Consultations for UNGA Resolution on 2030 Agenda Follow-up

Informal consultations to discuss elements for a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution were held by the co-facilitators on the global-level follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with UN Member States and Major Groups and other Stakeholders (MGoS) on 28 April. It is expected that the resolution will be finalized before the July 2016 session of the High-level Political Forum for sustainable development (HLPF).

These discussions was based on the “elements paper” prepared by the co-facilitators, Lois Young, Permanent Representative of Belize, and Ib Petersen, Permanent Representative of Denmark, which was circulated on 19 April 2016. (See: Elements for 2030 Agenda follow-up from co-facilitators)

The co-facilitators noted that in discussions so far, the idea of “pragmatism” has been stressed reflecting the need to strike a balance between flexibility and predictability, while ensuring a foundation for exchange of learning and experiences. They are also in regular consultation with the facilitators of other ongoing processes, including on the Ministerial Declaration for the 2016 HLPF, and on the alignment of the UNGA's agenda with the 2030 Agenda.

On issues related to themes for each year's HLPF session and the thematic review of the SDGs, Thailand for the G-77/China said that it is open to reviewing a focused set of Goals, as long as all are treated equally and reviewed in a cycle. Trinidad & Tobago for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Canada, Australia, Japan, Liechtenstein and Switzerland also expressed openness or preference to reviewing a “set” or “cluster” of Goals each year. As stated by Switzerland, integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development will be assured, as they are already integrated into each Goal, and they can be reviewed in any combination. CARICOM also said that the review must address implementation of the SAMOA Pathway on Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Mexico, on the other hand, opposed any “clustering” of the SDGs for review, preferring all 17 Goals to be reviewed each year.

G-77/China, Maldives for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and Pakistan said that SDG 17 (Means of implementation (MOI) and global partnership) should be reviewed each year, which was supported by Canada and Switzerland, as well as the Major Group on Children and Youth (MGCY) and the Stakeholders' Group on Aging. Belgium, speaking for the EU, Japan and Norway supported the annual review of SDG 17 should take place in the annual ECOSOC Forum on Financing for Development (FfD) follow-up (FfD Forum), the outcome of which will be submitted to the HLPF. While the US cautioned against “reaffirming individual paragraphs” from the SDGs, Pakistan responded that financing is not the entirety of MOI for the 2030 Agenda.

(An expert-level brainstorming meeting has been held on 3 May to discuss the themes of the next three sessions of the HLPF.)

On aligning ECOSOC and HLPF themes, G-77/China said the selected Goals for review should also form the basis for the HLPF theme. Liechtenstein and Switzerland both supported aligning the annual ECOSOC theme with that of the HLPF. However, the Russian Federation and Mexico said HLPF must follow ECOSOC's focus, not the other way around.

There were divergent opinions on voluntary national reviews with some, such as the EU, Canada, Switzerland and Norway, favored encouraging each country to report twice, or at least twice, during the 15-year period. The G-77/China, Pakistan and Mexico, however, preferred not to specify the frequency for each country's national reports, with the G-77/China and AOSIS noted that follow-up and review processes at all levels require enhanced capacity-building support for developing countries, including for national data systems.

On common reporting guidelines for the voluntary national review, according to Liechtenstein, the 2030 Agenda already covers this area pointing to existing mechanisms, such as the Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The G-77/China did not support the UNGA setting guidelines, since the review is voluntary. On the other hand, EU, Canada, Switzerland and Norway expressed preliminary support for voluntary guidelines, while looking forward to learning lessons from the 2016 voluntary national reviews (VNRs) as a “pilot exercise.” As stated by Australia, the 22 countries reporting this year “will be the ones who set the trends for the future.” In this regard, the countries preferred a non-prescriptive approach in the current resolution.

On the regional review, the G-77/China, Pakistan and others expressed concerns about a “common format” for all regions, preferring to allow each to define its own terms. On countries in special situations needing adequate discussion time during the follow-up and review process countries in conflict and post-conflict situations (G77, Colombia) were highlighted. Meanwhile the EU said that middle-income countries (MICs) should not be included in the list. Australia and Japan drew attention to SIDS, with Japan also referring to the least developed countries (LDCs).

