Questionnaire - Critical milestones towards a coherent, efficient, and inclusive follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda at the global level (FINAL Responses)
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
Still loading...
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACADAEAFAGAHAI
1
Last/Family NameFirst/Given NameGenderOrganizationOrganization's WebsiteE-mailNationalityCountry of ResidenceIf you represent a major group or other stakeholder constituency, please indicate which one?1. How can the General Assembly, ECOSOC and the HLPF work coherently in follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda? What should be the role of the General Assembly in follow-up and review of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda? Do you see a need to adjust the working methods and agenda of the General Assembly, its plenary, second, third committees in particular and their relation to ECOSOC to respond to the 2030 Agenda and ensure coherence, complementarity and efficiency? If so, how?2. Given its Charter and other mandates, how can ECOSOC help ensure that global follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda is coherent? 3. How can the HLPF most effectively make linkages with the follow-up and review arrangements of United Nations conferences and processes on (1) least developed countries (LDCs), (2) small island developing States (SIDS), and (3) and landlocked developing countries (LLDCs)? 4. Should the General Assembly provide some guidance to ECOSOC functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies and forums on how they should best reflect their contribution to the review of SDGs, and to the HLPF generally, in their work programmes and sessions? And what would it be?5. How can the HLPF best build on the outcome of ECOSOC Forum on Financing for Development and the summary by the Co-Chairs of the multi-stakeholder forum on Science, Technology and Innovation?6. Should the HLPF thematic reviews of the progress on the SDGs (i) focus on clusters of closely related SDGs or (ii) examine progress in all SDGs based upon on a transversal theme such as gender, health or education or (iii) address four SDGs every year, taken in a numerical order, along with SDG17? If option (ii) is preferred, when and how should the transversal theme be decided upon? 7. What kind of inputs should functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies and forums provide to the HLPF (e.g. negotiated outcomes, summary of discussions and analysis or other)? And how should the inputs of various platforms be presented to the HLPF so as to best support its review and political leadership, guidance and recommendations?8. What would be good overarching annual themes for the HLPF to address (when it meets under the auspices of ECOSOC) and how can they be aligned to that the theme of ECOSOC? Please give several examples? 9. How long in advance should HLPF themes be known? For example, (i) should there be a programme of work for the four years in between two meetings of the HLPF under the auspices of the General Assembly or for a longer time period or (ii) should themes be determined every year and if so how could other intergovernmental platforms and other relevant actors contribute to the HLPF review?10. Should the multi-stakeholder forum on Science, Technology and Innovation address the same theme as the HLPF?11. How should the United Nations Statistical Commission best contribute to the work of HLPF?12. What arrangements would be needed to allow the HLPF to identify and consider new and emerging issues?13. How can platforms and processes outside the UN system, including those run by other international or regional organizations and by non-state actors, contribute to thematic reviews at the HLPF? 14. How often would countries be expected to participate in regular state-led reviews in order to allow for a meaningful exchange of experiences and feedback at the HLPF? Should there be a minimum number of reviews within 15 years to be presented at the HLPF?15. How can the HLPF discussions on the reviews be best prepared in order to facilitate a sharing of experiences and the provision of political leadership, guidance and recommendations at the HLPF? How would countries like to be supported in preparing the review process at global level? 16. In order to help elaborate voluntary common reporting guidelines for State-led reviews at the HLPF, kindly indicate what issues you would want the HLPF to address systematically when it examines national implementation reviews? 17. How can the guidelines leave enough flexibility to Member States while ensuring sufficient comparability between HLPF reviews to facilitate cross-country comparisons and to help track global progress? Could guidelines identify a core set of issues, in addition to the status of all SDGs and Targets, which all countries would be encouraged to address in their reviews and, in addition, a number of issues which countries might consider addressing if feasible? 18. How should the country reviews be featured and discussed at the formal HLPF meeting?19. How can national reviews give adequate attention to the means of implementation? How can they help to mobilize new support and partnerships?20. What kind of outcome should result from the HLPF national reviews of implementation, and how could there be a follow-up to these reviews?21. How should the outcome of regional review processes be considered at HLPF?22. How can the HLPF support the participation by the major groups and other relevant stakeholders in the follow-up and review processes conducted at the global level including the thematic and country reviews? What are possible options to seek their contributions to the reviews at the HLPF, (building on the modalities for the participation of major groups and other relevant stakeholders defined by General Assembly resolution 67/290 and the practices of the General Assembly open working group on SDGs)?23. The 2030 Agenda calls on major groups and other stakeholders to report on their contribution to the implementation of 2030 Agenda. How can such reviews be prepared and conducted at the HLPF? How can these actors be encouraged to engage in such reviews? 24. How should UN system contribution to the implementation of 2030 Agenda be reviewed? 25. What steps can the UN system, including the Secretariat take to best support follow-up and review in a coherent and effective manner?26. Please add any other points you would like to raise.
2
UlatowskaLisinkaFAll-Win Networkwww.AllWinNetwork.net;www.CommonsActionfortheUnitedNations.orgLisinka.Ulatowska@gmail.comBritish, Dutchalternately USA, NetherlandsNon-Governmental OrganizationsThe GA could focus on POLICY AND AGREEMENTS to help Member States, government at all levels, civil society organizations and individual citizens in their efforts to implement the SDGs. For it is the combined actions of ALL people that determine the global challenges we all face. So all must be involved in implementing the goals in their own surroundings, all have contributions to make and no one may be left behind.
Each GA Committee would also have a sustainable development strategy focusing on how best to serve Member States and UN Agencies. Their effectiveness could be assessed every 4 years by the GA together with ways to further improve their effectiveness. This assessment should focus on what works well and what can be improved and not be conducted in an atmosphere of acrimony nor conditionality so as to encourage open exchanges.
ECOSOC can decide with MS to request reports on a coherent and integrative implementation of the SDGs with one another and with the environment, economy and society (i.e. 20 points)-UN Charter X. 64.
This can be achieved via a questionnaire consisting of 400 (20x20) questions created by a grid where the 17 goals and 3 pillars (20 points) are listed down one side and along the top. So that each goal with its targets and each pillar would be dealt with on its own and also in connection with all others. If all people, CSOs, Governments and UN Agencies were to use this as a way of working on the goals, such a questionnaire would generate motivated, creative and integrative thinking and clarify each individual's needs and potential contributions.

If all these were linked via a website and a search engine would connect contributions and needs then the ECOSOC led sessions could focus on the needs and contributions of all as they relate to the 400 questions. See further question 26.
All agreements made by a nation relating to sustainable development since 1972 should be included in National Sustainable Development Strategies together with " needs" for support in order to more successfully implement each one; and contributions that nation can make to other nations who are seeking to implement an aspect of an agreement more effectively.The Sustainable Development Strategies of ECOSOC's functional commissions and the UN Agencies could be assessed and adjusted by the GA to better meet the needs of MS and other stakeholders, using the 400 questions above.

Certain questions would relate specifically to an agency's mandate: 2.2 to food security and sustainable agriculture would relate specifically to FAO and so all questions with a 2 in them: 2.3 “How does food security relate to health and well being?”; 3.2 “”How does health and well being relate to food security?”

Each of the questions would be accompanied by their own indicators (e.g. “Proportion of people suffering from diseases associated with nutritional deficiency?”; “Ratio of level of reported well being to number of people with food addictions?” disaggregated by country) On the basis of these indicators an agency's performance can be assessed by MS with input from ALL STAKEHOLDERS and the GA can recommend ways of improving the agency's performance.
It is important that all people, CSOs, Governments and Member States develop individual Sust. Dev't Strategies. Through global consultations input can then be gathered from stakeholders worldwide on the usefulness of these two bodies and possible ways for them to improve.

It is essential that not only high tech solutions are generated but that the often low tech solutions generated by the poor and marginalized be taken into account, for most of the world benefits from low tech solutions and it is our goal is to leave no one behind
A combination of the three would be achieved if the 400 question approach mentioned above were to be used. Then one could cluster the SDGs or take them individually but because each of the SDGs would be assessed in its relationship to each other SDG and to the 3 pillars, economy environment and society, there would be an integrative approach would be maintained regardless of which way it is decided to cluster the SDGs.If every person, CSO, government and UN MS and every functional commission and UN Agency were to have a sust. dev't strategy based on the 400 questions (see above) as relevant;
If all were interlinked via an Online Global Platform;
if all were to mention their needs and the contributions they can make to others; and
if a search engine were to connect contributions and needs of individuals, CSOs, MS, functional commissions and UN Agencies, etc.
Then communities would form around specific challenges, peers would consult together (i.e. towns, countries with similar challenges; people in diverse professions) and these would each generate solutions and face unmet challenges.
All, including Functional Commissions and UN Agencies would naturally be aware as a meeting of the HLPF approached what needs and contributions were most prominent. These can then be gathered via official reports and global consultations and become the focus of the HLPF.
All is escalating as we become more globally interconnected. It is hard to oversee which innovations and challenges will suddenly emerge.
No matter which clusters of SDGs or overarching themes are used, the 400 question approach in which all goals are looked at in connection with all other goals and with each of the 3 pillars, will allow all topics to be dealt with no matter what emerges or which theme is chosen.
If also all people are interlinked via a Global Online Platform where they can connect around their contributions and needs, then challenges are likely to be met most quickly.
Then themes can be arranged far in advance without blocking options to deal with any form of emerging challenge.
Yes. If the suggestion of the 400 questions and clustering of the SDGs are used then all emerging challenges and innovative ideas can be brought up at any session without disturbing the over all emphasis decided in advance..It should continue to develop indicators as these relate to the 400 questions. (See for examples question 4 and 26.)See the suggestion of the 400 questions above in questions 2 , 4 and 26.All should be encouraged to develop a Sustainable Development Strategy around the 400 questions mentioned under question 2 , 4, 26; all should be connected via an Online Global Platform via their needs and contributions so that networks dedicated to problem solving emerge. All who are not involved in regularly scheduled reports (such as UN MS, UN Agencies and Functional Commissions) could be asked to provide input via global consultations which can be summarized in background papers by the UN Secretariat and made available to all stakeholders esp MS before meetings.If there were a constant review process at local, national and regional levels and challenges can be dealt with by peers, then it would only be those remaining challenges faced by a MS that would need to be dealt with at the global level by the HLPF. This would simplify its work by shortening reports. It would also emphasize communal problem solving and discourage acrimony and (fears of) conditionality. If all entities (individual , CSOs, governments, functional commissions, UN Agencies and organs) were to be involved in the above approach to problem solving, then governmental reports would be greatly simplified since they would only deal with challenges that would not have been met at local, national or regional levels (including among peers). That would also ensure a tone of communal problem solving during HLPF sessions rather than acrimony that can discourage open reporting, including by raising the specter of conditionality.Challenges being faced as the meeting of the HLPF is about to meet by MS, Civil Society and the UN System in the context of problem solving and the generation of best practices and solutions.See above the suggestion of using a questionnaire of 400 questions in which all SDGs and 3 pillars.(See also questions 2,4, and 26) Here each SDG would be dealt with on its own with the relevant targets and indicators while at the same time being looked at in relation to all others. In this way a unified approach is used and each country has the option to refer to emerging challenges they face as they look at how they are interlinking the SDGs and 3 pillars.See above. Using the questionnaire of 400 questions (See questions 2,4, 26) and a consultative approach at individual, local and national level between peers to solve any outstanding problems, then the 400 questions could be used just to focus on outstanding challenges and possible contributions to others' needs.See the 400 questions (See questions 2,4, 26)combined with an Online Global Platform whereby individuals, CSOs, Governments at all levels and the UN System work together on their individual strategies to implement the SDGs in a coherent and integrative manner.The review would be a part of a problem solving process and not a judgment on a nation. The outcome should be that a partnership is formed through the discussions within the HLPF where all nations, CSOs, etc. are all engaged in community/partnership-building via the Online Global Platform.Regional reviews would be a part of the ongoing local, national and regional collaboration.As the Online Global Platform mentioned above is developed in which all people, CSOs, including businesses, families, schools, governments, UN MS have a place to list their individual Sustainable Development Strategies. These would gradually be increased first with communities with facilitators making internet accessible to villages and those who are (Internet) illiterate, then gradually encompassing people individually worldwide, communities. Partnerships will gradually form according to the interests and needs of individuals and groups as these arise.

All can then be invited using global consultations and google docs to give input as was done during the work of the OWG and the Post2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. The experience of the Secretariat has developed considerably and so has global connectivity since we began 3 years ago. New approaches will be developed as we move along..
MG s are not inclusive and participation is minimal.
To involve a larger percentage of ALL stakeholders, we can combine:
1. the above mentioned Online Global Platform where all are encouraged to list their Sust. Dev't strategy and connect around their needs and potential contributions. (Individuals, schools, businesses, clubs, professional organizations, etc.) That would encourage knowledgable and maximum participation in SDG implementation and could use social media approaches to encourage participation such as photos, meeting announcements, best practices etc, and the 400 questions to integrate the SDGs (See questions 2,4, 26)
2. Reports by local, national governments and regional commissions to which all stakeholders are encouraged to contribute via town house meetings, referenda, etc. on issues they are involved in; combined with
3. global consultations.
This might be a first step to getting more stakeholders involved in reporting their activities with regard to the SDGs.
All UN divisions and organs should be required to make a report using the above mentioned d 400 questions (See questions 2,4,26) as relevant and these should be a part of the overall reporting process and the Online Global Platform where all would list their work on the SDGs and their needs and contributions would interlink them..The UN has shown its brilliance in helping to design questionnaires, global consultations and above all summarizing huge amounts of data accurately. There is a huge amount of expertise and dedication among members of the UN Secretariat. They have also played an important role in supporting eh Co Chairs and participants during the OWG and the Post 2015 processes.Clarification of the 400 questions—some more immediately useful; others more thought provoking.

Quesions 1.1 2.2, 3.3...18.18, 19.19, 20.20 deal with a goal,the environment, economy, society as separate issues with, where relevant, targets and indicators.
Other questions deal with relationships between each and can be accompanied by indicators as follows:

3.4.(SDG 3 to SDG 4)How does health and well being relate in your nation (family, community, school, business) to quality education? Possible Indicator: “Proportion of inhabitants (local citizens, workers, students, family members) who consider themselves happy and are engaged successfully in educational pursuits or training?”

4.3. How does quality education relate to health and well being? Possible indicators “Percentage of inhabitants (family or other members, students, workers, etc) who consider themselves engaged in quality education and also consider themselves happy? “
11.2 How do inclusive human settlements relate in your (country, family) to food security? (Inclusive would include people and nature.) Possible Indicator: “Percentage of food produced in private (roof) gardens?

2.11 How does food security lead to safe human settlements? Indicator “Proportiion of people who have sufficient to eat to number of violent crimes committed.”

