value. Do we mean the intrinsic value of democracy or its instrumental value for delivering on SDG 16 and the 2030 agenda or perhaps on both? We need more clarity on that. Just a question for the audience. Then insufficient investment. Of course, without resources, we can have very good intentions, but all of these doesn't lead anywhere. And what I see there is also an issue of how much do we invest in data. Non-official data have resource implications. Building partnerships for collecting and analyzing them have resource implications. Conflict is a very clear element of challenge for all any individual SDG and the 2030 agenda as a whole. And finally, other SDGs are prioritized. It's interesting that it comes almost last before other. I remember during the negotiations of the SDGs, there was a concern that identifying too many SDGs would have meant losing the importance of how all the SDGs are interconnected. And maybe achievement of the agenda does not depend on one SDG only. And this is particularly clear in the case of SDG 16 defined as an enabler. These are my quick comments on this, but I would like to see whether there are any other comments from panelists on these results or from the chat, which is still open. And I see, for example, Hans Correll in the chat who expressed his belief that meeting the SDG 16 is not even an enabler, but a precondition for achieving all the other SDGs. And Toby seconded it. That is true. We have to consider prioritization also in terms of what are the preconditions for the achievement of the other SDGs. I'm also very interested in this dimension of democracy, human rights, and strong institutions as not only an enabler, but a precondition for the rest. Yes, Miguel. Yes. Thank you, Massimo. Part of Toby's answer in the last section, he mentioned Russia and China. And I think there's a narrative that we have to fight. China has been trying to show that their way of doing things, the authoritarian way, is more effective and leads to growth and growth of the middle class and economic growth, economic success, more trade, more investment. And that is not necessarily the case. Yes, China has experienced growth, but at what expense? And there's serious violations of human rights in the country. And not only that, if we look at data from all countries and not focusing on China, all countries, not only 2023, but historically, democracies outperform hybrids and authoritarians. And it's precisely because of this, because of democracies, not only its intrinsical value, which matters for having lives of dignity and of freedom, but because this intrinsic value leads to an instrumental value. And as I was mentioning, it's these rights that allow us to advocate and to push for better education, better health, better standards of living. And I think it's a very dangerous narrative because more and more people and more and more groups are buying into it. And it's definitely false. And I think that's one of the things that we have to do as a civil society, as citizens, as international and governmental organizations, such as IDEA, to fight that. Yes, Toby? To respond quickly. I mean, for me, the change here has been that sort of, if you go back a while, there was not such an effort by some of these powerful non-democracies to export their view of non-democracy. They weren't democratic internally, but they didn't really care that much about whether other countries were. And we've seen an absolute sea change on that in China. And it has a very sophisticated intellectual and conceptual developments behind this. For example, they have a whole theory of what proper journalism is, which is to support national development and to whatever rather than to criticize it, actually be an independent journalist, which is the democratic view of that. And they go around and train journalists in different countries and try to insert that conception of proper journalism, which is completely contrary to the democratic view of journalism. And powerful actors like that exporting non-democracy is quite different from them just kind of doing their own thing at home sort of thing. And I think that that really has been a change. And I don't know what to do about that. Of course, it's not possible or not easy to stop them. Yes. And also a couple of panelists already alluded also to the adoption of legislation that perhaps for combating fake news or disinformation actually bring about a limitation of the space for the media or journalists to operate. And this is also linked to this learning curve that you're mentioning, Tobi, because you may look at that legislation, and it is sometimes really pasted and copied from other countries that adopted it. There is a very, very clear threat there. I would like also to recall a couple of points that Grace made about data coverage of the official data and the fact that non-official data may help us navigate those spaces where the official data are not available. And they complement and provide, let's say, evidence for analysis and for policy making or for monitoring programs that would otherwise be not available. Clearly the collaboration between official and non-official data providers, as she mentioned, would be very, very important in that respect because we need solid non-official data. We need the non-official data that are reliable, whose methodology is verifiable, and so forth. Any other comments