Post-2015 development agenda intergovernmental negotiations, 22-25 June No 10: follow up and review

The discussion on the follow-up and review in the IGN took place on 24 and 25 June, being introduced by Ambassador David Donoghue, Co-facilitator.  Insofar as a numerous statements were made, setting out the positions of groups and Member States that can be of importance during the negotiations in the July sessions, they are included in some detail below. They may be helpful for advocates that are working on the various aspects of the follow-up and review in seeking knowledge of the arguments put forward on the various issues discussed.

South Africa, speaking on behalf of the G77 and China, said this area in the zero-draft requires some work to reflect a balance of views expressed at the last session (See: Where we are with the inter-governmental negotiations at the beginning of May 2015) that the “proposal is intrusive as it seeks to prescribe how governments should conduct follow-up and review without giving due regard to the different realities, circumstances and constitutional frameworks in different countries.” National governments should assess their own implementation on a voluntary basis recognizing their respective national realities and the arrangements should be flexible enough for this to happen. There should be system-wide coherence and coordination and adequate linkages to the follow-up and review of UN Conferences related to sustainable development. Emphasis should be on follow-up on the means of implementation at global level with a focus on ODA commitments, technology transfer, and capacity building, so as to create space for our development partners to account on the delivery of the means of implementation while also allowing all states to undertake an assessment of progress in the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda. Resolution 67/214 and 67/290 are very clear on the basic modalities for the follow-up and review. Meanwhile the G77 will continue to study the table that seeks to indicate how the follow-up and review could work at various levels as reflected in the zero draft. 

European Union said that the proposed component on follow-up and review is “a positive basis to build on.” It lays the foundations for a multi-level (national, regional, global) framework with national ownership at the core with transparent and inclusive, robust and evidence-based guiding principles. There is a need to develop further details of the framework’s operation and there are a number of areas where further clarity on the general structure and its objectives would be important. They welcome the key objective of  “promoting accountability” to citizens and this concept should be strengthened. They also wish to refer specifically to the central role of monitoring as an essential element for assessing progress towards the goals and targets. They support the reference to building on existing systems, while further work is needed on the overall purpose of the framework in the Declaration and in the follow-up and review section. In addition to promoting effective implementation, it should also monitor progress, including against a set of global indicators, to assess the effectiveness of implementation and the continued relevance of the agenda, including reviewing goals and targets in light of new circumstances. The importance and benefits of follow-up and review should be better highlighted, as well as the importance of incentivising policy-oriented reporting from the various stakeholders. At the national level the link to the regional and global levels should be strengthened, through dedicated regular reports. The framework should include a clear political commitment to publish reports periodically, possibly every four years. 

At the regional level, they welcome the idea of peer review and addressing trans-boundary issues and shared targets and at the global level, the High-level Political Forum (HLPF) as the "apex" and the explicit links to the work of other relevant bodies, such as the GA and ECOSOC. The HLPF should draw on national and regional reviews and existing relevant reports from UN agencies and other relevant bodies, as well as civil society reports. There should be a reference to the outcome of the HLPF to include recommendations for further action at national, regional and global level. They also welcome the proposed integration of civil society and other stakeholders into the review process and all countries should commit to a multi-stakeholder monitoring, accountability and review processes. The contribution of the private sector should be assessed and foundations and philanthropic organisations (which operate internationally) should be encouraged to contribute and assess progress by theme and by region.  There should be a section on the importance of data, indicators and statistics and indicators should, where possible, be based on existing data indicators with disaggregation by income, gender, age, and other factors, including qualitative data. There should be one overarching follow-up and review framework integrating the monitoring and follow-up of the Addis outcome and considering implementation in its entirety. It should be clear that MoI go beyond Goal 17 and include the Addis outcome. 

Algeria, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that follow-up measures should be transparent and global to guarantee the success of the implementation of development objectives and reaffirm what was concluded at Rio + 20 regarding the High Level Meeting, both as a means to asses progress in implementation and as recently adopted by the General Assembly. They reiterated importance of full respect for national sovereignty, and the moral and religious values of states, while reaffirming that there is a need to claim governance and respect for human right. The process should be voluntary and it should be left to states to take all necessary measures to establish this follow- up and review at the national level. There is no need to adopt this process on the national level in a detail form, since the follow-up process on the regional level must take into consideration measures already taken for this process. Consequently regional organizations and their members must decide to put into practice post-2015 development to amend the measures adopted at the regional level; to learn from lessons learned; and adopt all necessary measures at the regional organizations. It is the intention of the Group to continue their constructive participation to implement the SDGs.

Belize on behalf of Caricom, stressed the need to strike the right balance of guidance to the UN system and Member States, without being overly prescriptive.

Progress should be tracked in the SDG and other development outcomes such as the SAMOA Pathway, eg their means of implementation, emerging challenges and facilitating implementation.  There should be incentives for governments to adopt national review mechanisms. The draft could acknowledge the development of national indicators. Paragraph 3(e) qualifies the data to be used but not the indicators themselves. They should also provide guidance on the core principles for indicators eg universality, comprehensiveness and balance across the three dimensions of sustainable development. 

