4 May 2016
Consultations Advance for UNGA Resolution on 2030 Agenda Follow-up
Photo by IISD/ENB
story highlights

The co-facilitators on the global-level follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development held informal consultations with UN Member States and Major Groups and other Stakeholders (MGOS), to discuss elements of a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution.

The resolution is expected to be finalized before the July 2016 session of the High-level Political Forum for sustainable development (HLPF).

UNGA 2nd Committee - Economic and Financial28 April 2016: The co-facilitators on the global-level follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development held informal consultations with UN Member States and Major Groups and other Stakeholders (MGOS), to discuss elements of a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution. The resolution is expected to be finalized before the July 2016 session of the High-level Political Forum for sustainable development (HLPF).

The discussion at UN Headquarters in New York, US, on 28 April 2016, was based on the “elements paper” prepared by the co-facilitators, Lois Young, Permanent Representative of Belize, and Ib Petersen, Permanent Representative of Denmark, which was circulated on 19 April 2016.

Opening the meeting, the co-facilitators noted that in discussions so far, many have stressed the idea of “pragmatism,” reflecting the need to strike a balance between flexibility and predictability, while ensuring a foundation for exchange of learning and experiences. They also said they are in regular consultation with the facilitators of other ongoing processes, including on the Ministerial Declaration for the 2016 HLPF, and on the alignment of the UNGA’s agenda with the 2030 Agenda.

On the topic of themes for each year’s HLPF session and thematic review of the SDGs, Thailand for the G-77/China said it is open to reviewing a focused set of Goals, as long as all are treated equally and reviewed in a cycle. Also expressing openness or preference to reviewing a “set” or “cluster” of Goals each year were Trinidad & Tobago for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Canada, Australia, Japan, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Switzerland noted that integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development will be assured, since each Goals is designed to integrate the three dimensions, and they can be reviewed in any combination. CARICOM said the review must address implementation of the SAMOA Pathway on small island developing States (SIDS). Mexico opposed any “clustering” of the SDGs for review, and said all 17 Goals must be reviewed each year.

In addition to the cluster of Goals selected, G-77/China, Maldives for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and Pakistan said SDG 17 (Means of implementation (MOI) and global partnership) should be reviewed each year. Canada and Switzerland also expressed support for reviewing Goal 17 each year, as did MGCY and the Stakeholders’ Group on Aging. Belgium, for the EU, however, with support from Japan and Norway, said the annual review of SDG 17 should take place in the annual ECOSOC Forum on Financing for Development (FfD) follow-up (FfD Forum), the outcome of which will be submitted to the HLPF. The US cautioned against “reaffirming individual paragraphs” from the SDGs. Pakistan responded that financing is not the entirety of MOI for the 2030 Agenda.

The co-facilitators announced an expert-level brainstorming meeting on 3 May to discuss the themes of the next three sessions of the HLPF.

On aligning ECOSOC and HLPF themes, G-77/China said the selected Goals for review should also form the basis for the HLPF theme. Liechtenstein and Switzerland called for aligning the annual ECOSOC theme with that of the HLPF. However, the Russian Federation and Mexico said HLPF must follow ECOSOC’s focus, not the other way around.

On voluntary national reviews, some favored encouraging each country to report twice, or at least twice, during the 15-year period (EU, Canada, Switzerland, Norway). However, the G-77/China, Pakistan and Mexico preferred not to specify the frequency for each country’s national reports. The G-77/China and AOSIS noted that follow-up and review processes at all levels require enhanced capacity-building support for developing countries, including for national data systems.

On common reporting guidelines for the voluntary national review, Liechtenstein said the 2030 Agenda already covers this area and pointed to existing mechanisms, such as the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR). the G-77/China said the UNGA should not set guidelines, since the review is voluntary. EU, Canada, Switzerland and Norway expressed preliminary support for voluntary guidelines, but looked forward to learning lessons from the 2016 voluntary national reviews (VNRs) as a “pilot exercise.” Australia said the 22 countries reporting this year “will be the ones who set the trends for the future.” In this regard, the countries preferred a non-prescriptive approach in the current resolution.

On the regional review, the G-77/China, Pakistan and others expressed concerns about a “common format” for all regions, preferring to allow each to define its own terms.

On countries in special situations needing adequate discussion time during the follow-up and review process, some highlighted countries in conflict and post-conflict situations (G77, Colombia). The EU said middle-income countries (MICs) should not be included in the list. Australia and Japan highlighted SIDS, with Japan drawing attention also to the least developed countries (LDCs).

On the inclusion and participation of Major Groups and Other Stakeholders (MGOS), the G-77/China said it is addressed adequately in 67/290, while Canada said the new resolution should reaffirm the active and meaningful participation of all Major Groups. Together 2030 added that the text should specify that MGOS will be allowed to attend all HLPF meetings, access all documents, intervene, submit documents and make recommendations, per Resolution 67/290 (paragraph 15). The International Disability Alliance stressed the need for multi-stakeholder dialogues at all levels, before the review at the HLPF, and said online participation is not enough. The Global Business Alliance for 2030 called for a specific provision for civil society and private sector to report on their commitments and actions to implement the SDGs during the HLPF. The Stakeholders’ Group on Aging recalled that the 2030 Agenda requires civil society and the private sector to report to the HLPF, and proposed a standing agenda item in this regard.

Regarding input to the HLPF, the EU and Australia addressed the sequencing of events that feed into the HLPF sessions each year. They said the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) should take place before the FfD Forum, and that the FfD Forum should take place closer to the HLPF, to ensure the “correct flow of information.” On the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), AOSIS reported that agreement has been reached on the frequency, scope, methodology and relationship to the SDG Progress Report. She said the SDG Progress Report will provide the “state of play,” while the GSDR should provide the “state of the art.” Mexico added that the GSDR must be issued yearly, which was echoed by MGCY.

Discussions also turned to the question of whether the HLPF will take place under ECOSOC auspices in the years when it is also scheduled to convene under UNGA auspices, meaning two sessions of the HLPF would take place in 2019. The US, Australia and Norway expressed reluctance to hold two HLPF sessions in 2019, while Switzerland said both are needed, and explained the different functions of the two sessions: ECOSOC’s HLPF sessions focus on monitoring and reviewing the 2030 Agenda, and ensure a coherent approach across the system, while the UNGA’s HLPF provides for a “moment of stocktaking” by Heads of State and government and sets high-level political guidance for the next four-year cycle.

On the role of the UN Secretariat, Australia warned against maintaining “an outdated DESA system.” Along with Norway, Mexico and others it supported a review of DESA’s structure and functions, including to “merge and integrate” its branches and to ensure a single Secretariat for the HLPF and all ECOSOC segments. Canada called for a review of the strengths and weaknesses, mandates, overlaps, best ways to support the Agenda and how to address deficiencies. The G-77/China said the Secretariat should enhance cooperation, and that its role is system-wide strategic planning, implementation and reporting for coherence.

On outputs from the HLPF, several European, small island States and others stated that in addition to the Ministerial Declaration to be negotiated ahead of the Session, the HLPF should result in a summary of the actual discussions that take place. The EU, Norway and Switzerland suggested that the HLPF President issue such a summary, while Pakistan favored a record of the meeting, as opposed to a President’s summary, so as not to detract from an action-oriented ministerial declaration. Save the Children said the output should summarize information provided by non-State actors and the UN system.

On the way forward, Norway suggested reviewing the resolution following the first four-year HLPF cycle. The EU said 67/290 and 68/1 should be reviewed together to ensure coherence. [IISD RS Sources] [IISD Story on Elements Paper] [HLPF 2016 Webpage]


related events


related posts