March 2016: Civil society groups and researchers are examining the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’s focus on leaving no one behind, with some stressing its importance for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and calling for incorporating human rights principles into follow-up and review mechanisms. Other recent publications provide recommendations for the High-Level Political Forum’s (HLPF) national reviews, address the changing actors and politics of development financing, and provide guidance on migration concerns in conservation.

Participants at an Overseas Development Institute (ODI) event agreed that “Leave no one behind” should be a guiding principle and norm that refers to: income poverty, with a focus on the ultra-poor; income inequality; group-based inequality; and leave no country behind. Elizabeth Stuart, ODI, elaborates on the discussion in a blog post, and cautions of “early signs” that some donors and foundations may try to limit the ambition of leave no one behind to focus solely on income poverty to the exclusion of income inequality. “Group-based inequality” refers to inequality of both opportunity and outcome, drivers of marginalization and the ways in which different forms of marginalization overlap, similar to the way that multidimensional poverty goes beyond income poverty, Stuart writes. On leave no country behind, Stuart calls for a focus on the poorest and most fragile states and emphasizes SDG 10’s reference to global governance inequalities, such as enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in global decision-making.

Incorporating human rights principles and mechanisms into the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda is critical to leaving no one behind, increase coherence and efficiency across the Agenda, and achieve the SDGs, according to a paper by the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR). It underlines the importance of participation and inclusiveness in the HLPF’s voluntary reviews and thematic debates. On indicators and disaggregated data, the paper welcomes the inclusion of indicators that will yield data for monitoring human rights instruments. It expresses concern, however, about: limited statistical capacity in some countries to measure non-traditional statistical areas such as corruption and access to justice; a lack of structural and process indicators to measure country efforts to reach the SDGs; and the potential for statistical data to “have a reductionist effect on the overall vision and the human rights content” in the 2030 Agenda.

Also on accountability, Save the Children developed five recommendations on the national reviews that will take place at the 2016 HLPF, as part of a forthcoming position paper on accountability. Save the Children recommends: that national-level review preparations practice ‘leave no one behind’ by being open, inclusive, participatory and transparent, including by seeking the views of economic and social groups that are the furthest behind, and highlighting policies and strategies to reach the furthest behind first; the national reviews result in a summary document synthesizing recommendations; and setting ‘national stepping stone equity targets’ to galvanize progress for the groups furthest behind.

Researchers from the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) find that the majority of foundations still consider the SDGs “as having been made by governments for governments,” and non-traditional donors lack an interest in participating in global agendas such as the SDGs and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), preferring “autonomy and independence of action above coordination and collaborative efforts.” The report explores the implications of moving towards alternative sources of development financing, examining whether the interests of private foundations and the private sector align with the aims of the SDGs. The report features case studies on: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; private sector investments; Chinese investments and the SDGs, highlighting concerns about the environmental sustainability of infrastructure projects; climate and development financing in African least developed countries (LDCs); financial management of development funds, with a focus on water privatization; and the AAAA.

On migration, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) launched ‘Migration and Conservation: A Toolkit for conservation and development practitioners,’ with a focus on the impacts of human migration on ecosystems and conservation. The publication offers guidance on identifying, designing and implementing response strategies to address conservation issues that are created or exacerbated by human migration, and shares experience from research in Africa’s Great Lakes region.

The most common way of measuring progress on the SDGs, as contained in the indicators proposed by the UN Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs), is in relation to the status and well-being of people,” finds a paper by the AtKisson Group. The “blue paper” notes that less than eight percent of the proposed indicators use a “planet” measurement. The AtKisson Group analyzed the proposed SDG indicators based on the units being counted, finding that “people” is most common, followed by “money”; “plans and policies”; “production and consumption”; and “planet.” The paper also highlights the use of proxy indicators to measure governance processes, and challenges of measuring and comparing complex systems, such as ecosystems and planetary resources. It observes signs that measuring progress on the green economy is possible, as reflected by 62 proposed indicators focused on aspects of the green economy agenda. [ODI Blog] [DIHR Publication: Human Rights in the Follow-up and Review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development] [Save the Children] [DIIS Press Release] [DIIS Publication: Financing the SDGs: The changing actors, interests and politics in development financings] [IISD Publication: Migration and Conservation] [AtKisson Publication: The SDG Indicators: What are we Measuring?] [IISD RS Sources]