7.15. How does access to sustainable energy relate to the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems? Possible indicator: Percentage of energy generated for human use globally to the percentage of land covered by greenery occurring in natural terrestrial systems.

15.7. How does the sustainable use of terrestrial systems affect access to sustainable
energy? Possible indicator: “Percentage of land covered in greenery within natural terrestrial ecosystems to the occurrence of climatic conditions that prevent reliable energy generation for human use from natural sources (e.g. through storms, drought, natural disasters.)
3
DraisinNatalieFemaleFIA Founationfiafoundation.orgn.draisin@fiafoundation.orgUSA/FrenchUnited StatesWomenGiven the cross-cutting nature of all of the SDGs, it would be challenging to proceed with option ii without excluding any groups. Option iii allows us to focus on SDGs systematically, while still limiting the number of SDGs at the table so that a multi-stakeholder approach does not become overwhelming. Option i is also viable, but runs the risk of more popular SDGs overshadowing less popular, but still related ones.One theme that should be strongly considered is road safety. It cuts across several areas, including health, poverty, gender, and the environment, and we lose 1.2 million people on our roads each year. This SDG (3.6) is unique in that it aims to half the amount of deaths and injuries on the roads by 2020, far earlier than other targets which aim for 2030. Road safety should be used as one of the first themes because progress on it will provide helpful lessons for other SDGs with a longer timeline.Organizations outside of the UN system should be invited to join UN thematic clusters, therefore partaking in the process. For example, a thematic cluster for road safety would include non-road safety actors, such as health systems which receive road crash victims, or environmental agencies which respond to pollution.Corruption, sustainabilityGamification, the process of providing incentives and rewards for action, can be used. Global Citizen does this by providing those who participate with rewards like concert tickets. Perhaps a way to encourage participation is to provide greater rewards for a greater impact. There should be a way of incentivizing efforts which last beyond the SDGs, and have an effect past their target end date. Monitoring and review must last past 2030.
4
VerhagenFransmaleInternational Institute for Monetary Transformationwww.timun.netgaia1@rcn.comAmericanUSAOther Stakeholder
What is most needed in determining milestones is a clear goal and not a set of some 17 goals clusters. Thus, an organizing principle is to be pursued that is able to integrate the various sub-goals or SDGs and that is able to prioritize the setting of themes. The most challenging integration deals with the issues of climate change, poverty/sustainable development and financing. One way of doing this is through the transformation of the world’s money system by moving from a debt- to a credit-based financial system and a 100% reserve banking system. However, besides these financial and banking transformations the International Institute for Monetary Transformation has been proposing since 2008 the transformation of the unjust, unsustainable, and therefore, unstable international monetary system into a carbon-based international monetary system. The proposal, which is supported by Maurice Strong and Bill McKibben, has been submitted to various UN agencies and conferences, particularly the 2012 Earth Summit. This carbon-based international monetary system with its Tierra standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person, a global central bank and a modified balance of payments that accounts for both financial and ecological (climate) debts and credits. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions are presented in Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation” and updated at www.timun.net.
5
MBAIOGOUMTINRO RAOULMASCULININSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA STATISTIQUE, DES ETUDES ECONOMIQUES ET DEMOGRAPHIQUES (INSEED)www.inseedtchad.comtinrombai@yahoo.frTCHADIENNETCHADScience & Technological CommunityL'ECOSOC et le HLPF peuvent travailler ensemble lors de l'Assemblée générale car les objectifs poursuivis sont les mêmes. Ils faut une bonne collaboration pour s'assurer de la cohérence, la complémentarité et l'efficacité des indicateurs pour un meilleur suivi.En tenant des réunions conjointe avec d'autres organisations régionales et continentales, l'ECOSOC pourra aider ces dernières à mieux calibrer la révision de l'Agenda 2030 et s'assurer de la cohérence. Mon pays est confronté à ces problèmes soulevés car il fait partie des pays en développement sans littoral (PDSL) et nous n'assistons pas à des conférences internationales hors d'Afrique. Je saisis cette opportunité pour vous exhorter à nous inviter à ses assises des portées hautement scientifiques.Cette suggestion est la bienvenue car elle permettra de bien calibrer et refléter la contribution à l'examen des ODD, et à l'HLPF dans leurs programmes de travail et des sessions.Le HLPF pourrait mieux saisir les opportunités des réunions avec les organisations régionales et continentales pour mieux exploiter les résultats de l'ECOSOC.Le thème transversal doit être examiné minutieusement pour mesurer la pertinence et l'efficacité des indicateurs de ce thème. La santé et l'éducation sont des domaines clés ou nos gouvernements investissent beaucoup d'argent dont il faut examiné les indicateurs et les mesurer correctement pour des meilleurs résultats.En Afrique, la CEA, la BAD et la CUA sont entrain de réfléchir sur l'Agenda 2063 donc il serait très intéressant de les impliquer à ces commissions techniques et autres organes et instances intergouvernementales pour fournir d'amples informations à l'HLPF. Ces organisations fourniront des orientations et recommandations pertinentes.Les thèmes que nous suggérons ici sont relatifs à la santé notamment la mortalité maternelle et infantile ;
l'éducation nous permettra de mesurer les progrès des pays en matière des Taux Bruts de scolarisation et des taux nets. La lutte contre les épidémies qui ravagent le continent africain et chaque année la population est entrain de payer un lourd tribu.
Les plates-formes intergouvernementales et les autres acteurs concernés pourront contribuer à l'examen de HLPF par des propositions pertinentes et des recommandations issues de leurs travaux lors des différentes réunions continentales.Si le forum multipartite sur la science, la technologie et l'innovation aborde le même thème que l'HLPF ce serait aussi une bonne chose.La Commission de statistique des Nations Unies doit contribuer à l'oeuvre de HLPF pour accomplir mieux sa mission en lui donnant des moyens colossaux pour organiser de temps en temps des réunions avec les organisations régionales et intergouvernementales.Les dispositions nécessaires pour permettre à la HLPF pour identifier et examiner les questions nouvelles et émergentes sont la tenue régulière des réunions avec les Groupes d'Experts de haut niveau des différentes organisations continentales et régionales.Les acteurs non étatiques oeuvrent aussi pour l'avancée des examens thématiques de l'HLPF donc nous suggérons de les associer aux différentes réunions pour voir la cohérence des thèmes proposés par le système des Nations Unies.Cette question est très pertinente et mérite une attention particulière et je pense que les Etats doivent participer pleinement à des examens réguliers pour échanger avec l'HLPF. Le nombre minimal d'examens au sein de 15 ans est acceptable.Le cas de mon pays, j'aimerai que vous nous inviter à la préparation du processus d'examen au niveau mondial avec une prise en charge.Nous voulons être associer pour leur fournir des bonnes informations issues de nos enquêtes et recensements nationaux.Si nous sommes invités à des réunions que HLPF organise nous allons amener avec nous des informations très pertinentes ainsi que l'ensemble de questions de base et en plus l'état de tous les ODD.Les avis de nos pays ne seront pas contradictoires à ceux visés par HLPF car nous poursuivrons les mêmes objectifs et buts.Les examens nationaux sont soutenus par les organisations continentales comme la CEA, la BAD et la CUA. Ces trois organisations continentales nous appuient dans nos travaux des ODD et des indicateurs Post 2015. Généralement dans mon pays le suivi est fait par la BAD, la CEA et la CUA que je leur envoie régulièrement chaque année les examens de nos indicateurs et lors de grandes réunions auxquelles nous sommes invités à présenter ses résultats.Nos résultats, j'espère que une fois envoyer à ses trois organisations continentales, elles partent avec HLPF. J'aimerai que HLPF élargisse son éventail pour inviter certains pays à participer aux travaux de groupe ouvert à l'Assemblée générale sur les ODD. C'est la seule opportunité pour que les pays puissent soulever certaines questions pertinentes et proposer aussi des pistes des réflexions. Je pense que beaucoup des pays ont élaboré leur vision pour 2030 en ce qui concerne mon pays, nous sommes entrain d'élaborer la vision 2030 que nous allions partager avec les autres pays lors des réunions internationales.Les Nations Unies doivent encouragent les pays à mieux calibrer leur vision 2030 et leur mise en oeuvre. Les mesures que le système des Nations Unies doivent prendre sont l'organisation régulière des réunions internationales pour le suivi, l'examen pour permettre la cohérence et l'efficacité. J'aimerai que les initiatives internationales puissent permettre de faire avancer le développement dans le monde. Nous vivons actuellement dans un monde où règne l'oppression, la violence, les guerres et la violation des Droits Humains donc nous voulons un monde meilleur où nous allons vivre en paix et avoir un emploi décent pour élever nos enfants.
6
Fletcher WilliamsFrancescaFemaleSoroptimist Internationalwww.soroptimistinternational.orgfrancesca.williams@soroptimistinternational.orgUKUKWomenAgencies and committees could run collaborative briefings for stakeholders, and should have a unified knowledge platform to share information and facilitate input. More time needs to be allocated across all committees and meetings to allow MGoS, civil society etc to input into the reviews and follow-up of implementation. This is especially critical because much of the implementation will be carried out by these groups, and not just by governments. This would emphasise the nature of global partnerships and would allow the most up-to-date information to come to the fore. Global follow-ups should be encouraged, and there should be discussions to make sure this isn't only voluntary. A UPR-type process could help facilitate multi-stakeholder input, feedback and discussion. Specific time should be scheduled for global follow-up and review processes. Have briefings, allow for inputs and allow discussions around updating the documents when relevant. Interaction with the HLPF needs to be promoted and stakeholders need to be more aware about how they can interact with the HLPF. A combination of the three, with a time frame of reviews being every 5 years. Reviews could be distributed amongst the functional commissions and committees, which review approaches being adapted to best suit the fora they are being used by. They should provide opportunity for negotiations and therefore provide negotiated outcomes. Additionally, they should facilitate innovative implementation approaches and civil-society generated data to be shared. Discussion summaries are helpful, but should ensure that all inputs are equally considered and more space is being given to civil society and MGoS to input. If it is only government speakers who are heard from all the time, then this undermines the idea of partnerships for development, and stifles the input of new information. Themes should be cross cutting in nature and address the various dimensions of sustainable development. If links can be drawn between these dimensions to demonstrate the multi-dimensional approach then even better! All discussions should be action-focused. Example themes could be:
ensuring inclusive development
the role of education in development
connecting economic and social development
HLPF themes should be announced a year in advance so all stakeholders have adequate time to input and prepare. Currently, the short notice given for themes and statement opportunities particularly disadvantages grass-roots groups, older people, and those living in isolated areas.
Themes should be looked at every year and there could be rolling membership of the reviewing body so all member states can input but not necessarily consistently (like CSW).
The work of the UN Statistical Commission and the HLPF needs to complement each other - it cannot be siloed as effective, reflective and accurate data needs to inform all discussions, particularly surrounding implementation approached. The UNSC should have significant representation and be able to provide briefings on the theme at all HLPF meetings. there needs to be a functional online platform which allows all MGoS to be able to share information. Discussions should be widely shared. every 3 - 5 years. This would be similar to the UPR process. Alternatively there could be a global review every 5 years, which included regional reviews in the run-up like Beijing. Make more space for non-state actors and speakers to participate and input. gaps and challenges in implementation. The nature and effectiveness of partnerships for development. Same as for Beijing review processes or for the UPR process.
7
cawleykevinmedmund rice internationalThomas Berry Forum for Ecological Dialoguekcawley1@mac.comusaUnited StatesOther StakeholderI believe all are committed to an open process but not all. Casi todos.
There must be a way to honestly include all the voices now lost in the conversation- the very old, the very young, many women, those made poor.
I think ECOSOC can be more forceful about the growing influence of multianational corporations in the decision processes here at the UN.
There are disturbing signs of a club-like atmosphere surrounding the links of a number of corporations with the higher end representation at UN deliberations. I understand many members and representatives find themselves with offers in the private sector upon leaving UN service. How to guard against the temptation to cultivate such linkages while still in place at the UN , thus better positioned afterward? Such atmospherics can well damage the commitment to integrity in policy making, in setting the agenda for future work on behalf of those most in need of honest brokers.
HLPF needs to meet with more regularity. If I am correct, only 4 meetings are planned. that is not enough time to do deep work and make really thoughtful decisions.Keep the process open to the widest range of stakeholders.How can HLPF persuade nations to be generous ? How can HLPF show the leadership in climate commitment when it is clear that the Paris talks are already hobbled by the shortfall in the INDCs?The delay in taking the SDGS in order seems problematic given the very spread out schedule for HLPF. Transversal themes would be a good alternative so that progress is tracked across all areas regularly.Can we use what is already in place on the ground? Cannot local actors be identified with comprehensive up close living experience in these areas? The UN aims to help the most disenfranchised and they are already in place to tell us what is happening in their part of the planet. How can we listen better? How can we pay attention better?Themes: hearing all voices; finding just solutions; respecting all stakeholders; honoring fundamental human rights, guarding the HRWSThemes well in advance can help those who need to plan carefully in the face of limited resources. I would need to know well ahead of time where to spend my small allotment of travel funds, for example. dont knowkeep trying to make their case that we need good data if we will be making good decisions.
they always have the challenge of translating the metrics into language we can all grasp. perhaps more graphics might help. or better graphics.
keep reading the papers
keep informed
get young people to monitor social media
non state actors such as universities and faith based bodies need to be part of all these discussions if they are to generate fundamentally good outcomes for all. this will vary greatly due to resources. discussion neededresourcing these studies will be hard. how to keep the normal peopole in the loop and force the bad actors to be accountable..HRWS... always under threat
Energy challenges including but not limited to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.
Movement to renewables
why are we doing cross-country comparisons?
how does this help?
what do we do now? my impression is the UPR process can be a template. country self reports and then civil society and then UN agencies, etc. a good enough picture emergesMOI remains an obstacle and we do not seem ready to tackle it.national reviews need to be clear. brief. full of promise. sharp when needed. follow up on a regular calendar would be helpful. how to keep bad actors far away?dont know the cvil society sector has some of the brightest people at work. some from universities and faith groups have been very impressive speakers. there are several young women displaying blazing intelligence and deep good will in the OWG process for the SDGS. we need more of them and we need to give them more space. sad to note that member state delegations in general do not seem interested in listening to civil society as a rule. keep letting them know they are being heard.I dont understand the questionkeep resources aimed at the poorest this process is tedious but I am glad you are asking people to weigh in.
thank you.
8
RICHARDSONCLIVEMALESCOTIAAGHELEK1306www.scotiaaghelek1306.comckwr@scotiaaghelek1306.comUKUKBusiness & Industry, Indigenous Peoples, Local Authorities, Science & Technological Community, Other StakeholderOur suggestion is to establish the GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT BANK.

