Post-2015 development agenda session on follow-up and review, 18 -22 May – No 11: Preliminary Impressions on Follow-up and review by the co-facilitators 19 May 2015

Ambassador David Donoghue gave the preliminary informal impressions of the Co-facilitators in summing up the discussions on follow–up and review of the previous sessions of the intergovernmental negotiating body.

• We wish to share some preliminary impressions, which we garnered from two days of rich debate. 
• Reassuring to see that we all share the conviction that implementation of the SDGs depends on – and is actually the main purpose of- a well-functioning and effective review framework. Discussion showed that you concur on many points. But we will clearly need some more discussion and reflection on some aspects. 
• The first thing we have to agree on is the terminology. Should we speak about a “Monitoring and accountability framework” or a “follow-up and review framework”? Different processes use different terminologies.
• There is a convergence of views on the critical principles that should guide this framework. It seems we captured them reasonably well in our discussion paper. But some key terms are: universality, voluntary, nationally owned, evidence- and data-based, multi-stakeholder and inclusive, transparent, ‘positive but not punitive’ or “lean but not mean”– leading to an exchange of experience and best practices, using existing mechanisms and not overburdening countries. 
• It is clear that the HLPF will be the main platform for review and follow- at the global level. You generally concur on the key actions you want the HLPF to perform. It should keep track of our progress towards the SDGs and identify shortcomings and gaps. It should make recommendations on what countries need to do to stay on track as well as on the global partnership for sustainable development and means of implementation. 
• It is also to discuss new and emerging issues. It will also have to address major challenges relating to the measurability of targets and indicators. 
• At the same time, many see the HLPF as “the crown of a network of accountability mechanisms.” You have asked for a mapping of such existing mechanisms. Ambassador Kamau and I have requested the Secretariat to prepare such a document which we should be able to share within 48 hours. 
• There is the idea that thematic reviews of progress could be conducted in various platforms throughout the UN system, feeding into the HLPF. ECOSOC and the GA also have a key role in this regard. 
• We will need your guidance on the sharing of tasks between the HLPF and ECOSOC. ECOSOC went through a major reform two years ago. The creation of the HLPF meeting under both GA and ECOSOC was part of this endeavour. We must of course build on these reforms which are not cast in stone. 
• There is some divergence on how to follow-up and review the commitments on Means of Implementation and those on Financing for Development – whether to have a single overarching framework covering both or separate mechanism. Addis would thus need to define ways to follow-up on the MOIs. But ultimately the follow- up work on MOIs would also feed into the work of the HLPF. 
• We also need to clarify other aspects specifically related to the HLPF. What should be the key outcomes of its work? You have already mandated it to adopt a negotiated ministerial declaration. Some of you said that it should also result in reports on global progress. 
• We still have to clarify further the differences between the HLPF when it meets every year under the auspices of ECOSOC and when it meets under the auspices of the GA every four years. It should not be overburdened especially not when it meets at Head of State level. 
• We also need to define what the HLPF will do next year, or more generally during the first cycle leading to its next meeting under the auspices of the GA. Some of you suggested that it focus in 2016 on how countries are adjusting their national frameworks to respond to the SDGs and what kind of strategies they are putting in place. Some suggested that HLPF in 2017 could review the SDGs that absorbed the agenda of the MDGs and give time for countries to integrate the other SDGs in their systems. 
• We also need to ask how the HLPF can deliver on the multitude of tasks we would like it to perform. There is a certain urgency for the HLPF to define its working methods and this year’s session is an opportunity that cannot be missed. Consideration could also be given to the HLPF meeting twice a year. 
• We would need to think whether there are tasks that the HLPF can delegate to other platforms. This would apply in particular to the thematic reviews, which can be done in other governing bodies of the UN system (and possibly culminate in a discussion at the HLPF). 
• We could also consider whether, given the volume of activities we want to transfer to the HLPF, we should also discontinue some activities on other tracks so as to free time and resources. It cannot be that the UN keeps continuously adding processes without letting others go. 
• There is also the idea that country reviews could actually be discussed at regional level. Some of you seem to want all country reviews to take place at regional level. Others feel this would not be possible in all regions. It would however be hard to conceive of a HLPF, which does not conduct country reviews. 
• The Global Sustainable Development Report will have a critical role to support the work of the HLPF. Some consider that it should support thematic reviews, building on the work of the UN system, other sources and scientific evidence. 
• We spoke about vertical and horizontal dimensions of the follow-up and review framework. The vertical dimension involves reviews at local, national, regional and global levels. You all seem to agree with this kind of architecture and also want to ensure coherence and linkages between those various levels, without being too prescriptive. 
• The horizontal dimension relates to the interplay between Governments and non- state actors, including civil society organizations and the private sector. There is broad agreement that reviews should be inclusive - and participatory – at all levels. Some mentioned the need to hold non state actors accountable, including with reporting from the private sector. The UN system would also need to report on how it supports Member States in implementing the post-2015 development agenda. Some of you spoke of the role of ECOSOC and other usual governing bodies in this regard. 
• We would welcome your further views on whether there should be two separate secretariats for ECOSOC and HLPF, or an integrated one. But we must also ask ourselves how far we want to address this in the summit outcome document. 
• Finally, we need to determine how much detail we wish to include in the outcome document of the summit, and how much we will leave for other forums to determine in the following months. 

