HLPF adopts ministerial declaration and discusses 2030 Agenda follow-up and review

The discussions and outcome of the 2016 session of the UN’s sustainable development forum reflected the challenges involved as countries move to realize the global 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Bhumika Muchhala reports.

The High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), the central platform in the United Nations for the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), held its annual session on 11-20 July at the UN headquarters in New York.

The session, which adopted a ministerial declaration, included a three-day ministerial segment, preceded by five days of roundtables where panellists and member states spoke on the various economic, social and environmental themes of sustainable development.

The Forum was established to play a central role in overseeing a network of follow-up and review processes of the 2030 Agenda’s implementation, provide political leadership, guidance and recommendations on the SDGs, spur coherent policies informed by evidence, science and country experiences, as well as address new and emerging issues.

It will share experiences and best practices, and promote system-wide coherence and coordination of sustainable development policies taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting each country’s policy space.

This year’s Forum session was preceded by several weeks of informal discussions by member states in the Second Committee of the UN in New York. The Forum is supported by reviews of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies and forums.

The 22 countries that presented national reviews at this session were: China, Colombia, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Madagascar, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Norway, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Switzerland, Togo, Turkey, Uganda and Venezuela.  Their reports are accessible at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/hlpf.

Ministerial declaration

The ministerial declaration of 23 paragraphs encapsulates the themes “Ensuring that no one is left behind” and “Implementing the post-2015 development agenda: moving from commitments to results.” The first paragraph in the declaration reaffirms all the principles recognized in the sustainable development agenda and highlights poverty eradication as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.

The third paragraph takes note of revitalizing and enhancing the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, increasing system-wide coherence and integration across the UN agencies and commissions, addressing existing and emerging challenges, enhancing national capacities for evidence-based and data-driven decision-making, and facilitating participatory, cooperative and enabling environments at all levels.

A palpable absence in the declaration is the meaningful incorporation of accountability mechanisms in the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda. Paragraph 15 highlights the central role of national governments and the importance of participation and inclusion from parliaments, sub-national governments and other stakeholders, including the private sector, civil society, academia and philanthropic organizations. The single mention of accountability comes in this paragraph, which states that the participation of these stakeholders “supports accountability to our citizens and enhances the effectiveness of our action …”

The absence of accountability is a complex issue in the UN. It reflects the sense of caution among developing countries towards global accountability mechanisms after many adverse experiences on disproportionate and unfair accountability requirements imposed on them in the context of trade and climate change negotiations. The SDGs are universal and for the first time the accountability of developed countries with regard to their commitments (including legally binding means-of-implementation commitments in the climate change, biodiversity and desertification treaties) could have been pinned down. However, this situation is also a result of the lack of political will among all member states as a whole, particularly within the non-binding context of UN conferences and their outcomes.

As a result, the emphasis is entirely on “voluntary” national reviews, efforts and initiatives. Paragraph 17 commends the 22 countries above on the presentation of voluntary national reviews, welcomes voluntary reviews at the regional and global levels, and upholds the integration of the 2030 Agenda into their national development strategies and plans. Guidance and methodologies to address interlinkages among the SDGs, which may be proposed by UN agencies, are nuanced as voluntary. Other countries are encouraged to volunteer their national reviews in the coming years.

The meaningful addressing of SDG 17 on means of implementation (MoI) was also missing, as civil society networks and the Major Groups repeatedly pointed out during the HLPF proceedings. The ministerial declaration only mentions it in paragraph 13 in reference to the Addis Ababa Action Agenda outcome document of the third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) serving as a supporting tool for MoI.

The declaration includes due mention of the full range of themes and issues covered in the SDGs. These include: inclusive economic growth, environmental protection, social inclusion, gender equality, women’s and girls’ empowerment, inequality between and within countries, reforms towards an equitable global economic system, human rights including the right to development, enabling decent work and productive livelihoods for all, universal access to healthcare, social protection and quality education at all levels, peaceful, inclusive and just societies, effective rule of law and good governance, safe drinking water and sanitation, food security, sustainable agriculture and so on.

Factors which give rise to violence, insecurity and injustice, such as inequality, corruption, poor governance and illicit financial and arms flows, are highlighted.

Operationalization of the three components of the Technology Facilitation Mechanism, science, technology and innovation, is emphasized. The inaugural multistakeholder forum on the SDGs, which took place in June 2016, is also highlighted for the facilitation of the development, transfer and dissemination of relevant technologies for the SDGs.

The declaration also mentions the important role that regional and sub-regional forums can have in supporting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, including by promoting peer learning and cooperation, including South-South and triangular cooperation as appropriate, and helping to link the national and global levels of implementation.

The most vulnerable countries, such as African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing states (SIDS), countries in conflict and post-conflict situations and many middle-income countries, are highlighted as needing special attention. Support is reaffirmed for the Istanbul Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries 2011-2020, the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA Pathway) and the Vienna Programme of Action for Landlocked Developing Countries 2014-2024 and the African Union’s Agenda 2063.

Developing-country proposals show nature of compromise in HLPF discussions

The developing-country Group of 77 (G77) and China, represented by the Ambassador of Thailand, Virachai Plasai, delivered a statement reflecting developing countries’ key positions and issues.