Establish the GA, ECOSOC and HLPF with the Global Citizen as the Chancery.

Establish all sustainability activity under secure Fiduciary arrangement linked into the UN and Global Universities networks. This way no researcher needs to go rent seeking in order to move forward.
Establish the continuous audit, new and novel bank reporting, fund management banking protocols with interactive social media. The 54 representatives generating and moving funds to sustainability in each nation state while being aware of priority global calls on resources. Completely destroy any notion of returns that are not retained, enhanced or sustained value additions.There is exceptional confusion globally when discusses economic performance, normally discussing about how cheap a resource has been managed to realise a profit. We exploit by force of habit. We teach our children to begin life this way. A credited currency sustainable environment fund shifts emphasis away from exploitation to "least cost" ( Fair-traded balanced transactional exchanges ) collaborative well-being.SDG's must have Goal 18 The Global Sustainable Environment Bank. Sustainability has "least cost best value returns" our methodology allows for the valuing of non traditional assets, humanity.By establishing a Global Sustainable Environment Bank and Fund that links in automatically.Establish the SDG's a credited currency afforded direct application. The return from sustainability is "for value" . In order to measure value with exactitude one needs to refer to credited transactional performances according to the objectives that any sustainability expenditure has sought to achieve. There is a critical need, within the UN, to shift the general personnel mentality of the UN into the global citizens mentality. It can do this best when delivering a credited created currency for sustainability. The accountancy is somewhat different. By establishing as the Chancery of Sustainability in partnership with the Global citizen as a proactive contributor. This social media platform can be for entertainment and the business of banking and transacting interactively. Technology allows for all manner of communications. In the least developed regions mobile technologies are already available for high volume use. STG 18 GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT BANK & FUND. Instigate a constant audit of all STG's at every national level banking and funding is very practical when linked via UNWTO to all SDG activity. I think that option (ii) defeats the overarching requirement to illustrate the interconnections that are a must for sustainability ideology. In our project we illustrate solutions for Kalimantan's priorities, the sustainable development of Sumba Islands tourism and general economy and how these can combine to generate a sustainable environment fund and a credited created currency for value optimisations on behalf of the global citizen. The way forward for HLPF is to be banking the values that sustainability deliverers and using these as an alternative or supplement to national GDP ideology.The utility of a Global Sustainable Development Fund when linked to crediting any donation in a credited created currency fund that is optimised by value transactions that benefit the global citizen.

9
LucksDorothyFIOCEwww.ioce.net/forum/EvalSDGssdfglobal@sustain.net.auBritishAustraliaOther Stakeholder, Evaluation professionalsThe institutional arrangements for the follow-up and review of the SDGs is not yet sufficiently transparent or comprehensive. The inclusion of civil society in preparation of the goals was excellent. The pathways for continuing engagement is not as clear. A designated and high profile centre for each of the SDGs would be good so that it is clear where civil society can direct their input and learn about follow-up, review and evaluation findings.The global follow up and review mechanism must be based at the country level with guidelines on the ability to conduct meta-evaluations and synthesis of results across countries and thematic areas in relation to specific SDGs - as well as examining inter-relationships between the SDGsHaving recently attended the UNDP NEC conference, there were clear sessions for 1 and 2 above. 3 was also considered during deliberations. Perhaps designation of an event coordinators that both assists and guides in preparation of programmes and receiving conference outputs for each of the above would be beneficial. So often useful discussions at conferences are lost. A better system to capture the innovation emerging from conferences would be worthwhile.Yes, absolutely! The guidance they provide must speak to ultimate clarity and transparency on progress towards the goals, the barriers that are being faced and the innovations and successes that can be built upon.

A communications strategy is required, if not already developed. The role of ECOSOC is fairly clear, other roles and responsibilities are not as clear.
Make the findings more available in appropriate form as they relate to different stakeholder groups. We invest money in language translation, we should also invest in translating findings into "sector-speak" so that each sector can absorb and consider the findings.There should be two complementary approaches. The first across all 17 goals to assess (superficial) progress across all goals - leaving some behind for consideration in later years creates an inequity in consideration. The second should be (ii) a transversal theme that is more operational that allows focus on a specific theme that has opportunity to accelerate progress across a cluster of linked goals. Gender would be one, but another may be "improving national data platforms" or status of National Evaluation Policies for the SDGs. These themes would be prioritised by expected outcomes across a higher number of goals.Inputs should be synthesized by those responsible to present a consolidated finding that is targeted towards assisting the HLPF to make decisions and communicate widely results to date. This may be a three section input. (i) quantitative section in relation to agreed targets on a dashboard format; (ii) qualitative section - key findings and lessons learned; (iii) key issues for deliberation by the HLPF and wider stakeholders.Below are a number of themes that arose from the deliberation at the recent NEC conference attended by over 100 countries.

- all countries are now developing countries in relation to the SDGs. How do countries prioritise their focus for the SDGs?
- Allocating resources for implementation and review of the SDGs.
- Raising political and public awareness and commitment to the SDGs (national level).
- Integrating SDGs into national, regional and local planning (what is best practice)
- Review processes that are quantitative, qualitative and feed into decision-making through evaluation processes
- Use of technology and innovation in systems to accelerate progress on the SDGs
- Ensuring
Two years in advance. If longer, there is less room for response to any emerging themes. Any shorter and there is not sufficient time for consultation.Yes, at least in essence to maximize the debate but there should be room to discuss emerging issues and innovations.The Statistical Commission has shown good openness by inviting other stakeholders to their recent conference, however there was frustration that their voices were not heard. Statistical Commission needs to be more open to other valid forms of information and knowledge management that complements and strengthens statistical findings. This would make the findings and recommendations to the HLPF more robust and rich. Evaluation practice has the ability to add value to statistical work. A good liaison process needs to be developed.Note suggested three section reporting approach suggested above. This would allow the HLPF to understand the issues in relation to each reporting agency and then conduct further cross-analysis to understand main barriers and opportunities that need to be addressed.Keep asking for input in the way that this survey is doing. The online platforms are very important and the UN platforms can help to raise awareness of the various platforms available so that practitioners and academia can engage with the debate and analysis.If the pace of change for the SDGs is to accelerate to build momentum to achievement of the goals, annual exchanges would be beneficial to maximise sharing of learning and discussion on issues. In reality there is a resources issue that will govern participation of many countries. Based on the discussions at the recent NEC forum, there is no one answer to this question. Some countries have their own systems and are confident of preparing review processes, others require substantial support. A differentiated approach is required towards a set of guidelines or standards for review that acknowledges different contexts, capabilities and resources.What is HLPF and other agencies doing to support the voluntary reviews to ensure that they are as useful as possible for meta-analysis. Issues is probably not the right word. A cross country set of principles and guidelines for e.g. data veracity, proportionate sample size for assessments, stakeholder engagement in measurements, qualitative analysis by independent evaluations, among others.Discussion should be thematic with groups of countries illustrating themes. Individual country reviews would be available but not discussed individually. The focus of the HLPF is on the goals and what will achieve success rather than being bogged down in individual country systems and results.Absolutely. If they are following principles of stakeholder identification and engagement and reviews engage independent evaluators that are experienced in stakeholder engagement, the evaluative processes will automatically build new understanding and facilitate partnerships.As above, follow up on the reviews should be success and issues- based to applaud progress and recognise challenges - not to single out individual countries but to understand that groups of countries will face certain issues.Regional review needs to be considered carefully as they can mask differences within regions e.g. SIDS. Better to focus on the themes and only regional data as it informs and strengthens analysis.Voluntary stakeholder groups already contribute substantially to the process and should continue to do so. In the UNDP NEC conference IOCE members were heavily involved and provided expertise and also operational support. It makes social and financial capital sense for the HLPF to invest in building partnerships in the review process according to their strengths and ability to input. Note: evaluation practice has been noted in the Global Agenda 2030 but is not formally engaged. IOCE has been finding its own mechanisms to engage.This needs to occur at the ECOSOC level with synthesised information to HLPF.Engaging stakeholders in the process with an open and transparent feedback system that is analyzed annually (unless urgent issues emerge) should be sufficient for the majority of the process. A five year summative independent evaluation of the process should be considered e.g like the evaluation of the Paris Declaration. (To be honest, a process evaluation would help to support and accelerate process but unlikely at this stage that resources would be available.)Clear investment in synthesis and assumptions within that synthesis. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute. Please consider stronger role for the evaluation sector in the review and analysis process.
10
mukundanealbert bamwonjoboramalefollow the star/nogamu-mukundanealbertb@gmail.comugandanugandaFarmers, Indigenous Peoples, Non-Governmental Organizations, Other Stakeholderby involving all stake holders at the grassroots and this should hands on project Need for critical think tanks to discuss with various stake holders using the indigenous knowledge Moving from the structure and bring other people on board to brainstorm on other issues largelyyes this good idea merging with various goververmentsthere is no yardstick to measure thisprincipal of involvement should be put in placenoThey are not involved there is need for breaking cycle to involve other stake holdersBoosting the momentumnew channels of communication strategyPlease accessing the information there a lot of barriers for interested stake holders
PLEASE KEEP US INVOLVED INFORMED AND UPDATED
11
YoonSoon-YoungFemalConference of NGOs (CoNGO)www.ngocongo.orgYooncsw@aol.comUSUSNon-Governmental Organizations, WomenFor coherence, complementarity and efficiency it is important to consider the outcomes expected from each process. The GA remains the primary place for accountability because it gains the greatest public attention and political visibility. The HLPF and ECOSOC should be where the substantive analyses, data updates, and priority actions should be identified. This can happen through honest, open discussions in small panels as well as through sharing of best practices in a plenary session. Accountability is important, but these are sometimes best done through "praise and raise" of good examples which all governments like to put forth. What is missing is the follow-up to an HLPF session. The ECOSOC should set in motion in-depth discussion of how and why such best practices succeeded and request DESA to oversee more research and data analysis. As I mentioned, the follow-up to country reports during the HLPF is critical. Similarly, the follow-up to commission meetings like the CSW is also often missing until the next year which is much too late and superficial. We need greater depth, technical guidance, and expertise in ECOSOC than is currently there. All of these bodies' problems are the shared problems of the world. It is wrong for them to have to fight for attention. The HLPF should be where everything can be shared and the relevance of these countries' problems made clear to the other countries with coastal communities and urban settlements. An ecological analysis helps do this. Countries can be invited to share their views on this matter. I'm sure there are plenty of opinions out there. It takes an invitation for such inputs to make them publicly known. These are the two most critical processes but the least integrated into the mainstream HLPF or commissions. For example, the CSW needs more discussion on these issues from a gender equality perspective related to the 2030 Agenda. This needs to be deep thinking, not superficial reporting. The UN can galvanize universities and expert thinktank center better than has in the past as well as critical thinking NGO expertise. Some of the ministers of finance and of S and T should be invited into non-conventional spaces. All of the above. The CSW uses a good format by selecting a priority them, review theme and so on. It is possible to classify the 17 goals in such as way that every year, there is an emphasis on the traversal themes and in-depth review/analysis of 4 priority themes. I would engage discussions constantly on all transversal themes annually because this is the weak point of the SDG discussions. The functional commission and other bodies and forums should inform the Secretariat prior to the HLPF so that the draft reports are well informed and issues/recommendations already integrated into the discussion. There might be some interesting discoveries in those reports, but it takes time and very good expertise to find them. Gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls
Education
Health
Trade and finance
Partnerships
Cities and human settlements
Science and Technology
This needs to be an annual reviewYesIt needs to work closely with the Secretariat of the HLPF and produce some very thoughtful, in-depth analysis background papers, drawing also on the best practices reported by member statesThis should not be one of those "let's open it up for everyone to discuss". It requires careful thinking, review of past experiences, and expertise. The UN needs to work with smart thinkers on this--maybe a working group within the HLPF with 2 government, 2 civil society, 2 UN agencies etc. and don't forget the private sector. You need to provide funding for a civil society forum parallel to the HLPF. That is where such processes can come together outside the UN, free of political constraints. Then, there must be a systematic way for that process to inform the UN, possibly through annual expert group meetings. All governments should be invited to participate--and I believe they will. Without an expert committee to monitor the process, very likely the UN cannot adequately provide technical assistance to prepare reports. I think it is worth leaving that part open and seeing how it goes. Let the member states provide some of these answers and begin asking for help. It obviously needs to follow the indicators and goals format. In addition, it is important to ask at that point if there are emerging issues that member states feel strongly need to be considered. Invite more feedback from the member states outside the confines of the guidelines. I should be comprehensive but invite feedback on major constraints to collect data and requests for financial/technical help. Presentations by high-level officials would bring them to NY. Governments need to prepare these reports in consultation with experts and civil society in their own countries. NGO shadow reports should also be invited. The follow-up is what is missing. Some excellent ideas will come out of these reports and no one will have a chance to know them. An expert group meeting before is good, but also afterwards. These are the core of how the HLPF can function. The regional economic and social commissions need to be given stronger mandates. AND we need an NGO forum in parallel to all of these. A coalition can work to organize these (CoNGO has done this in the past), but financial help is needed in the form of meeting rooms/space and logistics. The open-ended meetings in NY helped, but the core begins at national and regional levels. Governments need to open the process, share draft reports at national level. A Civil society Forum needs to be in place at regional reviews. Again, this needs to start at national level and build through regional reviews. NGOs will find a way to organize themselves. ECOSOC accredited NGOs under CoNGO need to reach out to DPI accredited, and other grass-roots groups more systematically. At all commissions, at all levels, in all places. This is a universal agenda with a wide scope so the UN system, acting as one, needs to take it on. The Secretariat is critical to providing coherence so it needs to be strongly support, able to gather expert group meetings (before And after reviews), even if these must be done partially virtually. Much more effective use needs to be made of IT, virtual conferencing tools like Maestro conferencing. When the UN invites questionnaires to be filled out and inputs from NGOs, it also needs to report back to all participants on the results. Please do not forget to do that.
12
AriyoAdegboyegaMaleIbala Town Development c_ariyo2001@yahoo.comc_ariyo2001@yahoo.comNigerianNigeriaIbala Town in IJESHA Kingdom Identify in particular details what must be done by each country to meet the basic needs of it citizens. The Basic needs concept must now include:- housing; clothing; food; clean water; education; health ;technological education; and IT compliance. In a world where there is transparency, accountability and TQM whatever fund provided should be seen as investment in common humanity. I hope the world is gradually accepting the fact that the circle of depression in world economic system is caused by the leakages in the loop represented by the economies of the developing countries. Therefore for the Agenda of 2030 to be realized and sustained thereafter, there must be complementarity and supportive relationships of actions and programmes in order to achieve effectiveness and efficiency . Involve everybody for follow up and review stages. This must be time framed. There must be regular submission by key actors on key result areas of the implementation of the 17SDGs.The IMF and World Bank conditions must be adjusted drastically in order to ensure funding of these programmes by countries is not frustrated by lack of fund.Yes. ECOSOC functional commissions must move beyond calling on Governments to do certain things but must involved in doing things. Most of the RECS in Africa, just organize conferences without tangible material impacts on the African people. The recircling on views and ideas must stop. the simple theory of a successful PROGRAMME implementation which informed the 2030Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals should be seen through ie collective actions at the:- planning stage, thorough put and action( implementation)Summary of discussions With impact analysis and actions to be taken to achieve certain Key Result Areas in the SDGS scheme.Education For All So that everybody would contribute to building World Peace.Yes. Same trend for them.Task all countries to comply with a template developed by UN Statistical Commission within a time frame and submit the collated submissions to HLPF. Review of activities with the hope of finding out gaps in the realization of the objectives of HLPFInvolve these bodies in the common world objective.No. There must be regular participation.Compliance with achievement of goals and problems being encountered.
13
MBAMFU MUSAMUNIMarshallMCentre Africain de Recherche Interdisciplinaire CARI ( former Centre Africain de Recherche Industrielle)-mbamfumarshall@gmail.comCongolese DRDR of CongoNon-Governmental OrganizationsThe HLPF meets on June for example. Outcomes submitted to ECOSOC by stakeholders in the occasion of the annual HLPF, which include good practices, experiences, strategies of other countries, lessons, etc. will be presented to GA in September for general review and adoption. The GA will take resolution to recommend heads of states participating to the assembly to make good policy for achieving SDGs even not all, but most of them.
No, unless to change or adjust the General Assembly working methods and agenda. The main problem is only the commitment, and sufficient financial means to support all effort in achieving SDGs. A global awareness campaign is very essential.
ECOSOC will ensure a coherence global follow up and review of the 2030 Agenda by its many annual meeting devoted to review progress made by countries as recommended by the GA. Special accent will be made on civil society and private submissions which reflect more reality. LDCs, SIDS and LLDCs are all invite to attend UN conferences and processes. They also are inviting to submit inputs on the HLPF theme. A special attention is needed when making exam of their inputs by the organizing committee. Their inputs can allow how to make linkages with the follow-up and reviewsIf any, there is no disadvantage. In any programme, there is a coordinating body and the executive one. The GA must play a coordinating role in the implementation of the SDGs examining what is to be done when and how, at which level and for which result. ECOSOC and other functional commissions and bodies play the executive role for better organization. The GA will also urge heads of states mostly heads of developed countries to raise sufficient means in due time for supporting SDGs achievement. Financing for development conference 2015 held in Addis Ababa was devoted to SDGs support. HLPF has to develop outcomes of this very important conference in formulating good policies with other stakeholder’s contributions to raise financial means needed to that end.(i) As SDGs are the core development Agenda to be implemented from now to 2030, in order to eradicate poverty, to protect the world to climate change, etc. thematic of all meeting to be organized during this period will be aligned on SDGs, it’s logical.
(ii) Progress will be examined according to the free dimensions of sustainable development.
(iii) We have fourteen years because the fifteenief will be devoted to the general review. THE FIRST TWO YEARS will be devoted to the economic dimension. The following two years to the social dimension and the last two years to the environmental dimension. And the cycle will start again, two years devoted to economic dimension, the two following years to the social dimension etc. until we will finish to reviewing in fourteen years, all Goals.
(iv) SDG 17 will be reviewed the last year of review.