Ambassador Kamau emphasized that this list has no status. Out of the list he referred specifically to the issue of terminology, saying that there were a number of accountability frameworks. It would be necessary to come to terms with this issue as to how to label the work moving forward. 

The various accountability mechanisms the HLPF will act as the ‘crown’ of accountability mechanisms, but there is concern as to how the process will work.  The Secretariat came up with a 168-page document in mapping what mechanisms exist. The issue is coherence of the various information and data. The question is as to whether it should touch on all the systems, or focus on some key important systems.

He asked how the HLPF will function, saying that delegates might wish to consider having two HLPFs, instead of one. He was not proposing more burdensome systems, without dropping existing ones. The 8-day HLPF, with three days for Ministerial discussions, leaves five days for rest of the work that it is meant to do. Business of everything that has been identified for the HLPF would be dysfunctional with only be a 20 minute / half an hour presentation on each issue. May be have a spring and fall session of the HLPF, as real expectations that are critically important. Might be able to off-load the thematic reviews to the Governing bodies of the UN system, eg health, food, hunger. Synopsis come back to the HLPF as opposed to a full-fledged thematic debate on some 20-30 different issues. Some do not have a natural home eg water, inequality might stay with the HLPF. 

As Ambassador Donoghue explained in the sixth session of the IGN, the Co-facilitators were seeking its guidance, including as to what should be left for later resolution until after the Summit in September.

European Union commented on terminology saying that monitoring, accountability and review are all essential: monitoring provides the data and information to make an assessment of progress; accountability is crucial and is not about finger-pointing, but about taking ownership and responsibility to ensure follow-up to commitments. At the national level review must be transparent. Disaggregated data must be incorporated and is essential in ensuring that no-one is left behind. Make best possible use of existing mechanisms and HLPF should not work in a vacuum.  They look forward to the mapping of existing mechanisms. The HLPF will have a challenging task, but fully delegating thematic reviews to other bodies is non-viable as it will fragment the process. This could all be discussed at the upcoming meeting of the HLPF. There should be one overarching monitoring, accountability and review framework, which would include Goal 17 and it would duplicative to have monitor it elsewhere.

South Africa, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, stated that HLPF is the appropriate platform for follow-up and review. The phrase monitoring and accountability have no place or mandate in debate of the post-2015. Follow-up and review should be universal in scope, country-owned, government-led and voluntary and aimed at reviewing the work of the UN system and stakeholders on the SDGs. It should encompass all the goals and targets, including SDG 17. It should not set to pre-judge the review and follow up of the FfD track. It supports the Technology Facility Mechanism for the implementation of the SDGs and that it be included in the follow up and review. 

Follow-up and review should focus on international efforts to promote sustainable and assess gaps and achievement of the post-2015…. Should also include contributions of relevant UN entities, including at the regional level. It will be up to regional organizations to decide if they need regional level reviews. 

Follow up and review should be conducted in a constructive spirit, to assist Governments in achieving sustainable development through MOI. It should strengthen the follow up and review of commitments and MOI required by developing countries. They noted that the issue of differentiation (CBDR), which should be balanced with universality, was left out in the paper circulated by Co-facilitators. Need for the participation of all relevant stakeholders is clear in the resolution. The envisioned follow up and review should ensure coherence at all levels, with robust data drawn from Member States.

The HLPF should be the forum for voluntary follow up and review. The final review outcomes should feed into the HLPF. FfD and post-2015 are two separate tracks and the FfD will need a separate review process.

