In designing an accountability framework for the post-2015 development agenda, are there lessons to be taken from the last round of development goals?

The accountability framework around the MDGs has strengthened over time but still falls short of expectations for many groups in civil society. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were originally designed to be achieved at the global level but, over time, many governments integrated the MDGs within their national development plans and committed to reaching them in each and every country. A large number of national MDG reports have been written that describe the progress that has been made. These national MDG reports have been led by governments and tend to highlight the success stories in each country. Over and above these national reports, the UN has produced an annual global progress report that sets out progress in all regions. Since 2008, the UN has also produced an in-depth report on progress made in putting in place a “global partnership for development”: the MDG Gap Task Force report. This architecture of reporting has provided a soft framework of accountability.

With the post-2015 development agenda and SDGs, the challenge will be to strengthen that accountability architecture at all levels. Strong global accountability will be built from strong local accountability. So a key principle is that accountability should be bottom-up, drawing on national SDG reports, and participatory surveys that engage citizens, civil society and business. It should cover the behaviours and actions of the private sector as well as the public sector. On that bedrock, the international community – with the UN at its core – can aggregate upwards and assess whether the whole world is on track to achieve the SDGs.

How will the Secretary-General’s synthesis report contribute to the discussion on accountability?

The synthesis report from the Secretary-General may offer loose parameters on what an accountability framework could look like for both public and private actors, and set out options for member states at different levels – local, national, regional, and global. It will likely note the primacy of accountability mechanisms at the national level, together with opportunities for peer review at the regional and global levels. The global review would take place with less frequency, but with a view to whether the world as a whole is making progress.

A key question is: What role will the High-level Political Forum on sustainable development (HLPF) play? The HLPF will likely be a meeting where governments self-report on where they have made progress, as well as the challenges they face. Outside of this formal process there will probably be a “shadow accountability environment”: sector and thematic reports from NGOs, surveys, and side-events. There should also be much more data available to track progress.

It may be better to think of accountability not as a set of rules and a flow chart, but more like a fabric, one where we are seeking to increase the weave. The fabric of accountability around the MDGs was a bit like a loose fishing net. The one we seek for the SDGs is more like an Egyptian cotton!

What message is coming out most strongly from the UNDG dialogue on accountability?

The overarching message coming from the recent UNDG dialogues is that the issues usually discussed by Member States as “means of implementation” – finance, trade, technology – are very important but not the only ways to make sure the new agenda has an impact in each country. Our experience has highlighted that implementation is also about local capacity, local institutions, monitoring and accountability, and partnerships with business and civil society.

The inclusive process of coming up with the post-2015 framework has in itself increased the demand for accountability. On 1 January 2016, every government will know what the SDGs are, and more NGOs will as well – much more so than with the MDGs. Therefore, many more people will be interested in tracking progress, and we’ll get a full 15-year framework. In contrast, the first 5 years of the MDGs were effectively lost as it took that amount of time to raise awareness.

The accountability dialogue has highlighted the issues of participation and building on existing mechanisms at the local level. There’s no need to re-invent the wheel where countries already have good mechanisms. It has also highlighted the issue of accountability for both the public and private sectors.

What about the data needed to support the accountability process? Should data also take on the bottom-up, citizen-driven approach?

The “data revolution” is partly about strengthening existing national statistical capacity – particularly for things like censuses and household surveys. But such data can be quite expensive and difficult to collect, and you need capacity to ensure that it happens. You also need capacity to analyse the data collected. While we work to strengthen those capacities, are there proxies we can use to bridge the data points? Can we tell from people’s exhibited behaviours whether things are getting better? Can we ask them for their perceptions on whether things are getting better? This doesn’t in itself definitively determine whether progress is happening or not, but it can hint whether we’re going in the right direction.

There is a lot of light being shined on data needs right now, but to maintain that political momentum and commitment you will need advocates for data – a strong global partnership on data. It’s also important to remember that better data and information are a prerequisite for accountability, but they are no guarantee. People need an interface with power holders so as to use that information and encourage policy change that is in their favour.

Member States have said universality must be a feature of the post-2015 development agenda. What will this mean for accountability?

Universality is about an agenda that covers all countries and all people. Successful implementation will revolve primarily around how national governments deliver for their people – in terms of investments and policy change. But the development of the new agenda has reinforced the idea that we are all in the same boat – we share the same planet. If we don’t sort out our shared problems, then we will all suffer. To that end, a part of the accountability framework will be about the support that governments give to each other. How they collectively put in place a global environment that supports the achievement of the SDGs – or at the very least doesn’t undermine them! Richer countries (and those that are becoming richer) have more of a role to play – in terms of finance and technology transfer, but also conducive policy environments on trade, migration and the climate. But within this new universal agenda, we have the opportunity to move to a cooperation framework where knowledge and resources flow in all directions – south to north, north to south, east to west and west to east. There should be no monopoly on ideas and knowledge about how to make the world a better place.

IISD Reporting Services interviewed Paul Ladd on 19 September 2014.