Inputs to be provided to HLPF by functional commissions and intergovernmental bodies and forum are those in relation with the implementation of each goal, resulting from government and all other stakeholders’ projects related to the achievement of SDGs. Inputs will be presented by field (for example, health, poverty, development inequalities among countries, kind of support developed countries can bring to developing countries in each sector, etc. So, recommendations can be formulated.
A year, as the HLPF meets once. The annual HLPF must prepare the theme of the upcoming session to be announced and adopted the end of the current. Stakeholders will receive a call for contribution on the theme announced during the past HLPF six month before.
Not a programme of work for four years because we only have fifteen years, if we consider four years, we will review SDGs only free times. In this case, it will be impossible to over exam of the 17 SDGs.
No, the HLPF will address progress made in the implementation of each SDGs but the multi-stakeholder forum on Science, Technology and Innovation will address the contribution and progress made by science, technology and innovation in the achievement of the SDGs This is a very good question. The United Nations Statistical Commission will remain in close contact with all stakeholders, government bodies, NGO, research centers all over the world and make call for proposals to help collecting data in each goal which measures progress in the implementation. Data will guide policy maker to suggest new ways in the achievement and how to overcome difficulties encountered. It will function as Commission on social development, commission on the status of women, and other.Close collaboration with NGOs, governments and private sector to collect data at the country and regional level. Research centers are welcome to make further efforts in providing research outputs linked to SDGs achievement. When they are outside the UN, we do not think that they are concerned to the SDGs and they can submit inputs to the HLPF annual review and follow-up conference. But if they find interest and submit inputs, special attention will be made to their submission. For that we recommend ECOSOC to send them a acknowledge letter and encourage them to do so until the SDGs’s review will over.Once a year. Each two years will be devoted to one of the free dimensions of sustainable development goals.It will start to call for contribution addressed to all stakeholders among them government. A deep exam of those contributions will follow during the HLPF. Debate undertaken will give possibilities to share experience. Good practices will be learning from one to another. The end recommendations will be made and which recommendations will be submitted to GA assembly for adoption as resolution. A report will be produced and published.HLPF will address issues such as programs undertaken in the framework of 2030 development agenda. Sources of finance, stakeholders and partners. Participation of civil society in national program. Accountability. Assessment. etc.
The country reviews be will presented as a national report accompanied along with a synthesis on which discussion can made.
In the report, it will be shown clearly if all stakeholders took part to the elaboration process and the outcomes are clearly stated and reflect the country’s reality.
National reviews must be gathering by competent experts at a high level and national segment.
When expressing real country’s problems and show stakeholder’s commitment.
New strategies, good practices, the way to overcome difficulties in the implementation of project in relation with the SDGs resulting from national reviews with participation of all stakeholders and major groups at national level.Outcome of regional review processes will be confronted with major groups and other stakeholder’s submissions and then integrated in the final document of the HLPF review. HLPF must facilitate major group in developing countries in obtaining visa by sending a letter to consulate or embassy with names of participants registered for the HLPF. Only this few recommendation. Major groups will receive a call for contribution six month before the HLPF and submit to the review committee. A major group forum will precede the HLPF as defined by 67/290 GA Resolution and others. The same way like before. We have sent contributions to ECOSOC’s HLPF, or segment and to many other commissions. Those contributions are or were received and reviewed by a commission created.

No change to suggest. Such commission will function as usual.
It was said that review will occur each two years in one dimension, the following two years, another dimension, till the free dimensions will be reviewed. Recommend financial institutions and developed countries to support all effort in developing countries relating to SDGs achievement.
Urge to heads of states to be serious in their development programme moostly in sub saharian africa in respecting country's constitutions.
As far as I am concerned, when I see the achievement of the MDGs, in developing country where the political situation is unstable, no one was met. International community is responsible of that situation. Because it supports regime hates by people. Such kind of heads of state becomes wicked opposite to their people. In such case, they can’t do anything good in the country. They rule their country as their own business without fear. In such situation, no SDGs will be met in 2030 like it was with the MDGs in 2015. In 15 years, even reducing hunger only, could you imagine? Recommendation to international community not to support such kind of heads of state, on contrary, all we are to say no to constitutions revision or to constitutional referendum in order to remain in the power. None developed country’s President can send congratulations letter to an African country president because he won election and false electrons. So SDGs will be possible to achieve. The case of my country the DRC, Congo Brazzaville, Angola, Ruanda, Burundi, etc. we must change the regime.
We urge technical support and capacity building to the benefit of Developing counties, LDCs, LLDCs, SIDSs in the context of the achievement of the SDGs.
14
JOHNNYSATTERWHITEMALEFEDERAL GOVERNMENTwww.frb.atl.orgGOLDCITY@SBCGLOBAL.NETMIXEDUNITED STATESUNITED STATESThe general assembly should meet each month for follow up and review of the 2030 agenda and keep the individual representative informed daily by mean's of Email : GOLDCITY@SBCGLOBAL.NET
The role of the general assembly in follow up and review is to re assess whether any progress has ben made.
Adjustment's this agenda will have to be made as we go but for right now we have to stop the war's and the conflicts every where or the agenda will not work make ending all war's and conflicts key objective.
15
RotimiLanreMaleInternational Society for Poverty Elimination / Economic Alliance Groupwww.nehap.wikispaces.comnehap.initiative@yahoo.co.ukGlobal / InternationalNigeriaIntegrated: Volunteer Organization, International Development Cooperation Consultancy Firm, Development Research Organization, Training Organization, Evaluation Consultancy FirmThrough Coordinated Jurisdiction with ECOSOC responsible for Policy Implementation; HLPF responsible for Monitoring & Evaluation and UNGA responsible for Oversight of both Implementation & Evaluation.

1. How can the Methods of Work of the ECOSOC in each of the 193 Member States be effectively Aligned and Harmonized with the objectives of AAAA, SDG, COP21 Outcome Document, together with the Agendas of Nine Major Groups and a Tenth Consultants and Advisers Major Group, UNGA, HLPF, Six existing GA Committees and Six proposed GA Committees to eliminate overlap and duplication?
2. How should the Agendas of ECOSOC in each of the 193 Member States be effectively Aligned and Harmonized with the objectives of AAAA, SDG, COP21 Outcome Document, together with the Agendas of Nine Major Groups and a Tenth Consultants and Advisers Major Group, UNGA, HLPF, Six existing GA Committees and Six proposed GA Committees look like in the coming years 2016 – 2030?
The answers in (1) need to be found and in ways that are aligned and harmonized to answers to questions raised by His Excellency, Mr Logjar at the 9 October 2015 meeting
1. As currently constituted, can the Agenda of the GA 2nd Committee effectively support the promotion and integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development?
2. Could sustainable development become an overarching framework for the Agenda of the 2nd Committee? What are the options for rearranging the Agenda as a whole to reflect this approach?
3. What implications, if any, would this approach have for the outcomes and resolutions adopted by the 2nd Committee?
4. Do the items in 2nd Committee Agenda adequately cover the main aspects of the 2030 Agenda?
5. What are the gaps to be filled, bearing in mind also the work and Agenda of the Third Committee? How should the Second Committee fulfill its main mandates vis-a-vis other main Bodies and Platforms, such as the Third Committee, ECOSOC and HLPF?

The answers in (1) need to be found and in ways that are aligned and harmonized to answers to the following questions
1. As currently constituted, can the Agenda of HLFP effectively support the promotion and protection of LDCs, SIDS, LLDCs true sustainable development?
2. Could LDCs, SIDS, LLDCs true sustainable development become integrated into the overarching framework for the Agenda of HLFP? What are the options for rearranging the Agenda as a whole to reflect this approach?
3. What implications, if any, would this approach have for the outcomes and resolutions adopted by the HLPF?
4. Do the items in HLPF Agenda adequately cover the main aspects of the 2030 Agenda?
5. What are the gaps to be filled, bearing in mind also the work and Agenda of the GA 6 (12) Committees and ECOSOC? How should the HLFP fulfill its main mandates vis-a-vis other main Bodies and Platforms, such as the GA 6 (12) Committees and ECOSOC?
Response to (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (10) - (13).

Move AAAA, SDG, COP21 Outcome etc Sustainable Solution forward in each Community in 193 Member States within:-
1. One Worldwide Approach with Local Context in each Community in each of 193 Member States
2. Consultative Research Management
3. Development Research Management
4. Correct Diagnosis, Prescription, Surgery and Recovery Management
5. Policy, Program, Project Intervention and Policy, Program, Project Intervention Training as One
6. Re-establish existing Institutions / Ventures / Partnerships
7. Establish new Institutions / Ventures / Partnerships
8. Communication for UNSDS 2015 Outcome, ECOSOC Retreat 2 Outcome, SDG, AAAA, COP21, Agenda 21 etc Management
9. Country Led Evaluation System Management
10. Standards Management
11. Sanctions Management
12. Celebration Management
1. Analytical Framework that effectively addresses fundamentals – Reform Challenge; Corruption Anatomy; Developing Responses to Corruption; National Integrity System, NIS & Building Political Will.
2. Institutional Pillars of NIS that effectively delivers on statutory roles, duties and responsibilities - Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, Auditor General, Ombudsman, Anti Corruption Agencies, Civil Service / Public Service / Security Service; Media; Civil Society; Religious Institutions; Traditional Institutions; Academic Institutions, Informal Private Sector, Formal Private Sector, International Actors & Mechanisms.

