4 April 2016
Experts Exchange Preliminary Views on 2030 Agenda Follow-up
story highlights

UN Member States considered the global follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development during an informal brainstorming meeting for Member States as part of consultations on a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution.

According to the co-facilitators of the consultations, Lois Young, Permanent Representative of Belize, and Ib Petersen, Permanent Representative of Denmark, the UNGA should adopt a resolution before this year's session of the High-level Political Forum on sustainable development (HLPF).

UNGA 2nd Committee - Economic and Financial31 March 2016: UN Member States considered the global follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development during an informal brainstorming meeting for Member States as part of consultations on a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution. According to the co-facilitators of the consultations, Lois Young, Permanent Representative of Belize, and Ib Petersen, Permanent Representative of Denmark, the UNGA should adopt a resolution before this year’s session of the High-level Political Forum on sustainable development (HLPF).

During the expert-level meeting on 31 March 2016, many said the follow-up and review framework should build on: the text agreed in the 2030 Agenda; UNGA resolution 67/290 on format and organizational aspects of the HLPF; and the UN Secretary-General’s report on ‘Critical Milestones Towards Coherent, Efficient and Inclusive Follow-up and Review at the Global Level’ (A/70/684). Several urged against renegotiating existing agreements.

On setting HLPF themes, proposals included: adopting a cross-cutting theme for each HLPF session that would allow discussions on inter-linkages between the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); deciding on themes for a multi-year period, such as 2017-2019, so as to ensure predictability and better preparations; and ensuring coherence and avoiding duplication between the theme of the HLPF and themes adopted in the framework of other ECOSOC processes. Some Member States suggested to adopt a theme broad enough to “encapsulate everybody’s concerns,” while others believed a broad theme would make it difficult to attract technical experts and other key participants.

On reviewing progress towards the SDGs, some suggested to treat all Goals equally and carry out a systematic review of all 17 SDGs during one session of the HLPF. Others preferred to focus on a selected number of Goals each year, while recognizing the inter-linkages with other Goals.

On the “feed-in mechanisms” to the HLPF, suggestions made by Member States included: considering UN and non-UN inputs; having these inputs synthesized as part of a report, with some noting that the SDG Progress Report could assume this function but should be kept succinct; and posting inputs on a website. It was also proposed to use standardized guidelines or templates that would clarify which types and how the inputs could be submitted. Proposals were made on ensuring that the UN Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) and the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Forum on Financing for Development follow-up (FFD Forum) are organized ahead of the HLPF, to allow their outcomes to feed into the HLPF’s delibrations.

On national reviews, participants proposed to: make use of guidelines; summarize conclusions of the national reviews in a report that could be presented at the HLPF; ensure that national reviews are integrated as part of the discussions of the Forum and do not happen in a “separate room”; make national review reports accessible online; and ensure equitable geographic distribution and adequate representation of countries in special situations during the Voluntary National Reviews at the HLPF. Several Member States said the national review process at the HLPF could be improved over time, and called for taking into account lessons learned from the former Annual Ministerial Reviews of ECOSOC and of the 2016 Voluntary National Reviews at the HLPF.

On regional reviews, some called for guidelines while others expressed concern about providing a common format for the reviews, noting that some regions have diverse sub-regional characteristics. Some said the assessment of national reports may form the basis for regional reports, but should not be a substitute for global-level functions.

On special situations, some emphasized the need for the HLPF to devote adequate time to countries in special situations, with one noting that the HLPF is the only forum for small island developing States (SIDS) to discuss progress on the SAMOA Pathway and the 2030 Agenda. Some said discussing countries in special situations should happen as part of the HLPF, rather than with a pre-session format, and suggested that guidelines be developed on how to integrate SIDS issues in reporting.

On system-wide coherence, many called for clarifying the relationships and coherence among all processes related to follow-up and review of the Agenda, and for accounting for ongoing discussions on the revitalization of the work of the UNGA.

On the distinction between the HLPF carried out under ECOSOC and under the UNGA, some delegations said that the UNGA gives political guidance, while ECOSOC is, among other things, a coordination body. It was also indicated that in 2019, the HLPF could take place both under ECOSOC and under the UNGA, according to the current interpretation of UNGA resolution 67/290 on HLPF’s four-year cycle.

On the role of the Secretariat, it was suggested that the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) provide support to the implementation of the Agenda. Many called for ensuring better coordination and integration of work between the divisions and offices of DESA that are involved in matters related to the HLPF. Some proposed that DESA’s Division for Sustainable Development (DSD) and the Office for ECOSOC Support and Coordination (OESC) should be combined.

Among other comments, some delegates said the HLPF outcome could take the form of a summary of the discussions, and outlined the relevance of a web portal. In defining a successful HLPF, some said it would be one that attracts Ministers, is relevant and innovative, and leads to concrete action on the ground.

The brainstorming meeting followed a discussion with Member States on 17 March regarding the roadmap for negotiating the resolution. The co-facilitators issued a revised road map on 24 March, and announced further updates during the brainstorming meeting. The first informal consultation with Member States is scheduled for 6 April, and will seek to clarify main issues that should be the focus of the UNGA resolution.

The 2016 HLPF will convene from 11-20 July 2016, at UN Headquarters in New York, US. [HLPF 2016 Website] [Revised Roadmap of Consultations] [IISD RS Story on Consultations Roadmap] [IISD RS Story on Co-Facilitators’ Appointment] [IISD RS Sources]


related events