They commented on the use of “gender for disaggregated data”, suggesting replacing “gender” with “sex”, as agreed at the intergovernmental level. There should be support for strengthening capacity at all levels to collect data, including for SIDS that require focused support to implement the SDG agenda.  Multispeed reporting should be accommodated, as appropriate. Paragraphs 4 and 5 on national level may go further than necessary and could be reduced. They also wish to see a reference to country ownership. The paragraph on the regional level captures the diverse views, while allowing flexibility on the part of states. This balanced should be maintained, with language committing to support to regional entities. They agree on the resetting of the times for HLPF to coincide with the quadrennial comprehensive policy review (QCPR). Follow-up and review is an incentive and catalyst for development and with follow-up and review of the MOI and other sustainable development mechanisms are a ‘sine qua non’ for this process. They wish to the revisit the link with the Addis outcome document the FfD. 

Tonga, speaking on behalf of the Pacific SIDS, said that their principle concern is ensuring that the special case of SIDS should be accounted appropriately. These should be reflected in paragraphs 3 and 38 on follow-up and review.  New processes should not increase the burden of reporting on SIDS. One of the biggest challenges is on data. They reaffirm the SAMOA Pathway and they also stress the importance of these conversations as dedicated spaces to assess progress, achievements and challenges as solution oriented guidance to further implementation. Adequate time should be devoted to SIDS in reviews, supporting continuing implementation including post-2015 agenda and the SAMOA Pathway. They welcome peer review and it can strengthen this part of the text with reference to SIDS. It should ensure that the UN is fit for purpose to implement SDG agenda. 

Mexico stressed the fundamental principles identified by the OWG namely universality; legitimacy; ownership; integration of the three dimensions of development (policy coherence); equality and inclusion; gender equality; and transparency, accountability and participation of major groups.

The review and follow-up mechanisms must be based on previously agreed commitments in conventions and declarations on human rights, non-discrimination, gender equality and environment and there should be a coherent and renewed UN System. Mechanisms are needed at various levels:  national, as the basis for any follow-up exercise; regional, to facilitate exchanging experiences between countries with similar characteristics and common problems, as well as identifying cooperation opportunities -- eg the Latin American region will start a consultation process for the post-2015 agenda under ECLAC; and global, based on of universality, inclusion, integration and ownership. 

The HLPF should operate under the auspices of ECOSOC and the General Assembly, for the review and follow-up. There should also be a space for dialogue and political guidance at ministerial level. The Addis outcomes may contribute to the deliberations of the HLPF, as well as the results of follow-up processes of other major conferences within the ECOSOC system, and its subsidiary organs, including the commissions. National and regional perspectives may also have a space in HLPF’s deliberations, with and the ECOSOC system promoting consistency of all processes and deliberations of the HLPF. These should be based on scientific evidence and the monitoring of the global indicators currently being elaborated by the IAEG on SDGs. The Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR) should provide the basis for discussion. This will require updated disaggregated data. Civil society should participate in the integrated follow up and the role of other actors such as the private sector, central banks, international organizations and financial institutions should be assessed.

Vietnam said that at the national level the mechanism in the zero draft is too prescriptive and could overburden their government. They have a national review mechanism for their sustainable development strategy, and they need flexibility to build on what they already have with their priorities. They should make the most of existing mechanisms stressing the oversight of functions by national parliaments. The approach is imbalanced as it only looks at outputs, not inputs. Monitoring inputs, or MOi, is more important. Finding development and programme priorities will focus around national indicators. The exercise on process for follow-up and review at the global level is necessary also necessary and underscore the importance of quality global indicators that should truthfully reflect the essence of SDG. In the case of Vietnam, without statistical methods, evaluation will be hard. The global indicator framework should also be given adequate attention.

Germany congratulated the Co-facilitators on outlining the basic tenets of the follow-up and review architecture, leaving enough flexibility for Member States and regions to flesh out the details. They welcome the three-tiered approach taken with the HLPF as the apex of a global network of review processes. The review exercise will not only inform on progress in implementing the agenda at national, regional and global levels, but will also enable states to showcase best practices, lessons learnt and challenges in implementation, as well as to clearly define their needs. They would like to see language on the benefits of mutual learning through review included in the principles as well as paragraphs on all three levels of review. 

At the national level, building on existing reporting and planning instruments makes perfect sense. The reviews of progress should be inclusive and involve civil society, academia, the private sector and parliaments, among others. They would like a link between the national and global levels of review with the outcome of the national-level reviews submitted to the HLPF. Civil society and the UN system should be able to submit reports on national and regional implementation. At the regional level, they welcome the flexibility given to regions to choose the regional forum most suitable for mutual learning. And at the global level, they welcome the approach to include thematic reviews of progress at the HLPF in line with the cycle and work of the HLPF. The GSDR should also have a thematic focus. The annual SDG Progress Report will help countries to assess where they stand globally on all goals. While participation of States in the review at global level should be voluntary, all states should participate at global level at least twice until 2030. The involvement of Major Groups and civil society, the private sector, the scientific community and the UN system at all levels of the review architecture will be crucial to truly know whether they are on track towards achieving the goals. Details of the review processes, particularly at regional and global levels, can be agreed after the Summit. They support the request to the Secretary General to prepare guidelines for national reports and review processes and to provide recommendations on organizational arrangements for state-led reviews at the HLPF under ECOSOC. 