Add response to (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (10) - (13)
Response to (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), (10) - (13)

3. Rules and Practices for the Institutional Pillars – Free & Fair Elections; Judicial Review of Official Actions; Civil Service / Public Service / Security Service Ethics; Monitoring Assets; Integrity Testing; Conflict of Interest; Nepotism; Cronyism; Public Procurement; Public Financial Management; Right to Information; Giving Citizens a Voice; Competition Policy & Containing Corruption; Anti Corruption Laws; Measuring Progress; Lessons Learning; Citizen and Stakeholders Participation & Building Public Support for Anti Corruption Efforts.
Response to (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) , (10) - (13)

1. Shift focus away from problems and passing blame and shift focus towards solutions and opportunities
2. Shift focus away from Talking and Thinking and shift focus towards Action and Accomplishment
3. Shift focus away from working HARDER doing the same old things in the same old ways and shift focus towards working SMARTer doing new things in new ways
4. Shift focus away from academic research advancing the frontiers of knowledge and shift focus towards development research increasing productivity, quality, service, costs and revenue where applicable.
Response to (1) - (7), (10) - (13)Response to (1) - (7), (10) - (13)Response to (1) - (7), (11), (12) and (13)
The Transformation of Society in Community in each of 193 Member States call for:-
1. Government – Political Leaders and Senior Civil Servants: Political Commitment; Government Coordination and Government Regulation.
2. Professionals - Scientists, Designers, Generalist Subject Matter Experts and Specialist Subject Matter Experts: Innovation Solutions, Technology Solutions and Science Solutions
3. Farmers – Rural Peoples Organizations, Commodity Trade Groups, Agriculture Value Chains: Learning, Self Regulation and Partnership
4. Citizens – Individual Consumers, Commercial Consumers, Industrial Consumers: Patronage, Collective Action and Common Interest
5. Consultants – Technical Advisers, Support Providers, Reform Advisers: Language, Approach and Framework
Response to (1) - (7), (10), (12) and (13)
1. Better established Incentive Structures for each Stakeholder Group
2. Effective removal of all Administrative Barriers to more flexible Joint Country Programming Frameworks
3. Effective solutions to all Staffing Issues: Competencies Sets – Hard Competencies: Learning and Skills and Soft Competencies: Character, Courage and Mindset
4. Adequate provision of Resources: Influence, Science, Technology, Innovation, Art, Fund, Manpower, Spiritual, Land, Water - as appropriate.
5. Meet Appetite: Interest – Political, Economic, Social, Cultural etc
6. Manoeuvres amidst Constraints: identify where is the room for manoeuvre or how it can be created to make support of Development Reform possible
Response to (1) - (7), (10), (11) and (13)
1. Appointing Reform Adviser and Global Coordinating Consultant on AAAA, SDG, COP21 Outcome Document, etc Policy Coherence, Coordination, Collaboration and Cooperation for Sustainable Development, P4CSD to UNGA, ECOSOC, UN Security Council, HLPF and Partners
2. Selecting One Worldwide Approach
3. Establishing Mater Multi Stakeholder Platform, MSP and MSPs for each Action Agenda item Village to Global, VtG
4. Establishing Multidisciplinary Professionals Community of Practice on Poverty Elimination and Environmental Sustainability as VtG Platform for all relevant existing and new Disciplines
Response to (1) - (7), (10) - (12)
5. Addressing issues of Trust, Silos, Honesty, Thinking, Solidarity, Attitude, Behavior, Communication etc VtG
6. Connecting each Community in each Local Government in each of the 193 Member States to UN Headquarters New York
7. Establishing VtG Mechanism for Correct Diagnosis, Prescription, Surgery and Recovery Management
8. Establishing VtG Policy, Program, Project Interventions, 3PIs and 3PIs Training as One
9. Establishing VtG Mechanism for Ownership, Harmony, Alignment, Accountability, Transparency, Transformation, Leadership, Learning, Results and Participation (Citizens and Stakeholders), OH2A2T2LRP
10. Establishing VtG Mechanism for Policy Coherence, Coordination, Collaboration and Cooperation for Sustainable Development, P4CSD
11. Establishing VtG Mechanism for Master Collaborative Research Support Program, CRSP for each Action Agenda Item in AAAA, SDG, COP21 Outcome, ECOSOC Retreat 2 Outcome, UNSDS 2015 Outcome etc
Sub-national Reviews - Quarterly
National Reviews - Annual
Sub-regional Reviews - 2 Years
Regional Reviews - 3 Years
HLFP, ECOSOC, UNGA (Global) Reviews - 3 Years
Response to (1) - (7), (10) - (13)Response to (1) - (7), (10) - (13)Response to (1) - (7), (10) - (13)Response to (1) - (7), (10) -(13)Response to (1) - (7), (10) - (13)Response to (1) - (7), (10) - (13)Response to (1) - (7), (10) - (13)Response to (1) - (7), (10) - (13)Response to (1) - (7), (10) and (11)Response to (1) - (7), (10) - (13)

Each UN Family Organization Entity, including WBG, IEG-WBG, IMF, need to be more honest and transparent. Each Entity need to demonstrate and be seen to demonstrate genuine shift away from talking and thinking and shift towards action and accomplishment. Each Entity need to stop parroting change and business unusual while acting anti change and business as usual. For example, in response to invitation to register multi stakeholder partnership on SDKP we sought to register our initiative on 25 September 2015. To date, our initiative has not been registered or officially rejected. Its status remain NEW. Please see link

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/myPage.php?page=viewMessage&msg=58346

Can the UN System help answer all relevant AAAA, SDG etc How questions, if the type of multi stakeholder partnership we seek to register is refused?

We call on the Secretary General to please ensure that this initiative is registered immediately.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/70/csocons22oct.pdf

http://developmentchangechampions.blogspot.com.ng/2015/10/global-push-to-achieve-sdgs-vision-and_27.html

http://developmentchangechampions.blogspot.com.ng/2015/10/global-push-to-achieve-sdgs-vision-and_30.html

http://developmentchangechampions.blogspot.com.ng/2015/11/global-push-to-achieve-sdgs-vision-and_4.html

http://developmentchangechampions.blogspot.com.ng/2015/11/global-push-to-achieve-sdgs-vision-and.html

http://developmentchangechampions.blogspot.com.ng/2015/11/global-push-to-achieve-sdgs-vision-and_9.html
The Report of this consultation to find answer to UNSDS 2015 Outcome, ECOSOC Retreat 2 Outcome, AAAA, SDG, COP21 Outcome, Agenda 21 etc How questions is expected to be released by UN Secretary General in December 2015 and to be discussed by ECOSOC in March 2016.

If the point that answer to UNSDS 2015 Outcome, ECOSOC Retreat 2 Outcome, AAAA, SDG, COP21 Outcome, Agenda 21 etc How questions is best found in DOING then One day delay in adopting / adapting existing AAAA, SDG etc sustainable solutions is One day too long.

It is pertinent to note that in finding correct answer to UNSDS 2015 Outcome, ECOSOC Retreat 2 Outcome, AAAA, SDG, COP21 Outcome, Agenda 21 etc How questions New York based State Actors, Non State Actors and UN Executives appear to focus on Sustainable Development Model they are interested in. This is a major problem that reinforce disconnect between each Community in each of the 193 Member States and UN Headquarters New York.

However, these New York based State Actors, Non State Actors and UN Executives are Agents. The Principals on State Actors side – 3 Arms: Executive, Legislature and Judiciary of 2 – 4 Tiers of Government in 193 Member States; and Non State Actors side – Family, Banks and other Financial Institutions, NGOs’ / CBOs’, Traditional Institutions, Religious Institutions, Academic Institutions, Media Institutions, Formal Private Sector, Informal Private Sector, Trade Groups / Trade Unions and the Agents need to Jointly focus on AAAA, SDG, COP21 Outcome Sustainable Development Model that is in Global Interest.

To achieve this, the Gap between the Political Leadership we have and the Political Leadership we need in each location – Village to Global, to correctly answer UNSDS 2015 Outcome, ECOSOC retreat 2 Outcome, AAAA, SDG, COP21 Outcome, Agenda 21 etc How questions, fully implement these answers with effective monitoring and evaluation of this implementation, need to be filled without delay.
16
BarclayHeatherFemaleInternational Planned Parenthood Federationwww.ippf.orghbarclay@ippf.orgBritishUKChildren & Youth, WomenIn order to have a robust, effective, participatory, transparent and integrated follow-up and review framework it is crucial that the General Assembly, ECOSOC and HLPF adapt to the new Agenda 2030.

Currently the three pillars of sustainable development are dealt with by the General Assembly in silos, e.g. economy and environment by the Second Committee and social development by the Third Committee. The same happens with some functional commissions of ECOSOC, e.g. the Commission for Social Development which is dealt with by Third Committee experts. For example, one of these bodies could act as a forum for a debate on the UN Secretary-General annual SDG progress report (General Assembly); the discussion forum for the Global Sustainable report could take place in ECOSOC; and the national reports could be presented in a specific forum at the HLPF.
All goals and targets should be treated equally and with a balanced approach to the three pillars of sustainable development. Goal 17 should be cross cutting and included annually; Gender Equality should also be cross-cutting as well as considered as a specific goal.

There should be a balanced division of labour between ECOSOC/HLPF/General Assembly so that implementation of all goals and targets is monitored and reviewed, if not annually, at least in a clear and established period.

A link between the programme of work of the functional commissions of ECOSOC and the SDG follow up process, as well as the Executive Boards and the specialized agencies including WHO, ILO, UNICEF, UNFPA, OHCHR, UNESCO, UN Women, etc. should be created to ensure more coherence and coordination among and between these organs and thus strengthening the implementation of the agenda.
Follow-up and review of the UN conferences and processes on LDCs, SIDS and LLDCs could be an annual agenda item at the HLPF or the General Assembly, taking into account existing platforms and processes.

There are, however, equally important UN follow-up conferences that the HLPF needs to deal with in accordance with para 11 of Agenda 2030, such as ICPD and Beijing. These conferences, and their follow-up and review conferences should also be considered under the HLPF, as appropriate; and the outcomes of the functional commissions should feed into the HLPF discussions.
The General Assembly should give broad guidance as to how the products/outcomes from the functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies and forums should be focussed so as to maximise efficiency and coherence. This should be done in the context of the Secretary General’s report, which will then be taken up by the General Assembly for action.

These bodies and commissions are independent, and have control over the scope of their remit and mandate. While the General Assembly may have a strong and welcome interest in aligning the work of the SDGs across the whole UN system, it must also recognise that many of these commissions have remits that go far beyond the goals and targets in the SDGs, and they must retain the space to continue to explore these mandates irrespective of the SDG agenda. The focus of the General Assembly should be on supporting alignment but not limiting or dictating the priorities of the functional commissions.
The 2030 Agenda decided the thematic reviews of the HLPF will be supported by the reviews conducted by the functional commissions of ECOSOC and “other intergovernmental bodies and forums”. These various bodies and forums are mandated to “reflect the integrated nature of the Goals as well as the interlinkages among them”. They “will engage all relevant stakeholders and, where possible, feed into, and be aligned with, the cycle of the HLPF” . The HLPF, when meeting under the auspices of ECOSOC, “shall have a thematic focus reflecting the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development, in line with the thematic focus of the activities of the Council and consistent with the post-2015 development agenda” .The thematic focus of the HLPF should allow the HLPF to follow-up and review the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The GA decided that ECOSOC will base its annual programme of work on a main theme and defined the characteristics of this annual theme.The HLPF thematic reviews should focus on clusters of closely related SDGs to ensure that related targets that may fall under different goal areas are considered together, though attention must be paid to ensure that the targets do not become “siloed” as a result of this clustering. The “Five Ps” of the preamble may be a possible avenue to reflect a holistic approach to the agenda
As paragraph 20 of the 2030 Agenda sets out, gender is a cross-cutting issue of all targets and must be addressed in each of them. Given this, gender must be integrated into every analysis of all thematic reviews. Indeed, every year, member states should answer the question “how has this theme been met for women?”
The HLPF should serve as the main forum for the review of the SDG agenda. In order to link the ECOSOC functional commissions to the review of the SDGs at the HLPF it might be beneficial to give each commission a special mandate to contribute to the review of implementation under specific themes and/or goals and targets, while ensuring that the HLPF serve as the main overall forum of follow-up and review of the SDGs and their targets, spanning the all pillars of the 2030 Agenda. The HLPF may also want to give a formal role to the chairs of functional commissions or other intergovernmental bodies. The HLPF should be required to reflect on these outputs (such as negotiated outcomes, summary of discussions, chair’s statements and others) and integrate them into their deliberations and outcomes. Because of the expertise of these functional commissions their outputs should formally contribute to the SDG review and be fully considered and supported, and not renegotiated.• Adolescents and Youth
• Inequalities within and among countries
• Basic social services, social protection & well being
• Vulnerable and marginalized groups
• Gender equality and empowerment of women
• Capacity building at different levels, e.g. institutional, data collection, etc.
• Right to development
The review themes of the HLPF should be decided in advance to allow for harmonisation between the focus of the functional Commissions leading up to the HLPF, the development of relevant research or reflection from the UN Agencies (as required), adequate consultation with stakeholders, and to enable civil society organisations to prepare their reflections and input into the panel, including conducting research and holding national level consultations (as appropriate). With an adequate lead-in time, intergovernmental platforms and other actors would have the opportunity to gather data and evidence, identifying challenges with particular elements of implementation and share experiences from the national level.The UNSC has a key role in the preparation of the annual SDG report and is best placed to produce reports for the HLPF that reflect on the implementation of each of the targets. The annual reports should cover:
• The number of countries that are collecting the indicators and the level of disaggregation for each, broken down by indicator
• A specific focus on how the target is being met for the most vulnerable populations
• The baseline data for each indicator
• The revised annual data or projection for each indicator
• Update on the development of new data or data sets as required by those indicators that were agreed pending further refinement
• Any specific challenges relate to data collection, including infrastructure development, national capacity, political pressure, lack of clarity on the targets
The more detailed report on the review theme should cover a full analysis of the data under the relevant indicators, augmented by regional and sub-national data where appropriate.
Periodically, the HLPF should consult other intergovernmental bodies (including ECOSOC functional commissions), member states, UN Agencies and civil society organisations to gather their reflections on new and emerging issues. The results of the consultation should be reviewed and published by the HLPF, who can then identify new issues to incorporate into the agenda of subsequent sessions.
The HLPF should have a space where these actors can be heard, where they share best practices and lessons learned on the implementation of the agenda at national and regional levels.

As agreed in resolution 67/290 (paragraph 8 c and the various sub-paragraphs of paragraph 15) these spaces need to be ensured so that non-state actors’ contributions and voices to the debate are guaranteed, either through special forums or throughout the HLPF in plenary meetings, round tables, etc. Experiences should be drawn from the Open Working Group and the Post 2015 processes in this regard.
To lessen the burden on the state and to better integrate the Human Rights Council process with the ECOSOC processes, states should participate in state led-reviews at the HLPF every 4.5 year, with a two year overlap of their Universal Periodic Review process. This would ensure that states are monitored regularly, and that they would not confront the administrative burden of having a UPR review and an HLPF review in the same year. Further, as many of the social issues raised through the HLPF review may be similar to those raised at the UPR, the HLPF review may be able to act as a sort of mid-term report on progress with the implementation of UPR recommendations. The UPR should also be an important input into the HLPF, and UPR discussions should encompass progress on the 2030 Agenda as it is implemented.The HLPF should be provided with a permanent and adequately staffed and resourced secretariat, which should support States in their preparation for the review process. A clear set of guidelines must be established so that all States report on the same subject matters and all goals and targets, and include the participation of CSOs, academia, national statistics officers and others.
At country level, UN country and regional offices could be tasked with providing guidance to States in their preparations for the HLPF review, and could also facilitate dialogue with civil society.
The HLPF could also be supported by special rapporteurs or advisory groups established to provide input and guidance on specific thematic or cross-cutting areas, such as gender equality. These could conduct independent research and provide recommendations on particular thematic areas, and could also be mandated to assess progress on specific thematic issues at regional or sub-regional levels.
As indicated under question 6, and in line with paragraph 20 of the 2030 Agenda, it is essential that the HLPF systematically apply a gender perspective in examining national implementation reviews. Voluntary common reporting guidelines for State-led reviews should encourage Member States to systematically report on what progress has been made on specific themes for women and girls.