that you want to make at this point? Laura, I'm checking also the chat. Yes? Sorry, I didn't find the hand-racing function. I just wanted also to come back to that point on authoritarian, like the rise of authoritarian governments, but also if we look even at the narratives that are being helped, for example, in European countries, about this boost. And I mentioned that before this boost of, like, we need to protect the national boundaries, we need to protect, it's taking, I don't want to say authoritarian, kind of like, drive also in well-known, kind of like, democratic institutions, but it's true that this narrative is shifting and we've seen now with, for example, I've been working very closely on the European media freedom act, which has an article for that it's meant to protect journalists and their sources. And many member states in Europe are actually pushing for this national security exemption that will allow to survey on journalists and their sources. It's clear because when you use spyware, you cannot actually select what you survey or not. So I see this problem with this new narrative that values more than national security than actually democracy itself as an enabler of other fundamental freedoms, but also like other sustainable development holes. So just wanted to comment on that too. Thank you, Laura. And I'd like also to recall a concept that was stressed by Arellis when she really recommended the maximization of the use of non-official citizens' driven data. And this is linked to one point that John made in his first intervention when he referred to the importance of data monitors like those of civics in terms of expert assessments and the combination of quantitative and qualitative data. As I said also, we at IDEA are trying to maximize that we are testing some data of this kind in our data ecosystem. And we are combining our global state of democracy indices, which are mainly quantitative with the qualitative analysis that we have collected in the democracy tracker in our platform, in the same platform actually. So this is challenging because context analysis is important and it is difficult to define in terms that are valid for other cases, for broader global trends, but still it is a very important element that gives meaning to data that would otherwise be possibly misinterpreted or even misused by actors with, how can I say, with ill intentions, so to speak. Any other comments on this? Toby? Can I just respond to that one? I think that's a really interesting point. And I think it's also a structural flaw in the whole way that the SDG indicator system is designed. And UN statistics is the control body here and it allows or approves or whatever, I mean with other actors, but indicators and they are always looking for something which is statistical in nature. And that's why, for example, UNESCO takes its survey and allocates points to it because it needs to ultimately produce a number. And so there's a very strong bias within the whole SDG evaluation system for numbers, even though these things are often much, much more complicated than numbers and you can't really reduce them to numbers. And so I think, you know, I mean, I understand why that's there because numbers are hard and they're comfortable and you can assess progress and all that kind of stuff.  But a lot of these things simply aren't reducible to a number in a sensible way. So I think that's a problem within the design of the SDGs. Well, that's an interesting criticism of the limits of the framework. But numbers have also a power, as we have seen in today's event. And I think that non-official data need to be developed in dialogue with official data. And there is a common ground. Actually, national statistical offices are also investing in qualitative data in surveys. And there are some interesting platforms that are considering governance indicators. And some of them are actually very, very much similar to or in line with the indicators that we are providing through the SDG 16 data initiative platform. And we are in a continuous dialogue, for example, with the prior group on governance indicators that reports to the UN Statistical Commission. And I find that that dialogue very creative and fruitful and constructive. We have just a few minutes now. I don't see other questions from the floor, but I see two hands. Yes, John and Orellis. Thanks, Massimo. I mean, just very quickly, I mean, I think this whole conversation, you know, around where the data kind of lines up kind of reminds me of the beginning days of the SDG 16 data initiative when we first came together as a group in 2016. One of the reasons for that was that a lot of pushback, we got a lot of pushback from national statistical offices, basically saying, you know, with some criticisms for non-official data of why, you know, excuses for why they couldn't include some of these indicators or data sets, non-official data into official statistical systems. Then one of the criticisms was that, you know, the data just sometimes on the back end just does not add up. And when you have qualitative data and quantitative data, I mean, that difference is quite stark. And I think the one thing thinking about how we link this up, I think, is mainly through the assessment side of things. And again, another reason why the SDG 16 data initiative and others are so important in this space is because I think, I