Switzerland urged the use of even stronger language so that the document contains a clear call to all countries to carry out the various actions for follow-up and review. Reviews at all levels should be inclusive, transparent and participatory, with the participation of major groups and other stakeholders, to ensure broad engagement by the civil society and the private sector. 

The HLPF must be the global focal point for follow-up and review and its annual meetings under ECOSOC should conduct thematic and country reviews, based on national progress reports. Thematic or sectoral reviews taking place in other fora should also feed into the GSDR as the basis of discussions in the HLPF. In the first 4-year review cycle, governments could communicate how they will translate the SDGs at the national level, including multi-stakeholder collaboration. In the subsequent 4 year-review-cycles governments could share progress on implementation. They support the holding of the next meeting of the HLPF under the auspices of the GA in 2019 and in alignment with the QCPR cycle to allow the 2019 meeting to launch the review. In 2016 the HLPF should discuss the format for national progress reports. Countries that are ready to do so should be invited to share their national implementation strategies, as well as the SDG baseline data report, to be prepared by the UN Statistical Commission. It should be tasked with maintaining a database to monitor progress regularly. There should also be a UN system-wide strategy to guide coherent and effective implementation across the UN system. 

Slovakia, on the targets, supporting the revisions in annex 1, including the technical proofing with proposed revision, which cannot be seen as reopening of the set of goals and targets. They welcome the important principles of rule of law, peaceful societies and human rights, which should be further strengthened. 

One of the most crucial factors for effective implementation of the Post- 2015 agenda is a monitoring and review process at national, regional and global level. Monitoring, accountability and review form an overarching element of the agenda, which should be guided by the principle of accountability and ownership. The monitoring and accountability framework should be based on effective and meaningful participation and transparency. The monitoring process should be inclusive with involvement of relevant stakeholders, including the private sector, and supported by an effective UN system, and by other relevant institutions. The UN regional commissions can play an important role in facilitating review mechanism.  At the global level, the HLPF should be the primary review forum and the reviews should provide analytical reviewing of policy success and failure. HLPF should make use of the results of national and regional reviews and relevant reports of the UN. It is important to establish an overarching follow-up and review framework integrating the Addis outcome. 

Republic of Korea agree with the basic principles and central elements of the follow-up and review framework, as well as the relationship with the work of the UN system.  They welcomed references to the multi-tiered structure, multi- stakeholder participation, the importance of utilizing existing mechanisms including peer review at the regional level, the HLPF as the central platform, and the need for sufficient time for review. However, there should be references to “shared responsibility” of all countries and actors as well as “universality”. In addition, the vertical dimension of the follow-up and review framework should be more clearly emphasized, with linkages between national, regional, and global levels. There should be further clarification on the relationship between the follow-up and review of FfD and Post- 2015, following the outcome of Addis. 

National reports will be crucial as the basis for review and participation of non-state actors such as civil society, academia, the private sector, local governments, and the UN system in the preparation of report should be more clearly facilitated. They support the section on the regional level review, especially welcoming the reference to the need for peer reviews. While national and regional reviews are important, all countries should be given the opportunity for a global review to discuss the national implementation of the agenda at the global level. How ECOSOC will contribute to the successful implementation of the post-2015 development agenda will be a critical issue. 

France said that the framework for follow-up reflects the desire for implementation of the post-2015 agenda. They support the language, which reflects a satisfactory balance between national, regional, global levels and recognizes the value of the review. National regional mechanisms should be established and they called for guidelines for the national review by the Secretary-General. The collection and analysis of data language can be strengthened, but they are aware that there are countries without the capacity for data collection in this regard. A lot has been done on this area, which is necessary for continued efforts. They recognize the importance of the connection with Addis. They expressed the hope for a finalization the next evening. The results of Addis should be reflected in the SDG agenda, as necessary means to achieve the objectives. The ımportance of the HLPF on means and resources can be better reflected in final document. The UN System should take the necessary steps to adapt to the new stage of development.

Sweden said that they should be building on existing platforms that are evidence-based and transparent, as they are fundamental for the framework. Member States have a shared interest to see efficient implementation of the agenda, with accountability to citizens. They would make a strong case for reintroducing the concept of monitoring in the title of this section. If they cannot monitor with data and statistics, how can they know that no one is left behind? They support the three levels (national, regional and global) and stress the importance of strong inter-linkages. At the same time they cautioned against assigning this monumental task to HLPF, without having a serious conversation as to what the HLPF will be required to do to succeed in this. The forthcoming session of HLPF could offer some space for this. It is important to include a multi-stakeholder approach in the review process and it is important to involve civil society.  The contribution of UN development system to the agenda is also important and a reference in the declaration would be beneficial.  Columbia’s suggestion merits consideration and deserves attention.