Furthermore, in line with the strong focus of the 2030 Agenda on combatting inequality and its commitment, as outlined in paragraph 4, to leave no one behind and to reach the furthest behind first, voluntary reporting guidelines should encourage Member States to report on how their implementation measures have sought to specifically reach excluded and marginalised population groups and what progress towards reaching the goals and targets has been made for these population groups in particular.
It is essential that reporting guidelines reflect the universal and indivisible character of the 2030 Agenda. All Member States should be required to report on progress towards all goals and targets.
However, over and above an assessment of progress towards all SDGs and Targets, reporting guidelines could identify a core set of issues, which Member States should be encouraged to report on. As outlined under question 16, these should include reporting on how a gender perspective has been mainstreamed in their implementation of the SDGs and targets as well as what progress has been achieved specifically for marginalised and excluded population groups.
The country reviews should be held at the highest political level and in a spirit of collaboration and shared learning. All countries should be welcome to attend the reviews and contribute. It is recommended that the review feature a statement from the member state under review, a statement from the UN system summarising any relevant recommendations from treaty bodies, UPR reviews, special rapporteurs, and other mechanisms, and a statement from national civil society organisations. Following these timed presentations, other member states would be invited to offer voluntary recommendations or commit support to the country under review. To ensure that the review remains apolitical and focused on support and learning, countries should be dissuaded from making bloc, group or affiliate statements, and to participate only in their national capacities.During the national review, the state under review would be invited to request support or technical assistance on particular aspects of the agenda, and to seek collaborations with the UN system, other member states, civil society organisations, and others. Member states, UN Agencies and others may also make offers of support or technical assistance to the state under review. This exchange of commitment may help to mobilise new support and partnerships. If necessary some kind of ‘pledge conference’ could take place during Member States presentations, especially in the case of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs).The outcome of the national reviews should be a document that summarises the information submitted to the review (the national report, UN report and stakeholder submission, and any data reflecting on progress towards achievement), including any recommendations made by member states, and offers of support and technical assistance. This report would be reviewed at the next national review, where states would update on progress and respond to recommendations. Member states and UN Agencies making commitments of support or technical assistance but who did not fulfil their offer could also be requested to comment on the reasons for non-fulfilment.The regional reviews and their outcomes have a critical role to play in the HLPF process and should be considered/feed into the HLPF debate on an annual basis.
A session of the HLPF should be dedicated to the regional reviews, including during one of the 3 days ministerial sessions, where Heads of Delegations, Executive Secretary of the UN Regional Commissions and other regional and sub-regional organisations, as appropriate, will have an opportunity to (a) share findings, experiences, best practices and lessons learned in implementation among countries with similar development backgrounds and histories; (b) identify regional-level trends and challenges, as well as strategies to address them, including through cross-border approaches; (c) identify south-south and triangular cooperation to accelerate implementation, as well as other means of implementation; and (d) identify regional-level priorities for the HLPF.
Robust, inclusive and effective engagement of Major groups and other recognized constituencies requires political will, commitment on the part of governments and the United Nations system, and financial support. The HLPF should take steps to amplify the involvement of civil society within the Forum itself, regional and national-level follow-up and review mechanisms, as well as in the implementation of sustainable development policies. Funding modalities should be identified to support participation of Major Groups and recognized constituencies in all levels of HLPF activities, in a manner that is equitable and inclusive and supports the realization of equitable, rights-based sustainable development.


Besides the contribution at the national level in the definition of the national report process, CSOs and major groups should have a session to share their views and contributions in line of what happened during the OWG and Post 2015 processes. As stated by the co-chairs and several Member States, contributions from major groups was a key element to achieve a progressive, forward looking agenda that leaves no one behind.
Prior to each HLPF, stakeholders should be required to submit statements on their contributions to achieving the SDGs. These reports could be grouped by national contribution, regional contribution and global contribution, and also be cross-referenced with the relevant targets. The reports could be published on the UN website and shared with member states and UN Agencies so they can reflect on the contributions of CSOs in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda.
All agencies should produce an annual report on the steps they have taken to contribute to the 2030 Agenda. This can include the development and roll out of specific programmes, the realignment of existing programmes to the SDGs or the direct delivery of direct services towards achieving the Agenda. These reports should be summarised and collated by the HLPF Secretariat ensure that they are accessible, effective and efficient.As outlined under question 15, the HLPF should be provided with a permanent and adequately staffed and resourced secretariat, which should support Member States and other stakeholders in their preparations for the review process, support the coordination of the HLPF sessions and follow-up and facilitate engagement of civil society.

Sufficient time should be allocated for the yearly HLPF sessions to allow for meaningful reviews, sharing of experiences, and exchange of lessons learned and best practices.

UN country and regional offices should provide support to Member States and other stakeholders in their preparations for and follow-up to HLPF reviews and should facilitate broad engagement of civil society throughout the review process, such as by supporting the organisation of civil society consultations or the development of civil society shadow reports on country-level progress.
17
SOSSOUGADOSSEMaleNGO: Amis des Etrangers au Togo (ADET)http://www.noracismadet.comsossougadoss@yahoo.frTogoleseTogoNon-Governmental OrganizationsThe HLPF works under the auspice of ECOSOC. It must inform ECOSOC about every things and respond to ECOSOC recommendations. ECOSOC also is under the GA and must request GA agreements before acting. If The third committees works to help the GA, so it can be useful but if not the third committees is not needed.ECOSOC mandates are social, economic and environmental development worldwide.So, ECOSOC must have trust to the HLPF and CIVICUS who has the charge of the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda.The HLPF has a great responsability to organize the follow-up and rewiew arragements in these fields without duplication. Their policy must be inclusive as possible.YES, YES, YES. The GA is at the top level. So, ECOSOC and the HLPF must obay it and dialogue with it on every work programmes and sessions.By mutual understandingI think that the SDGs must be tackle in an holistic way.- Inclusive education
- Inclusive economy
- Gender equality
- Poverty reduction
- hunger mitigation and zero malnutrition
- Energy for all
- Reforestation, No dersrtification.
- Climate change is no good for us
- Citizen participation to the SDGs is obligatory.
- Peace, no conflict is good for the SDGs implementation, follow-up and review
- No corruption
The primary theme must be pointed for a year but the others must go together with.YesThis commission is very important and must integrate datashift in their work.It must create awards for new innovations and emerging issuesThey must follow the SDGs and targets adopted by the World leaders on september 25, 2015 for 2030 Each 4 years to be presented at the HLPFThis discussions will be prepared with national CSOs, governments and UN entities.- SDGs CSOs security
- Inclusive committee (CSO, Governments, UN entity) to follow-up and reviews at national implementation.
- Activities rapport
- Financial rapport
The recommendations made to the country can help this country well drive the SDGs and its implementation.The HLPF national reviews rapports can be followed-up by regional HLPFRegional HLPF is under the general HLPF, so its review processes must be considered by the global HLPFBy Nomination them for their engagement to the SDGs: participation to UN summits, Open working groups on SDGs etc...I suggest that the local major groups must send their rapports to the HLPF national which must work together with the UNDP. From UNDP the regional HLPF will compilate national HLPF rapport to the global HLPF. These actors must be payed as an international civil services.UN system has a great contributions of the 2030 Agenda implementation, CSOs international protection, follow-up and reviews, Anti- corruption, trainig, expertises etc...The global HLPF must work with the global UN system at the global level, at regional level and at national level. The must work together. But UN system must know that the global HLPF is the main entity for the SDGs follow-up and reviews. So the UN system must accepte integrate them they will learn from each other for the SDGs implementation, follow-up and reviews and with the governments and for the better world we want post 2015.With lack of money, no development
With lack of engagement no progress
Without peace, no development
Without lack of corruption no development
Without politic voluntary no development
Without human resources no development
With racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and exclusion no devopment
Poverty eradicate by 2030 is good
Zero hunger is another better one goal
Electricity for all is ver good
Good water for all is not a bad thing
Etc....
Together we can make the world a better place.

Thank you very much.
18
Moller-LoswickAnnaFemaleSaferworldhttp://www.saferworld.org.uk/amollerloswick@saferworld.org.ukSwedishUnited KingdomPeacebuildingIn order to ensure successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda, alignment of policy priorities with the SDGs will be key at all levels. In practice, the work of the GA and the work of the Second and Third committee in particular, should be built on the priorities set by the 2030 Agenda. This will include ensuring that the draft resolutions are more action – oriented and focused on contributing to SDG implementation. This might also entail deprioritising some areas of work while adding other priorities. Indeed, the 2030 Agenda is transformative and encompasses aspects of development that goes beyond the three pillars - this should be reflected in both the GA and ECOSOC’s efforts going forward. The roles of ECOSOC and the General Assembly should be complementary – ECOSOC should provide an effective platform for coordinating development activities while the GA should maintain and build political moment around 2030 Agenda implementation.Given that the HLPF will meet annually under the auspices of ECOSOC – with only 54 members – while it only will meet under the auspices of the GA – with all UN Member states – present every fourth year, ECOSOC has a responsibility to ensure that its work remains truly universal and inclusive. This will include taking into account the lessons learned and experiences from all member states as well as enabling civil society stakeholders to participate actively in all relevant processes. It will also include encouraging member states to ensure that civil society participates actively in national review processes and that their views are reflected in the final national reviews that are being put forward to the HLPF.
Successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda will depend on a comprehensive monitoring framework with indicators – both at the global and the national level – that provide a clear and accurate picture of progress on the issues that really matter. It is important that this process remains a technical one, led by the IAEG-SDGs and overseen by the United Nations Statistics Division and reported on to the Statistical Commission. It is also important that the ECOSOC and GA endorsement of the agreed proposal between July-September 2016 does not become politicised.
Synergies between both forums are key – i.e. the discussions at the annual Economic and Social Council Forum on financing for development will need to be focused on how the ongoing financing for development efforts contribute to implementation of the SDGs and to reassess what has not worked well. In the same vein, the outcome from the Forum on financing needs to feed into the HLPF discussions as an integrated element. Realising that the SDGs are interlinked – for instance, the peace agenda is included across a number of Goals and targets – we would prefer if progress was addressed based upon a transversal theme (option ii). One way could be to identify the themes based on the five Ps in the preamble of the 2030 Agenda – these cross-cutting issues have already been approved through the GA adoption of the 2030 Agenda. With more ongoing armed conflicts than at any time this century, peace – one of the five Ps and therefore a unanimously agreed cross-cutting issue – should be included in the four-year cycle of thematic reviews. The inputs should be provided to the HLPF in written form during a preparatory period ahead of the HLPF - they should be framed around and linked to specific SDGs that are subject to each thematic review in order to make the input concise and relevant to the HLPF discussions. For instance, the Statistical Commission could report on progress toward meeting the targets under the SDGs that are under discussion each year, and highlight key gaps in terms of implementation. One option could be to frame the annual themes for the HLPF around the five Ps (People, Planet, Peace, Partnership and Prosperity) that are included in the preamble of the 2030 Agenda. This will ensure an integrated approach to the follow-up and review process and will be key to avoid siloes between the different SDGs. Another option could be to frame the annual themes for the HLPF around the six essential elements identified in the UN Secretary-General’s Synthesis Report from December 2014 (People, Dignity, Prosperity, Planet, Partnership and Justice) but the five Ps would be preferable given that these have been agreed and adopted by UN Member States. In order to ensure that all aspects captured in the SDGs are reflected in the thematic reviews in a way that avoids unnecessary competition between stakeholders prioritising certain SDGs, suggestions could be made for a four-year cycle of themes for the HLPF meetings in line with the five Ps. The final P can then be the focus of the first year of the new four-year cycle and so on. The Statistical Commission should support and give guidance to the IAEG-SDGs over the next 15 years and take on a coordinating role in order to ensure that the IAEG-SDGs can provide technical support for the implementation of the approved indicator and monitoring framework. This will include support the IAEG-SDGs in order to ensure timely and comprehensive input to relevant reports such as the Annual SDG Progress report. This will include liaising with relevant officials within the UN Secretariat in the drafting process of the Annual SDG Progress report. Specific bodies of the UNSC – such as the Praia Group on Governance and Peace Statistics – could be drawn upon to continually engage on strengthening the global indicators and supporting methodological and capacity development. Finally, the UNSC should play a role in encouraging and supporting its members – national NSOs – to provide the necessary data required for global monitoring of progress.
There should be a focal point within the UN Secretariat who would receive input from different stakeholders on new and emerging issues, with the responsibility to act accordingly and brief the HLPF on these issues on a regular basis if necessary. HLPF will need to have the necessary mechanisms in place in order to be able to respond to these issues. It can for example involve adding an 0,5-1 day to the 8-day HLPF consultation period in order to deal with these issues and discuss whether they will need to be included under selected annual themes going forward.
Shadow reports conducted by non-state actors on the different SDGs should be available online, compiled, synthesised and handed to the HLPF representatives in advance of the HLPF. In addition, CSO representatives who have produced shadow reports relevant to the annual theme should be invited to present their findings to the HLPF – potential discrepancies between the findings of civil society and the official data presented by UN Member States in their reviews should be discussed and analysed. Global partnerships, initiatives and platforms that are relevant to specific themes being discussed by the HLPF – for example the Open Government Partnership on governance or the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding on peace – should be invited to brief the HLPF on how they and their members are facilitating global action on meeting the SDGs.
The discussion could be framed around successes, gaps, lessons learned in order to ensure that there will be a meaningful exchange of experiences and feedback at the HLPF.
Given that the HLPF discussions will be focused on reviews prepared by member states, the national level preparations will be key and should be supported by the international community. This will include ensuring accountability and transparency by ensuring a multi-stakeholder review process where civil society plays an active role with their concerns and views reflected in the final review, the mobilisation of national statistical systems working in partnership with an array of data-gatherers in order to produce reliable, disaggregated and comprehensive data sets that can feed into national reviews. Civil society and other relevant stakeholders also need to be actively involved in the consultation process on identifying and setting national indicators for the different SDG targets.
See 15: the key issues around transparency, accountability and participation will need to be included and put at the forefront of the voluntary common reporting guidelines for State-led reviews at the HLPF.
In addition to reporting on all Goals, Member States could be encouraged to report on what issues that have been most difficult to achieve progress on and why identifying key data gaps and suggest proposals on what needs to be done, and one section on lessons learned – civil society should be consulted on all these issues. While a smaller set of countries should be invited to present their reviews for open debate and discussion, all countries should submit country review reports to the HLPF ahead of its meeting. Regional review processes should be reported on at the HLPF and should be seen as a complementary element to the national reviews – the outcomes from the regional review processes could help give an overview of progress made and gaps for each region.
As mentioned earlier, shadow reports of civil society should be included and discussed at the HLPF in addition to the state-led reviews. The HLPF can also support those stakeholders who don’t have a presence in New York and/or are not part of the Major Groups to participate actively in the HLPF discussions and the preparatory work. This should include enabling civil society representatives to participate at HLPF by financially assisting their participation, by ensuring that the SDG online platform is regularly updated, that UNDESA continues to send out relevant updates and information via email about developments at the UN and that civil society members working on themes not captured in the Major Groups such as peacebuilding are allowed to speak at relevant conferences and debates. These reports should be included as an integral element of the work of the HLPF that is sufficiently reviewed and discussed. This could also include reports from the private sector on their contribution in order to ensure their active involvement in 2030 Agenda implementation. The focus of this review should be based on how well the UN system is doing in terms of contributing to the implementation of the SDGs, as well as how well it is doing in terms of overcoming siloes between different UN entities. This will be key given that the 2030 Agenda is transformative – business as usual, with the different UN entities continuing with their work without coordinating, is not an option. In this vein, the review should be a comprehensive one rather than different reviews looking at different areas of the UN system – a holistic approach is crucial.
The Secretariat can be a vehicle for ensuring that civil society plays an active role in HLPF – this includes civil society from developing countries with more limited opportunities to engage in discussions. In addition, the Secretariat can play an important role in continuing to raise awareness among civil society on the 2030 Agenda by supporting national and local level awareness campaigns and capacity building. Indeed, the follow-up and review process tend to be a very technical one and continued and sustained efforts to engage civil society are needed in order to avoid this process turning to a sole state-led one. Finishing the job and quantifying all targets: As the 2030 Agenda document notes (para 57), several targets lack clear numerical quantifications. For example, no target in Goal 16 is quantified to specific a numerical increase or reduction aimed for by 2030. This will make it impossible to assess whether a target has been met by 2030, undermining the foundation of monitoring and accountability. The HLPF should request that, working with the IAEG-SDGs, relevant committees within the GA draw on global indicator baseline data, as it becomes available, to set specific numerical benchmarks for success in 2030 for all unquantified targets. The HLPF would then assess and agree to their proposals.
19
PalmerEricMalePrivate individualnoneepalmer@allegheny.eduUSA CANADAUnited StatesOther StakeholderOpen public consultation on goal re-design (for re-design occurred for MDGs and should be expected to occur for SDGs) and comment on assessment of achievement of goals (for that was not done publicly in MDG round). Establish a working group independent of HLPF to pursue and report such consultation. Treat role of the working group like special rapporteur role in other contexts (that is, as an independent voice with purpose of providing critical perspective).This, and 7-9 below shows no plan whatever for the sort of (public, general, critical) consultation I have suggested above.External observation and criticism is to be expected and welcomed, but entirely outsourcing criticism in this way provides insulation from the criticism. Internal critical perspective for UN is needed.
Establish a working group independent of HLPF to pursue and report public consultation with national arms, technical arms, NGO liaison. Treat role of the working group like special rapporteur role in other contexts (that is, as an independent voice with purpose of providing critical perspective). Current design has focus upon accountability of countries to UN, not of UN to critical voices that are not representative of nations' leadership.
See response to #13See response to #13The MDGs, which spanned 1990-2015, present a case study that reveals the changeability of such long-term multilateral commitments as the SDGs. The MDGs were enmeshed in overlapping and inconsistent national and intergovernmental commitments reaching from 1995 to 2005, and the text of those goals also evolved, stabilizing for the last time in 2007. The Sustainable Development Goals and attendant commitments should be expected to evolve similarly over their fifteen year run. This presents a concern, for among the three committees established by the UN to create the goals, the two committees charged with public consultation were retired as planned in 2014. The Open Working Group had particular accountability to the public, including a consultation structure the likes of which are not apparent in the HLPF. The process evident from late 2014 forward has displayed a shift towards a strategy of enrolling broad public endorsement that leaves such consultation and specific responsibility to those consulted in doubt. This bodes ill for public deliberation on the goals and for public accountability as the agenda proceeds towards 2030. A new and important face of the SDG strategy has perhaps been tossed away. Full argument: http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=PALPCA-3&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FPALPCA-3.pdf
20
BertazziPietroMGRIhttp://globalreporting.orgbertazzi@globalreporting.orgItalyNetherlandsMultistakeholder organization/In order to ensure for a coherent, comprehensive and effective follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda, ECOSOC should make sure that 1) the indicators framework of the SDGs and the HLPF’s follow-up and review strategy aligned and that the global follow-up and review 2) integrates information on the contribution of business to the SDGs.