The one issue that has historically stalled member state discussions is the G77’s call for “removing the obstacles to the full realization of the right of self-determination of peoples living under colonial and foreign occupation,” and for “further effective measures and actions to be taken, in conformity with international law.” The G77 stressed that this is a vital part of ensuring the central theme of the 2030 Agenda, that “no one will be left behind.” After weeks of deliberation where developed countries refused to consider this language, it was finally included in the concluding lines of paragraph 7 of the ministerial declaration with the support of the HLPF Co-Facilitators (the Ambassadors of Belize and Denmark).

The G77 also called for the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) to be reflected in the text of the ministerial declaration. However, this did not succeed, despite the argument that the universality of the 2030 Agenda applying to all countries can only function equitably if CBDR is integrated into the universality. In other words, universality does not work without differentiation. Another key argument is that if the original context of CBDR in the 1992 Rio Principles applies to environment- and ecology-related policy, it should be mainstreamed into the SDGs given that that the environmental dimension of sustainable development is indivisible from and interdependent on the economic and social dimensions.

While CBDR is excluded, policy space, another historically contentious principle for developed countries, is included. It must be noted, however, that the mere mention of the two words “policy space” is not quite enough. Developing countries in the G77 proposed language to “eliminate obstacles to development, including through the elimination of coercive economic, financial or trade measures against developing countries”, but this was not welcomed. The term “obstacles to development” resonates with the central concern of many civil society organizations that have persistently advocated that the structural obstacles to development in trade, economic and financial policy must be addressed in order for national implementation in developing countries to fully function.

On national sovereignty, the G77 asked for the following language: “We also reaffirm that every State has, and shall freely exercise, full permanent sovereignty over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activity.” While this language was also denied, the second paragraph of the ministerial declaration mentions the importance of “taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting each country’s policy space, and to be implemented consistent with the sovereign rights and obligations of States under international law and with the Charter of the United Nations.”

The HLPF ministerial declaration includes the longstanding G77 language on technology transfer in the context of the Technology Facilitation Mechanism and the multistakeholder forum on science, technology and innovation.  However, clarifying language that technology should be made available on “favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms as mutually agreed,” which would address patents and other intellectual property rights that restrict access to technology, is not included.

While the declaration emphasizes access to justice, quality education, safe and sustainable transportation and energy, paragraph 12 only mentions that infrastructure should be safe, accessible and people-centred. The G77 had made a push for language that specified that infrastructure development should focus on “affordable and equitable access for all.”

These compromises demonstrate the ways in which the implementation, follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda will be shaped.

While the G77 recalled the commitment from the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the FfD conference in July 2015 for enhanced support, including financial and capacity building, the declaration refers in paragraph 13 to the FfD outcome document as a supporting tool for Sustainable Development Goal 17 on MoI in the 2030 Agenda. During the weeks of informal discussions preceding the HLPF session, developing countries had asserted that Goal 17 must be discussed annually, particularly since some targets require global concerted action. This is not reflected in the ministerial declaration.

The vague and weak emphasis on MoI demonstrates the unwillingness of many developed countries to address MoI in a specific, deliberate and strong manner.

With regard to economic growth, the words “inclusive” and “sustainable” have now become the status quo. However, further mention of developing broader measures of progress to complement gross domestic product (GDP), which developing countries called for during the informal discussions, failed to take off.

Many in civil society and UN agencies were concerned at the voluntary nature of reviews of the 2030 Agenda at both regional and global levels. While the stress on voluntary reviews has been incorporated into the ministerial declaration, global civil society continually alerts member states to ensure that national and sub-national reviews are carried out with the full and meaningful participation of civil society and social movements, and that civil society representatives at the HLPF and similar global and regional forums are provided the opportunity to speak after the national representative speaks on the national reviews.

Informal member state discussions also recognized that the entire UN system, including the UN secretariat, will have to be restructured for the genuine implementation of the 2030 Agenda. All member states more or less agreed that it will be important to strengthen support for the UN system, which will require intensive effort for existing mechanisms and significantly scaled-up access by the UN system to financial, technical and programmatic resources to support member states.

The narrative on the central 2030 Agenda theme of “leaving no one behind” includes varying emphases. Many UN agencies and civil society organizations highlight groups of people in society, such as women, the extreme poor, indigenous peoples, the disabled and so on. Collecting separate data about how these groups fare is considered one way for governments to help achieve SDG 10 on decreasing inequality within and between countries.

Meanwhile, developing countries highlight countries in special circumstances, in particular African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing states, as well as countries in conflict and post-conflict situations. The G77 also notes that while the world’s poorest and most fragile countries have specific challenges, many middle-income countries also face challenges, as they have the largest number of people living in poverty.

At a separate meeting during the HLPF session, the G77 noted some of the specific gaps that remain in financing for development. Concern was expressed that rich countries are failing to meet their commitments to deliver official development assistance (ODA) to developing countries.

A new report released by the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) during the UNCTAD 14 conference held in Nairobi in July revealed that the gap or shortfall between pledged and delivered ODA since 2002 is equivalent to just over $2 trillion. The ODA gap in 2014 alone amounted to more than $192 million.                                        

Third World Economics, Issue No. 623, 16-31 August 2016, pp2-4