Liechtenstein referred specifically to the following issues of importance, namely multi-stakeholder cooperation and building on existing processes and mechanisms. They support the inclusion of UN system in the review process

Argentina said they are concerned about global and regional support and the involvement of actors outside the UN system. They want language on the complementary nature of the various stakeholders involved as well as inclusion of peer reviews at the regional level. The thematic reviews could be burdensome and they were concerned about national reports, which  should be carried out by member states.

Brazil commented that the transformative potential of the agenda will depend on the follow-up and review and that the participation of civil society will be key in that regard. Coherence should be improved within the text to devise a roadmap for the next years. It is not enough to say that the national level processes will inform the reviews at regional and international levels. The follow-up and review at regional and global levels should also provide positive incentives for Member States and other stakeholders to further engage at the national level. During the next 2-3 years the HLPF should identify and exchange best practices on implementing the new agenda at different levels by various actors. There is merit in the five principles: interdependence of the SDGs, including their means of implementation; their long-term orientation; critical role of civil society and other stakeholders; and need to build upon existing platforms and to develop better disaggregated data. 

At the national level, there can be no one-size-fits-all formula and being over-prescriptive should be avoided. Governments should work on the transition from the MDGs to the SDGs, again involving civil society. National and subnational level ownership is imperative, or the periodic reports will become merely an exercise of bureaucratic data compilation. The reference to peer review seems limited and somewhat prescriptive. The regional level should promote policy dialogue, mobilize regional stakeholders and develop modalities for review. There should be a clear mandate to regional organizations, including Regional Commissions. The HLPF is the apex of the arrangement for follow-up and review, however the text overemphasizes specific modalities for review, while disregarding the need for a broader strategy for follow-up. The contribution of the functional commissions of ECOSOC and other thematic fora should be enhanced. The reference to the GSDR omits that the report was proposed in the Rio+20 Outcome document to strengthen the science-policy interface, not to inform the follow-up and review. The mandate of the IAEG seems to have been reinterpreted. It is not supposed to elaborate an Annual SDGs report.  

Italy said that the section on follow-up and review is essential for the new post-2015 framework. The MDGs, as well as other experiences, have demonstrated that at the present pace of change, situations at local, national, regional and global levels can evolve fast. Continuous monitoring and effective review mechanisms will allow for a constant fine tuning and progressive adaptation at all levels of policies to fully realize the agenda. The effective monitoring and review mechanisms have added value for the implementation process, which should include the integrated consideration of all MOIs. They support the principle of inclusive and open participation of all stakeholders including parliaments, civil society, academia and other stakeholders at local and national levels.

A multi-level (national, regional, global) follow-up and review framework will be of utmost importance for a comprehensive review and follow-up mechanism. The IGN is trying to define a sound and appropriate follow-up and review mechanism building on a body, the HLPF, that we hope will be soon capable of expressing its full potential. The activities of the General Assembly, the ECOSOC, the subsidiary Bodies and the various institutions that constitute the overall UN System for Development should be integrated and coordinated. A section on the importance of data, indicators and statistics in ensuring the effective follow-up review of the Agenda should be included.

Australia pointed to the following elements: that the IAEG and Statistical Commission should take forward their work on the development of global indicators as part of a technical process, which would enable high-level trend reporting; the follow-up and review chapter should lay out grounding principles and broad parameters but go no further at this stage; and, as raised by India in May, the system should be ‘lean, but not mean’.

They support minimising the burden on national administrations, and making use of existing systems and processes as well as the inclusion of a reference to SIDS, along with LDCs, as requiring statistical capacity-building, given their small administrations and dispersed populations. The concept of development effectiveness is not currently reflected in the principles.  The broad parameters for the follow-up and review system are too prescriptive. A fundamental assumption is that national reporting will directly feed into a global monitoring system under the UN. Voluntary national review processes will likely be tailored to national circumstances, co-opting existing planning and reporting processes. Therefore national reporting will not necessarily be comparable, which is why the work of the IAEG on a set of global indicators, is so important. Taking this into account, the extensive network of existing thematic review processes should primarily inform discussions at the HLPF. The prototype 2015 GSDR highlights no less than 36 existing international reports and assessments that largely already cover the spectrum of issues under the SDGs. Improving access to the findings of these existing thematic assessments, and facilitating discussion of them amongst policy makers, should be a key part of the HLPF’s role. 

They should recognise the role of the global indicators in the follow-up and review system and safeguard the technical integrity of their development and resist any attempt to subject the indicators to a negotiated political process. 

Japan referred specifically to the FfD, saying that it covers more than the MOI. They do not support the guidelines to be prepared by the Secretary-General, as more flexibility is needed. There will be many inputs from the process and efforts should be made to avoid duplication with the post-2015 follow up and review. The GSDR should be built from national reports and the annual SDG report would be similar to the current MDG report and that it should be consolidated into the GSDR again to avoid duplication.