The private sector should be voluntary contributor for regional and global reviews. This is the only manner to capture a comprehensive and accurate picture of all contributions to the SDGs. The private sector can voluntarily report on its own contributions to each of the SDGs.

The SDG Compass tool (http://sdgcompass.org), developed for companies to measure their progress in achieving the SDGs, can be used to capture business contributions and include them in review frameworks. GRI also developed the SDG 12.6 Tracker (http://database.globalreporting.org/SDG-12-6) an online platform that allows to track the progress made on target 12.6 worldwide
GRI believes in option (ii), with transversal thematic reviews. A dedicated HLPF thematic review will include how the private sector contributes to the SDGs. It is clear that the theme of reviewing private sector contributions and global partnerships is one that many Member States have expressed interest in.
The UN Secretary General’s Synthesis Report states that “All have asked for a rigorous and participatory review and monitoring framework to hold governments, businesses, and international organizations accountable to the people for results, and to ensure that no harm is done to the planet”....“[The agenda] should include strong, inclusive public mechanisms at all levels for reporting, monitoring progress, learning lessons, and ensuring mutual accountability.” Upholding the Secretary General’s sentiments, we encourage all Member States to explore how the private sector can be best integrated into the HLPF follow-up and review architecture.
The UNSC should ensure that there is proper alignment between the global indicator framework for the SDGs and the global follow-up and review strategy devised by the HLPF. More precisely, it is of the utmost importance that this alignment allows for the contribution of the private sector to the sustainable development goals to be captured, as encouraged in the 2030 Agenda.

We would like to recall that paragraph 84 of the 2030 Agenda regarding Global Reviews reads : “Reviews will be voluntary, while encouraging reporting, and include developed and developing countries as well as relevant United Nations entities and other stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector.”
The HLPF should ensure that thematic reviews take into account data on the progress made on the SDGs that comes from a variety of sources. In this view, the HLPF should encourage the inclusion of multi-stakeholder organizations in processes and platforms feeding into the thematic reviews.

GRI, among others, can help harvest the wealth of information coming from the private sector on business’ contribution to the SDGs. The information generated through corporate reporting aligned with the SDGs (with the help of the SDG Compass) cannot be ignored when striving to measure the progress made on the SDGs worldwide.

We would like to recall that paragraph 85 of the 2030 Agenda, on thematic reviews, emphasizes the need to engage all relevant stakeholders in the thematic reviews : “They will engage all relevant stakeholders and, where possible, feed into, and be aligned with, the cycle of the high-level political forum.”
It is important that the voluntary common reporting guidelines include elements on how national reviews can take into account the contribution of the private sector to the SDGs. The Guidelines could suggest that a private sector review framework be embedded in the overall country review architecture, which would each include a section on business contributions.

The 2030 Agenda, paragraph 79 on National Reviews reads : “Such reviews should draw on contributions from indigenous peoples, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders, in line with national circumstances, policies and priorities.”

