By Hillary Rosentreter and Stefan Jungcurt

In 2025, the German government convened a peer learning process for countries preparing Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) for presentation at the 2025 UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF). With several meetings held under the Chatham House rule, the initiative created a trusted space for exchange among six participating countries to discuss how to make VNRs more honest, inclusive, and useful for implementation. The main objective of the process was to support mutual learning, more honest reporting, and stronger links between review and implementation.

The German government and its partners published a detailed analysis of the evolution of VNR reporting in the participating countries (Finland, Germany, Guatemala, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Thailand), including thematic deep dives on key lessons learned. To complement these findings from an individual perspective, we interviewed participants from five of the six countries to understand what they found most valuable, where they saw limits, and what their experiences suggest for the next phase of VNR practice as countries prepare for the final stretch to 2030.

The interviews point to three main messages:

• Peer learning works best when it helps countries turn VNRs into implementation tools rather than reporting exercises;
• Trusted exchange and stakeholder participation can make more holistic, honest, and inclusive reporting politically possible; and
• The next frontier is to connect VNRs more systematically to data systems, national planning, and follow-up after the HLPF.

Peer learning helped countries use the VNR as an implementation instrument

An initial takeaway from the interviews is that peer learning mattered most when it inspired change in how governments organized the VNR process at home. Several participants described the exercise not as a stand-alone reporting task, but rather a way to improve institutional coordination, clarify responsibilities, and bring implementation actors into the review process. This matters because the responsibilities for SDG implementation usually sit with different ministries or agencies, such as foreign affairs, planning, and statistical offices. Peer learning has helped officials recognize that a holistic VNR depends on cross-government collaboration.

Several interviewees pointed in this direction, though from different institutional starting points. One participant, who noted their Ministry of Foreign Affairs handles the VNR emphasized that the process underscored the need to involve the national planning and statistical institutions early, both to strengthen the evidence base and to ensure that VNR findings feed back into the national SDG roadmap. A country presenting its third report highlighted how repeated VNR cycles made cross-review comparison more valuable and pointed to efforts to strengthen the national statistical system so that future reviews are more evidence-based. Another interviewee reflected on the need to link the review process more directly to multilevel governance and implementation beyond the drafting phase.

The insight that SDG implementation requires cross-government collaboration is not new, however the interviews highlight that peer exchange can help countries pull the right institutions into the VNR process and make the review more domestically consequential.

Trusted peer exchange made more honest and inclusive reporting politically possible

Interviewees also highlighted the value of exchanging experiences in a safe, trusted space, noting that the decision to hold initial peer-learning sessions under the Chatham House rule created “permission for candor.” Participants repeatedly stressed that this setting allowed them to speak openly about weak data, difficult politics, coordination problems, and the challenge of reporting on setbacks as well as progress. The honest exchange helped avoid the tendency of early VNRs to emphasize successes while underplaying obstacles, trade-offs, or areas where progress is falling short.

Some participants described the peer-learning process as reassuring because it “normalized struggle.” An interviewee who noted their country faces a cultural barrier around highlighting government deficiencies and areas for improvement explained that seeing other governments report honestly on what was not working made it easier to convince their colleagues to do the same at home. Two other countries stressed that peer exchange in a safe space is especially important when sustainable development is politically contested.

Feedback from stakeholders also allowed governments to gain insights from those with lived experience on what issues are most urgent or gaining momentum. This enabled conversations over diverse and differing needs of the population and enhanced ownership of SDG implementation. Participants agreed that ultimately, the VNR became a process for governments to identify emerging challenges, set ambitious goals, and define courses of action in response to the articulated needs and aspirations of civil society and other key stakeholders.

Peer learning supported education on best practices for involving stakeholders but also provided a safe space for countries to share their experiences and insights. Governments that brought in youth, persons with disabilities, civil society, subnational actors, or other stakeholders found that external inputs helped surface uncomfortable issues while also strengthening legitimacy and ownership. Interviewees emphasized how peer learning helped shift stakeholder consultations from a mere participation exercise towards a practical way to introduce critical perspectives that governments could not always articulate on their own. Others pointed to participation as a means to identify emerging challenges, bring in lived experience, and reframe the VNR as a forward-looking national conversation rather than a retrospective stocktaking exercise.

For some governments, reporting on failures or insufficient action can be a challenge due to cultural norms or political reasons. These countries valued the opportunity to see how others more readily report on their challenges or deficiencies. By reframing the VNR process as an exercise of honest reporting rather than a competition, some governments were able to demonstrate a critical analysis of their realities. This is an important and often underrated step in the reporting and implementation process.

Improving VNR impact through peer learning

Several interviewees argued that a VNR should be more than a report to the UN. Rather, it should help identify emerging risks, set priorities, support course correction, and strengthen accountability between review cycles. One participant outlined their country’s effort to make its third VNR more forward-looking by incorporating stakeholder concerns about emerging issues such as digitalization, ageing, and environmental degradation. Another country emphasized the VNR’s potential as a prospective and transformative tool. One interviewee reflected on the need to strengthen the transformational character of the VNR process before and after the HLPF presentation.

At the same time, participants were clear about what needs improvement. Inadequate data was one of the most consistent gaps mentioned in the interviews. Several countries wanted more practical discussion on how to work with statistics, how to report on data limitations, and how to involve national statistical offices more directly in peer exchange. Others wanted clearer examples of how VNR findings can be connected to national planning, budget allocation, and monitoring systems. Some also asked for peer learning formats that begin earlier, provide clearer focus from the outset, and better balance the advantages of in-person trust building with the time and resource efficiency of virtual follow-up.

Several of the points raised by the interviewees were also reflected in the first and second Global Workshops for 2026 VNRs, suggesting the emergence of a “next generation” in VNR practice that expects repeat presenters to deepen analysis, compare progress across successive reviews, strengthen the evidence base, and show how review findings influence implementation.

These discussions can be expected to continue during HLPF 2026 in national VNR presentations as well as in the VNR Labs held under the theme, ‘From Plans to Practice: VNRs as National Roadmaps to 2030 and Beyond.’ The interviews from Germany’s peer-learning process help explain what this shift requires in practice: trusted exchange, stronger institutional anchoring, better treatment of data and data gaps, and clearer mechanisms for follow-up after the HLPF.