Norway welcomed the reaffirmation that the HLPF will be the global apex of the review framework and that the reviews will build on existing platforms and processes, evolve over time and minimize the reporting burden. They also support the idea of resetting the cycle of the HLPF under the auspices of the General Assembly and to have the next meeting in 2019. The outcome document should make reference to the longer term positioning of the UN Development System in support of the post-2015 development agenda. It should not be too prescriptive regarding the follow-up and review framework, but concentrate on the basic principles and key elements of the framework. In this regard the illustrative charts may appear a bit too detailed, causing unnecessary discussions at this stage. The Post 2015 Summit should give the HLPF the mandate to elaborate this further in 2016. 

United Kingdom said that post-2015 implementation must be supported by a robust, inclusive and effective monitoring, accountability and review framework that drives action, brings actors together to share successes and challenges, is based on clear evidence, covers our agenda in its entirety, and maintains the transparency and inclusiveness that we have benefited from up to now. They especially welcome the references to the involvement of civil society and other stakeholders, to data, to building on existing platforms, and to effective join-up between the national, regional and global levels. 

There are seven priorities that should be strengthened: accountability to citizens and also mutual accountability among Member States; a clear and complete understanding of global progress in the setting of the HLPF; a single, coherent and integrated follow-up and review framework that covers the means of implementation and our Addis commitments; a strong evidence base. which is essential, with cooperation to build data capacity, use data better and make it more accessible, and disaggregate data to ensure we leave no one behind; the principle of leave no one behind needs to be hardwired across the agenda, including explicit reference to the commitment that targets should be only be considered met if met by all relevant economic and social groups; the framework must remain relevant, which will require, through the HLPF, the review and, if appropriate, upgrading of targets during the lifetime of the SDGs as the world will not stand still over the next 15 years; and participation of people, civil society and business, to achieve the objectives, with participatory monitoring as a key principle at all levels of accountability, which should be highlighted. 

The Summit outcome should encourage the Secretary-General to ensure that the UN system provides effective and efficient support for the implementation of the post-2015 agenda, and where necessary undertakes reforms to ensure that it is able to do so. 

On CBDR, the UK supports all those that have emphasised the importance of universality as a fundamental principle. The whole point of the paradigm shift of the SDGs that all are in it together, each country with its different circumstances striving to develop in a sustainable way. Yet CBDR is by its nature a divisive concept, as is proved by the so much time being spent arguing about those four letters. Perhaps CBDR is invested with a meaning that it need not have. But the arguments do not move the process forward. Different words are needed with which to express shared resolve and different realities, as has proved possible in other multilateral forums. It has been argued that it has already been accepted that CBDR applies to the post-2015 development agenda, but the UK does not accept that the principle of CBDR applies to the post-2015 development agenda. It was carefully negotiated in 1992 with specific reference to global environmental degradation and at no point did it apply to sustainable development more broadly or to poverty eradication. At no point did the UK accept CBDR outside of the context of Rio principle 7. In addition they do not see how CBDR has practical application to this agenda. On the one hand, the goals and targets are relevant and applicable to all countries. On the other, action to deliver the goals will differ in different countries depending on our capacity, capability and level of sustainable development. For example, the UK will implement the SDGs at home and, internationally, they will contribute to the global partnership, including through its commitment to deliver 0.7% of GNI on ODA, which has been enshrined in UK law. The principle of CBDR adds nothing to this understanding and it obscures rather than illuminates both the concept of universality and our commitment to collective action. 

Guatemala said that the follow-up and review at the national level must be government-led and on a voluntary basis. The prescriptive nature should be reduced. They also called for the strengthening national statistics offices and also of the regional economic commissions to play an important role in the regional follow up.

Peru said that follow-up and review of a universal agenda should build from the national basis to address the HLPF and that there should be comparability at the regional level. Data should be processed taking into account national capacities. The review mechanisms should be flexible and adaptable and based on dialogue. National situations should also be taken into account. Inputs from civil society and other non-state actors should be integrated within the national reports, but modalities of these stakeholders have also to be adaptable. The process should involve all bodies and agencies of the UN system. Adequate data systems are essential and national capacity of developing countries must be strengthened. There should also be a trans-border focus in the work of the HLPF. Legitimacy of the new agenda depends on national involvement and the annual report should be referred to the Statistical Commission, which is the relevant competent body, not to the UN Secretariat. 

South Africa focused on the additional issue of reporting as a driver to achieve the development that is being sought. Reporting should be under the regional level and global level. At the regional level and global levelit should also included reporting from development-oriented regional organizations eg African Union on Agenda 63 and European Union,  as well as development-oriented multilateral organizations such as UNDP and the World Bank. This would assist in identifying areas for adjustment and enhancement. Preparing reports focuses the mind for making sure that something is being done and the reporting will become an additional driver for development.