At the end of the session, Ambassador Kamau gave an unofficial summary of some of the key points that came up in the discussions:

• It might be necessary to reset the time lines for the work of the HLPF, but that it should concentrate on principles and elements as various resolutions have set out its framework;
• There was no support for the idea of two separate Secretariats;
• There was no support for two sessions of the HLPF each year.
• The role of ECOSOC was strongly recognized;
• While there was support for leaving no one behind, the agenda would have to go beyond ‘people’ to include ‘planet’, ‘prosperity’ and ‘partnerships’;
• There was no support for involving the UN agencies in the work of the HLPF;

He noted that every fourth year, there would be two sessions, one of which was at the Head of State and Government level.

There would also be two reports annually:

• Global Sustainable Development Report –mandated by the Rio process and scientific in nature 
• Global Sustainable Development Trends Report – guidance for the HLPF for its work and including trends SDG by SDG

Below are summaries of key points made by individual countries:

Fiji spoke on accountability for SDG 14 on oceans and seas, as an “orphan” SDG, requiring special measures.

Armenia emphasized the importance of building synergies. HLPF to further define the accountability framework and the special needs of land-locked developing countries, as addressed in the Vienna Programme of Action. 

Mexico wishes to find broad agreement on follow up. There is convergence on some principles including universality and ownership. Agreement on HLPF should be complemented by a systemic process. None of the ECOSOC and its subsidiary commissions mandates runs counter to the work of the HLPF and therefore these processes could be used in the follow up and review. This will assist the HLFP becoming a ‘dynamic platform’. The HLPF should be multi-stakeholder. There should be an integrated secretariat for ECOSOC and HLPF.

Canada sees the mapping of existing mechanisms, which should include details about their strengths and weaknesses. The HLPF should allow flexibility, if necessary. The Summit in September should lay out the main principles of the process.

France said that the HLPF should be based on existing mechanisms and that a siloed or fragmented system must be avoided. They did not support more than one meeting of the HLPF each year and that the focus should be on the global report on sustainable development.

Switzerland reiterated the message to work coherently, including with the proposal of cross-regional groups of 17 countries in March. The quadrennial meeting (for next is scheduled for 2017) will not give enough time and that the HLPF cycle should be reset for it to take place in 2019. The existing thematic platforms should feed into the HLPF.

United Kingdom, speaking about leave no one behind, data disaggregation and participation stressed the importance of data in reviewing progress. Full participation of people, civil society and business is important. 

Australia also looks forward to the results of the mapping exercise and the HLPF should work on a cyclical basis with themes for each year identified in advance which could cover a number of goals. They supported the involvement of civil society.

Liechtenstein is in favour of one over-arching framework, avoiding duplication. The goal of the HLPF should be to get an over-view, recognizing that all levels are inter-related, while the outcome document should concentrate on the general principles of the framework.

Germany highlighted the importance of the preparatory work for the HLPF. One of two SDGs might constitute the thematic focus and the preparation should be on these involving all stakeholders.  The Global Sustainable Development report will be important and that the various stakeholders should contribute to it. It could also contain data on SDGs indicating progress, again from a broad range of stakeholders.

Japan is concerned about adding processes and should discontinue some activities. Need to transform what already have and deciding what to let go is most difficult. HLPF should be supported by the widest possible network of review mechanisms. ECOSOC is important in this regard. The HLPD should provide the political leadership, completing its tasks within the four year cycle. If a one year meeting is not enough, it will be necessary to review other related meetings and forums and re-allocate their time.

Iran referred to the four components of the post-2015 development agenda and the importance of a successful review and follow up, all of which are linked. Successful follow up and review, which is the right terminology as it has an expectation of progress, depends on the other components. 

Norway commented on the level of detail in the outcome as being that which ensures an effective follow up framework. On the horizontal dimension they referred to the inclusion of major groups and other stakeholders. Some guidance may be given to the HLPF for 2016 and 2017. Some elements of its work may be delegated, for example to ECOSOC, to ensure it isn’t over-burdened.

United States said that processes should be flexible. Insofar as the Addis will play an important role, but it will be necessary to wait for its outcome. The HLPF should involve a high-level discussion and a separate ECOSOC secretariat would be counter-productive. On indicators they support the work of the IAEG, which should be undertaken in an open and inclusive manner. It should be a technical process.

Turkey referred to sector wide changes and recognized that good governance and accountability is of key important. They pointed to the usefulness of the Global Sustainable Development Report.  Implementation of the SDGs is a bottom-up approach. The SDG agenda could start with education and health as they were covered under the MDGs.