On the inclusion and participation of Major Groups and Other Stakeholders (MGoS), the G-77/China said it is addressed adequately in 67/290, while Canada said the new resolution should reaffirm the active and meaningful participation of all Major Groups. (Resolution 67/290 on Format and organizational aspects of the high-level political forum on sustainable development, paras 15 and 16 (see endnote at bottom of page) set out the relationship of MGoS with the HLPF. 

The following comments were made by MGoS: Together 2030 added that the text should specify that MGoS will be allowed to attend all HLPF meetings, access all documents, intervene, submit documents and make recommendations in accordance with Resolution 67/290. The International Disability Alliance referred to the need for multi-stakeholder dialogues at all levels, before the review at the HLPF, and that online participation is not enough. The Global Business Alliance for 2030 called for a specific provision for civil society and private sector to report on their commitments and actions to implement the SDGs during the HLPF. In addition, the Stakeholders' Group on Aging recalled that the 2030 Agenda requires civil society and the private sector to report to the HLPF, proposing a standing agenda item in this regard.

On input to the HLPF, the EU and Australia referring to the sequencing of events that feed into the HLPF sessions each year, said the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) should take place before the FfD Forum, and that the FfD Forum should take place closer to the HLPF, to ensure the “correct flow of information.” On the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), AOSIS said that agreement has been reached on the frequency, scope, methodology and relationship to the SDG Progress Report. The SDG Progress Report will provide the “state of play,” while the GSDR should provide the “state of the art.” Mexico added that the GSDR must be issued yearly, which was supported by MGCY.

As to whether the HLPF will take place under ECOSOC auspices in the years when it is also scheduled to convene under the UNGA, which would mean two sessions of the HLPF taking place in 2019, the US, Australia and Norway expressed reluctance to hold two HLPF sessions in the same year, while Switzerland said both are needed, explaining the different functions of the two sessions: ECOSOC's focus is on monitoring and reviewing the 2030 Agenda, and ensuring a coherent approach across the system, while the UNGA's HLPF provides for a “moment of stocktaking” by Heads of State and government, setting high-level political guidance for the next four-year cycle.

On the role of the UN Secretariat, Australia warned against maintaining “an outdated DESA system.” Together with Norway, Mexico and others, it supported a review of DESA's structure and functions, including to “merge and integrate” its branches and to ensure a single Secretariat for the HLPF and all ECOSOC segments. Canada called for a review of the strengths and weaknesses, mandates, overlaps, best ways to support the Agenda and how to address deficiencies. The G-77/China said the Secretariat should enhance cooperation, with its role being system-wide strategic planning, implementation and reporting for coherence.

On outputs from the HLPF, several European, small island States and others stated that in addition to the Ministerial Declaration to be negotiated ahead of the Session, the HLPF should result in a summary of the actual discussions that take place. The EU, Norway and Switzerland preferred a summary from the HLPF President, while Pakistan favored a record of the meeting, so as not to detract from an action-oriented ministerial declaration. Save the Children said the output should include summarize information from non-State actors and the UN system.

On the way forward, Norway suggested reviewing the resolution following the first four-year HLPF cycle, with the EU saying that 67/290 and 68/1 should be reviewed together to ensure coherence. 

For further information see iisd, on which this report is based. See: http://sd.iisd.org/news/consultations-advance-for-unga-resolution-on-2030-agenda-follow-up/

Endnote:

15. Decides, in this regard, that, while retaining the intergovernmental character of the forum, the representatives of the major groups and other relevant stakeholders shall be allowed:

(a)    To attend all official meetings of the forum;

(b)    To have access to all official information and documents;

(c)     To intervene in official meetings;

(d)    To submit documents and present written and oral contributions;

(e)     To make recommendations;

(f)     To organize side events and round tables, in cooperation with Member States and the Secretariat;

16. Encourages the major groups identified in Agenda 21³ and other stakeholders, such as private philanthropic organizations, educational and academic entities, persons with disabilities, volunteer groups and other stakeholders active in areas related to sustainable development, to autonomously establish and maintain effective coordination mechanisms for participation in the high-level political forum and for actions derived from that participation at the global, regional and national levels, in a way that ensures effective, broad and balanced participation by region and by type of organization;