Turkey emphasized the role of data, information gaps and capacity building for an effective follow-up and review process. They support the principles as indicated in paragraph 3, although the language in this paragraph could be more ambitious in describing a more functional process. At national level, a government-led, data driven, voluntary follow-up and review process that is built on existing reporting and planning instruments is vital for achieving the SDGs. They support the current design of national level follow-up and review mechanism in the Zero Draft. At regional level, with regard to discussing progress in establishing regional reviews of the Agenda in HLPF meeting, the year 2016 might be too early for discussing any progress and this meeting might discuss the options for regional level mechanisms that are provided by the UN. At global level, concerning on thematic reviews, they would like to change the sentence. The scope and methodology of the GSDR should be agreed as soon as possible. Taking into account that the first meeting of the HLPF will take place in 2016, they asked for clarification as to who will decide on the scope and methodology and will there be sufficient time for so doing before the meeting in 2016? 

Senegal said that, regardless of the wording adopted, the follow-up mechanisms must be rigorous as well as flexible, inclusive and universal taking into account national priorities. The global review should be strengthened and backed and is mission clearly defined, while showing the three essential pillars of sustainable development. In its approach the HLFP could be inspired by the ECOSOC Annual Ministerial Review conclusions. At the national level the national statistical and policy offices have the necessary information and data for proper decision-making.  The document in general should show the close links with other development policy documents. 

Philippines reiterated that the process be inclusive, transparent coherent, voluntary and reflective of national capacities and development. As a developing country they noted that the lack of reliable, timely and disaggregated data for national reports, which will require capacity-building and also the provision of resources for the preparation of the national level reports, which are not the only ones that have to be done. Certain section of the chapter on follow-up and review are also too prescriptive. The use of trans-boundary in this section, relates to environmental issues. 

Colombia said that the structure for the chapter on follow-up and review is balanced but all goals, including MOI should be addressed equally, and have the same review process. On the follow-up and review at the regional level, countries should decide with which regional forums to engage. Further discussion is required on the role of the Secretary-General ECOSOC and that support should be made available to ensure the provision of reliable sources of data.

Palau said that mobilization of resources would be strengthened if they were significant, equitable and scaled up by all Member States, with capacity building at all levels. On ODA, there should be commitment to its fulfillment in a timely and urgent manner with a reference to including support for domestic resource mobilization to ensure that financing is sustainable in the long term. The call for high quality disaggregated data towards increased transparency and accountability could be strengthened. 

On follow-up and review, the process should also be people-centred, addressing progress in implementing the universality of goals and targets in all countries. Accountability should be strengthened between states and citizens, supported by environment that enables active and meaningful participation of all stakeholders including children, young people as well and the disadvantaged and marginalized groups. The existing platforms and processes should include international human rights mechanisms and the focus should also be on those that are furthest behind. They are concerned about the apparent absence of sense of urgency and in this connection, 'encourage all member states’ should be replaced by ‘we commit’. There is an apparent absence of sense of urgency and in this connection, 'encourage all member states’ should be replaced by “we commit”, and “by the UNGA in September 2016”. 

United States of America said that only through reaching the right balance for monitoring progress at the global, regional and national levels, they will know whether their efforts are adding up for their citizens and the planet. Follow-up and review enables tracking what works and to adjust and accelerate and redouble efforts when they fall short. The inclusion of multiple external stakeholders is critical, and data must be able to be leveraged data multiple sources. 

The framework should be flexible rather than overly prescriptive, focusing on outcomes, accommodating to different governing structures and challenges, and collaborative with the many subnational public and private actors. The ultimate objective of follow-up and review is to support decision-makers, inform policy choices and mobilize partnerships for implementation. It should build on and improve experience with the MDGs regarding follow-up and review. Language on the stronger national capacities for program evaluation should be strengthened. The HLPF is the “apex” of a global network of review processes, which needs to work coherently with existing entities and this system will rely on the ability of the many individual pieces to interact in a coordinated way. Effectiveness and coordination should be strengthened among the existing technical and specialized follow-up actions to be conducted by Member States and regional bodies, as well as by the subsidiary bodies, functional commissions, and segments of ECOSOC, to better support the HLPF. The GSDR is important for the HLPF and must have the required technical rigour as well as the analytic quality. DESA has already published a GSDR for 2015 and Member States should fully discuss the substance, process, and leadership of developing the GSDR. 

They support the on-going work of the Statistical Commission and the IAEG to develop an indicator framework and a list of global indicators. The IAEG should continue to be undertaken in an open and inclusive manner that is driven by technical expertise, and that benefits from the involvement and contributions of a variety of relevant stakeholders. The SDG Progress Report is a continuation of the reporting for the MDGs, to be completed by the Statistical Commission rather than the IAEG. 

On CBDR, the US believes strongly that the new global partnership, like the new agenda, must reflect the economic and global realities of today and how they are likely to evolve over the next 15 years. CBDR relies upon a historical conceit steeped in the North/South divide, which no longer accurately reflects the global reality and does not apply to a development agenda that is universally applied. 