mean, data points are absolute, right? They are singular points in space and time that tell one part of the story. And I think it's incumbent on those of us that work on with data and around data to really paint a picture through data. So using multiple data points that tell us different parts of the story to really weave this into a narrative that resonates with people, whether it's policymakers where we're trying to convince them to take action, or it's the general public to say, this is important, we need to pay attention and hold your government accountable. I think the whole point of all of this is a storytelling through data. And all of this is to say that not one singular data point is more important than the others. It's really about going back to the painting of the picture analogy. We're painting with many different colors. A painting is not complete with just one color. Once you fully start painting the picture, then what your painting comes into focus much, much better. So I think that's the point is how do we foster some of those discussions to maybe bring some of those communities together to do some analysis? Because again, the storytelling side of things I think is arguably just as important as the actual data collection itself. Thanks, John. Arellis? Thank you. Yes, very briefly because I'm looking at the clock here. I think it brings us back again to an earlier conversation just today when we started this webinar, which is the interlinkages. And this is all intertwined and interlink and all the synonyms of that work. I think that it would be really important to confirm whether the custodian agencies are talking among themselves because the indicators are so intertwined. For instance, in what vision we did a review of 16.2 and the interlinkages of 16.2, not only within SDG 16, but also across the SDGs. And we found that there are at the very least 50 indicators that are interlinked and relate to ending violence against children. So it's actually why one of the things that our messages from our vision often is when it comes to SDG 16 is let's not emphasize one of the aspects or components of 16 over others. So let's just not talk about rule of law. Let's not just talk about justice. I mean, if we do, let's emphasize the interlinkage of that across the SDG and the SDG 16, but also across the other SDGs. Because one of the challenges that I find in the UN often, and I've been working with the UN and close to the UN work for several years, is that the UN tends very much to have priorities, right? So they prioritize, let's say right now, women, girls, youth, but then they prioritize undermining other vulnerable groups. And the same thing happens with the SDGs. They prioritize one SDG and they prioritize others by invisibilizing others. So one interesting thing that I observe in the QCPR report this year, and I think that you've heard me say this before, is that it is interesting to read that in that report, it says that SDG 16 is one of the SDGs where more funding from UN agencies goes. But when you go to scrutinize and see the granular aspect of that funding, it only goes to one aspect of SDG 16. So again, I just wanted to say and emphasize, you know, our early discussion on the interlinkages of the SDG and how we cannot overlook when we are prioritizing other important aspects. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Reilly, and we have reached already the end of today's launch. There is a very interesting question in the chat that is about geopolitics. From Abdullah Al Hanun is asking about the interpretation of the rule of law with human rights and the different definition of human rights by different superpowers, especially in the situation in Ukraine and Gaza. This would open up an entirely new and different conversation. But I would take from these important questions maybe some food for thought in the future, in the next section. Do you think that the return of geopolitics will actually capture the implementation of the 2030 agenda? This is a major issue of concern because in 2015 we have lived one of those very important moments when there was a great faith in multilateralism for addressing, identifying and trying to sort out some of the main challenges faced by the world. And the sentiment now in the face of these problems with the war in Ukraine and in Gaza, but also I would say the issues raised by the role of multilateralism in addressing those crises is actually questioning the effectiveness of the multilateral system. And we are all in the same seat in the same boat. We are all in the same situation when we talk of the UN. It's also about us who work with the UN. It is about international civil society organizations. It's about activists and defenders. This is a big, big issue of concern. But there is no time to address it now. We are really closing. I would just say that I found this conversation engaging. It gave me many ideas about what to do in the next six months before we reach the high-level political forum when SDG-16 will be under review. So an appointment that we should all mark in our calendar and we'll be there as the SDG-16 data initiative as always. Thank you very much on behalf of the panelists. Thank you to the panelists for their engagement and thank you for your participation in this conversation. Massimo. Thank you, Massimo. Thank you, everyone. Bye-bye. Thank you, bye.