Spain referred to multi-stakeholder and national reports saying that national governments must take ownership of the process, with help from partners in their own national circumstances. The role of stakeholders should be clarified, as Member States have the responsibility and ownership. Follow up at the various levels should be a harmonised and coordinated and it is essential to look at the three levels. They would like more information on the role of the HLPF and want to see greater participation from civil society. They advocate for disaggregated data to ensure that progress is made by all sectors and a human rights approach could be incorporated. 

Russian Federation pointed out that they do not object to a three-level system for follow-up and review but are not ready to support mechanisms on all levels because of the need to ensure accountability to citizens. The review can only be carried out at the national level, given this accountability. At the regional and global level it can solely be, for example for lessons learned and exchange of best practices. The follow-up and review should be supplemented by the need to take into account moral and culture conditions of countries. They support the involvement of citizens and other stakeholders, which requires that the atmosphere for this must be based on the national level requirements in working with civil society. They later added that they reaffirmed their support for the voluntary nature of the follow-up and review but questioned the periodic reporting saying that countries must have free rein as to the reviews. There should be synergies between HLPF and the QCPR.

Niger supported the call for the necessity to strengthening of national statistical offices for the evaluation of results, including capacity strengthening. 

Timor Leste emphasized that national level reviews is the primary instrument for tracking progress. The process should be bottom up led by Member States with a common core, which is not overly burdensome for small and fragile states. Common indicators do not provide the best information on situations in fragile states, driven by national planning mechanisms. Should cooperate in a situation of universality but there is a need for a fair system of differentiation.

Ecuador referred to the Rio+20 follow up, as well as to ECOSOC. They wish to see universality, with the involvement and full support of both developed and developing countries in the follow-up and review. The delicate balance of the report of the OWG should be maintained and therefore the follow-up and review should cover all targets, including the targets on MOI  It should be transparent and voluntary and be transformed to ensure accountability.

Egypt said that the need is for a robust, efficient, transparent, voluntary follow- up and review process for which the HLPF shall provide political leadership, guidance and recommendations and follow-up and review progress. They should, however, consider and decide on the authority deficit currently facing the HLPF and its ability to exercise its functions and address the HLPF’s working methods including its need to receive and issue reports, take decisions and have a separate secretariat. On the FfD, there are elements of convergence between both processes and they support the current proposal in FfD revised draft on the establishment of a dedicated follow-up and review of the FFD outcomes and the MOI of the post 2015 development agenda, and the conclusions and recommendations to feed into the HLPF thematic debates. The structure in the zero draft should concentrate at the global level, then the regional and national levels. 

The terms used should focus on follow-up and review and not accountability, respect for national policy space should be emphasized the global reviews should be based on national data. Input and participation of stakeholders, should be in line with national laws and regulation, and language prescribing entities responsible for follow-up and review at the national level should be deleted, as it may conflict with national legislations. At the regional level they do not support “peer reviews” preferring “peer learning”, but regional organizations should work to enhance, upscale or develop regional review mechanisms. At the global level, they support the thematic reviews at the HLPF and the Secretary General should provide a proposal for follow-up and review to be considered by the member states. 

Zambia, speaking on behalf of the land-locked developing countries (LLDCs), said that three levels for follow-up and review post-2015 is commendable and welcome. There should be a reference to the sub-regional level. At the national level there should be support for national statistical offices support, including in LLDCs. The follow-up and review is key to the post-2015 agenda and also to the Vienna Prpogramme of Action. They support the HLPF as the apex, as well as to suggest a link up for countries in difficult situations, such as the  LLDCs. The Vienna Programme of Action highlights the importance of MOI that are critical to the goals of LLDCs. The group stresses the need for multilateral and special funds for LLDCs. The constraint of being landlocked requires extra support and donors are requested to help with their needs vis-à-vis trade investment, including transport and ICT,. Their needs should be reflected in the MOI and they should be included in the Technical Facilitation Mechanism.

Maldives, on behalf of OASIS, stressed the need for a strong, robust follow-up and review process. The document is overly prescriptive and the purpose of the review must be to see ways that the international community can advance sustainable development. Data and information from existing reporting systems should be used. There should be adequate linkages to conferences on sustainable development. And duplication in reporting should be avoided. They called for alternative developments beyond GDP per capita. 

Canada stressed the importance of consistency with FfD and to avoid overlapping with other UN discussions. They support the five principles outlined in zero draft and suggest adding a point on principles of the voluntary nature of the process as well as transparency. Existing platforms should be utilized rather than building on them for efficiency. They support the three s but there is a need to clarify the linkages between them. National capacity should be strengthened, where needed. They expect the HLPF session to assist and to take concrete matters in 2016. They also support the reference to ECOSOC dialogues. The SDG progress report and role of UN agencies should be reflected in final outcome. 

Ghana noted that the follow-up and review should be robust country-led and data-driven that engages all stakeholders. LDCs, LLDCs and others need support for their data collection. Civil registrations systems are being developed and are critical for the monitoring for the post-2015. They will integrate the SDGs into their system. Countries could decide themselves on multi-lateral reviews. The quadrennial reporting is appropriate. After the first 4 years, it is important that countries present reports. Thematic review should be done against the three pillars and the Secretary-General should provide guidelines

Israel said on the goals and targets that there should not be ‘Xs’ in the document. On the follow-up and review, they welcome the reference to accountability. They agree on the importance of adding a reference to development effectiveness. The document should not be overly prescriptive and they generally support the illustrative diagram, although it would be better to have it later in the 2016 HLPF.

Indonesia said that the cluster on follow-up and review does not adequately reflect the takeaways from the previous discussions and that they are overtly prescriptive. The outcomes of the national level review process will inform the regional and global processes, but policies and measures as well as specific circumstances, conditions and challenges at national level need further reflection. The immediate priority at national level is to address the transition from MDGs to SDGs into the national and sub- national policy framework. Ensuring “national ownership” of the post-2015 development agenda is imperative. Regions have their own specific characteristics, conditions and challenges, therefore there should not be a one- size fit all approach at the regional level. Strengthening UN regional commissions, as well as identifying gaps/challenges at the regional and sub-regional levels are imperative. At the global level, they support the role of HLPF as the apex of a global network for follow-up and review process. There are several inconsistencies and reinterpretation with regard to the purpose and existing mandates of certain processes, eg the GSDR and role and mandate of the IAEG

On CBDR the arguments, which claimed that the CBDR principle is no longer up-to-date because of geopolitical and economic change, are misleading. Completely discarding CBDR would do nothing to change the evident socio-economic disparities between developed and developing countries. Massive income inequalities and massive gaps in the consumption and production still exist, and have even worsened to some extent in recent years. Universality does not constitute uniformity. CBDR is the internationally agreed principle reiterated in numerous international outcomes agreed upon by all member states at the highest political levels. The principle of CBDR continue to apply and have a central importance as the basis of the future development agenda. 

India said that review of progress in implementation and follow-up actions to address the shortcomings will be an important determinant of their collective success. A less detailed and prescriptive framework on review and follow-up is needed, elaborating broad principles and structures and leaving the details to be developed subsequently. They do not like the words like ‘accountability’ in the document and suggest that they be deleted. National governments are responsible for their own development and are accountable to their own people. They can support the five principles, which do not, however, adequately address the ‘why’ of review and follow-up. One of the main purposes of this exercise is to enable sharing of knowledge, best practices and lessons learned. As a principle the review and follow-up should be underpinned by a recognition of different national realities, circumstances, developmental levels and priorities and therefore avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. It is also important to recognize is that this is a global and aspirational agenda and that governments will have the policy flexibility to set their own national targets. The review process will be open and inclusive supported by the participation of all people and stakeholders. 

At the national level it should be emphasized that the national level reviews of progress will be ‘government led’ and complemented by contributions by all other stakeholders, as already states. There is a genuine risk of ignoring the diversity in regional models in the kind of mechanism that has been proposed. They do not support the idea of a ‘regional review’ as it will inevitably add yet another reporting layer for national governments. Instead they suggest that instead of requesting HLPF to establish ‘regional reviews’ of the agenda, that there be a regional dialogue for sharing best practices and enabling mutual learning. At the global level they the notion of thematic reviews to bring necessary focus to the specific goals and targets in a time-bound manner. They are hopeful of an ambitious framework for review and follow-up for means of implementation including the FfD outcomes to become a part of this document. The IAEG is expected only to prepare the set of indicators. 

Pakistan agreed that the process should not be too prescriptive but they did not agree with the reference to accountability. The assessment on the MOI should be taken into account and existing platforms and processes should be used. Civil society has an important role that is consistent with national policies. They appreciate the reference to the on-going dialogue with ECOSOC and there should be a proposal from the Secretary-General on a common reporting format.

Iran referred to the CBDR, saying that there is no real understanding on these issues. The principle is a call for action and a call for equity. He referred to challenges that need to be reflected in the text of the outcome document, eg land degradation and need for developed countries to assume their historic obligations. The SDG report is an internationally agreed framework and the chapeau should be reflected in the text of the outcome document. On follow-up and review and MOI, ODA should be a focus to allow all states to undertake an assessment of implementation.

Nepal stressed the importance of timely and systematic preparation to ensure stakeholders have a sense of ownership over the document from the outset in order that its implementation can begin at the national level without delay. Failure to connect the follow-up and review mechanism to the next phase should be avoided. Ideally, the sub-national and national level debates on progress should precede the global exercise of follow-up and review and the outcomes of those debates would inform global deliberations to reach internationally agreed goals and targets. 

There is a very clear benefit to such a process. When globally agreed goals and targets or agenda) are taken to the national level, there will already be a sense of ownership over the process and the goals and agenda among all stakeholders—among politicians, academia, media and development practitioners. This eases the integration of the global agenda into national mechanisms for implementation (such as special sectoral plans, or general periodic development plans, or annual budgets) through the government and parliamentary processes. The sub-national exercise helps sensitise the sub-national leaders, many of whom are elected to the national parliaments every few years.