GRI is available to provide support at the national level on how to capture contributions from the private sector. With the Sustainability Disclosure Database (database.globalreporting.org), the SDG Compass (sdgcompass.org) and SDG Target 12.6 Live tracker (database.globalreporting.org/SDG-12-6), mentioned in this survey, GRI is tasked with the means to support this effort.
All national reviews should include the information available on private sector contribution on the SDGs. GRI is ready to contribute its knowledge of the private sector and its Standards, that will help companies generate and communicate the needed data, to help statistical offices capture this contribution.
GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines provide the private sector with a robust framework to assess and monitor their sustainable development impacts and contributions. They cover an array of economic, social, environmental and governance issues and are aligned with other international frameworks such as the UN GPs on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for MNEs.
GRI provides the freely accessible Sustainability Disclosure Database (database.globalreporting.org) that gathers information on 29 000 sustainability reports. This wealth of information can be captured to inform the progress made on global sustainable development, and GRI is ready to help.
Recognizing the contribution to the SDGs of not only government actors but also the private sector and civil society will help mobilize and engage these actors in implementing the 2030 Agenda together with governments. The ambition of the 2030 Agenda needs a strengthen Global Partnership and the involvement of all forces available towards achieving the goals. This will only made possible if all actors, including the private sector, are given proper recognition for their contributions.The HLPF should ensure that regional reviews reflect the wealth of information shared with national reviews in order to allow for a better sharing of best practices as encouraged in the 2030 Agenda. Among the information contained in national reviews, the contribution from other actors such as the private sector should be duly discussed and examined.Paragraph 48 of the 2030 Agenda reads “We are committed to developing broader measures of progress to complement gross domestic product.”.
GRI would like the HLPF to take on that promise and include in its reflection a discussion on the ways to develop broader and better measures to complement GDP. We are convinced that such a broader measure of progress on sustainable development should include data from the private sector. In this view we are working with several partners on better aligning corporate, national and global measures of sustainable development. We are available to further develop this work.
21
BrownSusanFWWF Internationalhttp://wwf.panda.org/sbrown@wwfint.orgAustralianSwitzerlandNoneThe HLPF should play an oversight role in follow-up and review, focussing on the global level. The HLPF should be the body that integrates and harmonizes the input from the thematic and regional levels and intergovernmental platforms, ensuring coordination, coherence and complementarity with both the national and global levels. The HLPF could play the role of review and reporting under the leadership of ECOSOC which continues being the coordinating body.
It is particularly important to keep the principles of the SDG agenda as a focus for the HLPF - including the concept of full integration.
As the General Assembly should provide high-level political guidance on the Agenda and its implementation, it would be important to review the mandates of its Second and Third committees to ensure their alignment with the new 2030 Agenda. This will ensure coherence, facilitate and enhance coordination as well as allow harmonization of the implementation and follow up and review processes.
Follow up and review should happen at different levels using existing mechanisms, involving local,national, regional, and global levels.The follow-up and review should also encompass all goals and ensure the integration of all the dimensions of sustainable development.The ECOSOC should provide common reporting guidelines at all levels to ensure coherence and efficiency in the follow up and review processes and reduce the burden on countries.This will help in coordinating the different levels,tracking progress in implementation as well as identifying gaps and solutions and sharing experiences and best practices.Furthermore,for coherence and efficiency,the HLPF should draw also from the contribution of non-state actors, including CSOs,the private sector as well as communities,since they will all be responsible for realizing the goals.It would also be important, to create a stronger,supportive and responsive global system, that it includes feedback to regional,national and thematic levelsThe HLPF should work on already existing mechanisms and arrangements to avoid any duplication. In addition, the HLPF should also ensure that other multilateral, plurilateral and national commitments do not run counter the newly agreed agenda and that they will align to the delivery of the SDGs in their future reviews and revisions.
With specific regard to LDC’s, SIDS, LLDC’s, they have their own regional forums, which they would report to, on progress and challenges. The HLPF could use such forums and reports to put together the global report and narrative on global progress, gaps, capacity needs as well as highlight goals and targets not being met.
The General Assembly must have a clear vision on how the implementation of the 2030 Agenda will be done, including Means of Implementation and financing, in order to maintain the level of ambition of this Agenda high. This vision should guide what is expected to be reflected in the follow up and review framework.Means of implementation should be best used as it captures both the Financing for Development, capacity building as well as technology transfer.Thematic reviews should be structured to ensure a balanced integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development and bring out the interlinkages to avoid a silo approach.Options(i) and (ii) offer the opportunity to ensure that integration, which should be the overall objective of the thematic reviews,is not lost.To avoid silos,option(i) has to ensure that ‘closely related’ does not mean that goals related to the same dimension (e.g. social) will be regrouped: it must be interpreted as clustering goals with interlinkages between different dimensions (e.g.economic growth,SCP and ecosystems;food,oceans and poverty).At the same time,option(ii) would require selecting a theme that enables balanced consideration of all three dimensions rather than simply selecting goals (e.g. health) and reviewing only targets related to this theme,with the risk of falling again into a silo approach.The risk with running a transversal theme is that it could mask implementation of goals and targets.The inputs provided to the HLPF should include annual reports, peer reviews, binding and non-binding intergovernmental outcomes such as setting of norms and standards, declarations or summary of discussions. The inputs should also address challenges met, support needed for implementation, as well as identify opportunities to strengthen national frameworks and provide support for a coordinated and coherent implementation of the SDGs.
The ECOSOC should organize and categorize these inputs in order to harmonize them accordingly to the annual theme and aim of the HLPF sessions, and make them more accessible and easier to consult and use.
It would be useful to have assessments of existing mandates throughout fora and political dialogues which run counter to the SDGs in order to identify and progressively phase them out.
- The dependence of social and economic development on natural resources
- Policy coherence for sustainable development
- Cross-cutting implementation of all goals and targets in all their dimensions
The process of determining the themes should allow the opportunity to respond to, and consider, new and emerging issues, including responding to key areas of the framework that are lagging behind in progress. Equally, flexibility and adaptation will be key in the implementation of this agenda so the themes should not be defined too in advance as they may need to change or be adapted. Determining the themes annually would certainly provide more flexibility and allow to respond to, and consider, new challenges. Also, it will allow intergovernmental platforms and other relevant actors to carry out researches, analysis, reports, and reviews based on more recent and relevant data.Yes, in order to address all issues related to the same theme, including technology and science.The UN Statistical Commission should contribute to the work of the HLPF through ensuring relevant data and reviewing the global set of indicators annually in order to ensure quality, accessible, timely and reliable disaggregated data to help the measurement of progress. The UN Statistical Commission should operate as the coordination body that receives and elaborates the regional and national statistical inputs and review of the regional and national indicators. The Commission also needs to develop an appropriate mechanism for multistakeholder engagement.See 9 above.Platforms and processes outside the UN system, including other international or national organizations and non-state actors, can contribute to and support the HLPF thematic reviews with their expertise, knowledge, lessons learned, assessments and tools, the embedding of the real value of ecosystem services, well-being, and human capital into national accounting systems, national and local sustainable development strategies.
In particular, it is crucial to promote and not restrict the role of non-state actors in this process that should be participatory, multi-stakeholder and universal.
The platforms should identify, assess and phase out existing measures which run counter to the achievement of the SDG agenda.
Countries should participate in regular state-led reviews every two years. If sufficient tracking is done on progress - through simple comparable and globally harmonized format - to allows for adaptive management, the reporting burden at the national level will be reduced. To this end, a strong, transparent, inclusive and independent national monitoring and review body should be created to establish national targets and action plans, sets baselines, revises indicators, benchmarks against all goals and targets, and conduct national regular reviews.The implementation of the SDGs as an integrated and indivisible agenda, with particular focus on the environmental dimension to ensure it would not fall on track. While efforts may need to be staggered, all countries should be working towards achieving all goals and targets. The HLPF should address the balance of the three dimensions to ensure that countries are addressing them equally and not focusing on one dimension at the detriment of others. The HLPF should also ensure that countries are focusing on the goals and targets that are most transformative in their particular country context, not just those that are easier to achieve.The presentation of national reviews to the HLPF should facilitate cross-country comparisons as well as tracking of global progress.National reviews can identify areas where Means of Implementation, be it technology, partnerships or resources, are insufficient to make progress in one area. This will in turn be taken to the regional and global level to address these issues, which could be thematic or country-specific, therefore allowing for a structured and common response to any issue of Means of Implementation. National reviews should have a dedicated section on means of implementation, which also comprises a section on partnerships: this section will look at progress in these two areas, also laying the ground for pursuing partnerships in areas where progress is weak. By making these national reviews public and showcasing them at the regional and international stage, the possibilities for new partnerships with stakeholders - other Member States, International Governmental Organizations as well as Civil Society - will increase.The HLPF should ensure that reviews result in improved and accelerated implementation of the goals and associated targets, catalysing renewed investment towards areas that lag behind. The national reviews should allow for cross country comparisons to encourage continued efforts and progress. The reviews could highlight key areas of success and key areas where progress is lagging behind and encourage increased action in areas that need greater attention. They should also highlight key obstacles to progress at the global level. In terms of follow up, the theme of the following year’s HLPF could be set to focus on key areas that need further attention. Putting a spotlight on them could be a way of encouraging stepped up action.The HLPF should consider the regional reviews as a synthesis of national reports as well as reports aimed at enhancing and adapting existing regional review mechanism to the SDGs framework and identify regional and national trends, gaps and needs.The participation of civil society and stakeholders is a key element of successful monitoring and review at the HLPF.The HLPF should build on the positive and inclusive experiences of the OWG and the post-2015 IGN processes and provide transparent and inclusive space for participation of civil society and stakeholders.Funds and resources should be generated and allocated to support participation of stakeholders from the global south in the national,regional,and global review mechanisms.All reports and relevant documentation presented by Member States and other stakeholders to the HLPF should be published online and available in accessible format and different languages.Civil Society must have access to all data coming from all levels and be granted the opportunity to prepare their inputs based on the available data.Stakeholders should be allowed to participate at all levels in the follow up and review:national,regional,global and thematic,especially if they participate in partnershipsStakeholders can report on their contribution through their participation in partnerships with Member States and International Organizations as well as with mandatory reporting on their projects and programmes on themes and at the national, regional and global level (e.g. as it is done for ECOSOC or UNESCO partnerships).The UN system could contribute to the review of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda at different levels and in several ways:
- providing national, regional and global data that can help monitoring the progress in the implementation of the goals and targets
- engaging at the regional level through the UN Regional Commissions which should work collectively to standardize models, identify challenges and best practices and share experience, expertise and knowledge
- engaging in the thematic review process with its specialized agencies to provide expertise and knowledge
The UN System can organize its Agencies to help Member States collect and analyse data according to their thematic expertise while cooperating. Agencies and Programmes will need to cooperate with each other efficiently and effectively to address cross-cutting issues and ensure that the interest of achieving sustainable development is put ahead before on purpose. The UN system must rise above the temptation to continue in the old ways, under earlier singular themes and own the full integration concept. It can also help to identify perversities in other policy measures which will run counter to or limit the potential achievement of the SDGs.
22
weissjosephmaleBrazilian Society for Ecological Economicswww.ecoeco.org.brjosephweissbr@gmail.comUSABrazilScience & Technological CommunityIt is not enough for multi-stakeholder partnerships to implement SDG actions. ECOSOC should also recognize that stakeholder peak organizations seek to influence UN and national policies and strategies. This influence should be promoted, seeking to build balanced roles of the corporate, NGO and scientific communities.One approach would be for the General Assembly to reconsider the role of the Global Compact by opening further Global Compact membership of the latter two groups and the election of three presidents to represent these groups. It would enhance the opportunity for the UN to have, within its structure, opportunity for greater dialogue among these groups, to support UN member, ECOSOC and General Assembly decision-making.Delegate responsibility for technical assistance and coordination to the regional economic commissions (such as ECLA), to help systematize review.Delegate responsibility for follow-up and review arrangements to the regional economic commissions (such as ECLA), to help systematize review. Establish special groups for SIDS and LLDCs.Promote major group peak organizations to review at national and regional levels, select representatives and coordinate among major group representatives, to promote consensus on follow-up and review processes, achievements and challenges. Each regional economic commission should facilitate the joint production of major group peak organizations contributions.
23
PearceCatherineFemaleWorld Future Councilwww.worldfuturecouncil.orgcatherine.pearce@worldfuturecouncil.orgBritishUKNon-Governmental OrganizationsIf the HLPF is to provide the centrepiece of global governance of the SDGs, additional human and financial resources are required for it to fulfil its mandate. Transformational changes to institutional and organisational capacities are needed to reflect the transformational nature of the 2030 Agenda and to go beyond silos and sectors. In particular, a Commission for Future Generations could work alongside the HLPF, reporting to the GA, giving support and facilitation to the Forum’s mandate on follow-up and review. The additional perspective of shining a light upon the needs and interests of future generations, helps to promote long-term, holistic, interconnected approaches, offering a transversal theme, striking directly at the nature and structure of the 2030 Agenda. Under resolution 67/290 the GA reserves the right “to review at its seventy-third session the format and the organizational aspects of the forum, unless otherwise decided” offering scope for new institutional actors. A Commission for Future Generations, advocating for future generations would highlight to the HLPF long-term implications of proposed action to meet the SDGs and present recommendations and solutions, in order to help facilitate informed decision making, placing issues in a broader inter-temporal context. By placing future generations at the heart of advocacy and investigative procedures, it reinforces interconnections and reaches beyond silos. A Commission can help to bring transparency to how decisions are being made and in so doing, can contribute capacity, resourcing and key elements of legitimacy and efficiency to the HLPF follow up and review mechanisms. The 2030 Agenda demands from the HLPF the vision and leadership to begin addressing systemic challenges. A Commission for Future Generations can help institutional arrangements to build that vision, through fostering expertise on policy practices, undertaking research and presenting its findings to both the HLPF and the GA.
24
DennisHelenFemaleChristian Aid www.christianaid.org.uk hdennis@christian-aid.orgBritishUKOther Stakeholder, I can't claim to represent these communities but Christian Aid is a member of the NGO and Women's MG, Beyond 2015, CAN-I, TAP and the ACT AllianceWe feel that it would be very helpful for the GA to provide guidance to the functional commissions and forums in order to ensure some degree of standardized contributions and reporting to the HLPF. All of the functional commissions / forums should also be required to address some particularly important questions relating to key cross-cutting themes such as integration, 'leave no one behind', gender, human rights, and links to climate change.We welcome the establishment of the ECOSOC Forum on FFD and there should be high-level commitment to this Forum from member-states i.e. this Forum should be prioritized and attended by Senior Finance Ministers. A Summary from the Forum should be fed into the HLPF and there may be a need for greater synergy, including attendance from Finance Ministers, should the HLPF undertake an in-depth review of Goal 17 on Means of Implementation.We need to do some further thinking on this but whatever rotation / method is selected, it must resist prioritizing/emphasizing some goals over others. In order to ensure focus and to ensure that that the relevant Ministers attend the HLPF, it may be preferable to focus on clusters of closely related SDGs whilst ensuring questions are asked about integration (i.e. the economic, environmental and social dimensions) as well as cross-cutting themes such as 'leave no one behind'. Another possibility could be taking the 5 'Ps' e.g. People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnerships as transversal themes. Proposal (i) seems preferable given that it would give some clarity for planning and reporting, of governments, but also other stakeholders including civil society, and enable commissions, forums and intergovernmental platforms to align as appropriate.There may be a need to update the global indicators over the next 15 years and so the UNSC may want to review the data-sets, for example every 4 years, in line with the HLPF cycle.This is a very important question and as above, there may be the need for a review of the agenda (and its content) every 4/5 years, or at the mid-way point.Again, in alignment with the HLPF cycle, a regular state-led review could be presented every 4 years, with a minimum of 3 reviews within the 15 year period.The HLPF discussions could also be informed by shadow reports from civil society.The State-led reviews should address the following:
- The development of national plans and strategies to agree national level targets (including interim targets), the extent to which those national targets represent an ambitious and fair contribution to the global targets, and the extent to which national plans are developed in a transparent and participatory way, with the involvement of civil society;
- Progress towards all targets, including Means of Implementation, and an analysis of cross-cutting themes such as 'leave no one behind', gender equality, human rights and climate change;
- Consideration of 'policy coherence' and any spillover impacts (i.e. how domestic policy in one country e.g. on tax, impacts on policy options and outcomes in other countries);
- Action which will be taken to address problematic areas and accelerate progress.
Means of Implementation must be central to the national reviews - this includes the MOI across the framework as well as Goal 17. The question around partnerships is not just one of mobilization - there must also be space for critical review, to assess whether partnerships, especially private sector partnerships, are contributing to sustainable development objectives and not undermining any aspects of the agenda. There should be adequate space given to partnerships between government and civil society, or with faith-based organisations (for example) so that the agenda does not become dominated by a debate about the private sector. If there is a 4 year reporting cycle, then the second review could include a follow-up element (i.e. reporting on government action taken in response to the previous review).There is very little clarity around regional review processes and so it is very difficult to answer the question at this stage.All proceedings should remain open to the presence and participation of MGs and other stakeholders, including faith-based organisations and other groups not explicitly included within the MG system. Proceedings should be recorded and broadcast online. As noted above, a clear timetable/cycle for the work of the HLPF will aid preparation and having dates in the calendar as early as possible will be important, including for visa applications. The publication of any data relevant to the theme of the HLPF should be available before the meetings so that civil society has the opportunity to analyse and assess progress. Funding should also be made available to support the participation of civil society organisations, especially those in the global south with more limited resources.
25
CarvalhoSavioMaleAmnesty Internationalhttps://www.amnesty.orgsavio.carvalho@amnesty.orgIndian U.KOther Stakeholder, Human Rights Caucus Options (i) and (ii), or both together (as, for example, when gender equality or health is reviewed) may provide the most comprehensive manner to follow up and review. The transversal themes can be decided from the start of SDGs implementation and be phased in a way that allows for each theme to be reviewed at least 2 or 3 times before 2030. The themes should be decided by the HLPF in cooperation with Member States, UN agencies, Major Groups and Other Stakeholders.

It would be preferable if HLPF thematic reviews examined progress for all SDGs based on a transversal theme to ensure that relevant aspects of a particular theme are comprehensively assessed. Such themes should include both substantive issues, as proposed (e.g. health, gender) and processes such as participation, transparency, accountability etc. The HLPF should solicit annual submissions from all stakeholders on possible themes well in advance of making a decision against a set of objective, robust and consistent criteria.
They can provide a variety of inputs to the HLPF, for example, HRC resolutions, UPR, and OHCHR thematic reports. Aligning some themes of functional commissions with the HLPF cycle, could strengthen the SDGs’ follow up and review and provide more relevant and timely outputs. An agenda item dedicated to the links between the main theme and the SDGs should be included in each session. This could be in the form of interactive roundtables that allows for an in-depth discussion of progress on the respective SDGs and its targets and indicators. This agenda item should be accompanied by a report from the Secretary-General that examines the linkages, presents latest data, and provides recommendations. Also, the commissions could consider special side-events focused on lessons learned, especially from regional perspectives; discussions of CSO shadow reports; and dissemination of latest research in the respective areas.One key overarching theme should be how human rights can be effectively integrated into the implementation and monitoring of the SDGs to better reflect the work of the ECOSOC bodies with human rights as well as developmental mandates.

Themes among others could include

(a) Maximising participation including the most marginalised and disadvantaged

(b) Enhancing accountability for all stakeholders with responsibility for SDG implementation including non-state actors and

(c ) How to address intersectional discrimination and

(d) Safeguarding the work of human rights defenders working on developmental issues. In doing so, the HLPF would not only improve the effectiveness of SDGs implementation but contribute to critical thinking which could benefit the work of other ECOSOC institutions.
Updating and sharpening the indicators should be an iterative process. The UN Statistical Commission should have a planned approach of updating indicators based on experiences and learning in a transparent and inclusive manner. This work will result from the learning deliberated at the HLPF.

In order to maximise contributions from other external processes and platforms it is vital that those non-UN organisations and actors are proactively encouraged and supported to input, in particular those community based organisations representing the most marginalised and disadvantaged individuals and communities.

This should include, where necessary, capacity building to enable those actors to monitor and report on states’ progress against the respective themes, together with ensuring that they are not in any way hindered in doing so by the State or other actors. It also requires the HLPF to proactively solicit inputs from as wide a constituency as possible based on the principles of accessibility, transparency and genuine participation.

On this basis report formats should be flexible and not be overly onerous. If the HLPF decides to convene hearings on thematic reviews it should ensure that as wide a cross-section of stakeholders as possible are able to participate.
States themselves must create a culture that expects and incentivises participation by all. This requires that all States prioritise timely and comprehensive reporting and participate constructively in reviews, including by effectively responding to recommendations.

It is possible for every country to be reviewed three times between 2016 and 2030: This schedule will allow States to report on their implementation of Agenda 2030. This would involve every country going for a review every 4-5 years and then has the next 4-5 years to work on the recommendations.
At the country level, the global review preparations should be based on the following inputs:

Member State reports, in which States monitor progress based on global and national indicators, obligations and commitments. States should analyse challenges, which are informed by the national-level review processes and Stakeholder consultations, particularly with Civil Society Organisations, and are based on disaggregated, updated data.

Stakeholder reports, compiled by the HLPF Secretariat from Civil Society and others’ submissions into official, detailed documents for the review.

United Nations reports, summarising the assessments of UN agencies as well as the outcomes of other relevant reviews, particularly those from the human rights treaty monitoring bodies and the UPR process. Information should be shared systematically between these different review bodies.
Reporting must involve comprehensive information on goals, targets, the preamble, global partnership, follow up and review, declaration and means of implementation.

The following are some of the critical issues that the HLPF should address:
(a) How is the state ensuring that all members of society, particularly the most marginalised and disadvantaged, are able to genuinely participate in the SDGs implementation processes from planning through to delivery;
(b) What accountability mechanisms are in place at the national level to monitor implementation both in terms of process and outcomes and what remedies are available for any failings;
(c) What disaggregated data is the State collecting and assessing to ensure that all individuals and groups are benefiting from the implementation of SDGs;
(d) How is the State seeking to align its existing international legal obligations (e.g. human rights) with meeting its SDGs commitments including with respect to benchmarking and indicators?
Unlike the MDGs, which applied primarily to developing States, this is a universal agenda and therefore provides an entry point for meaningful monitoring and accountability of domestic implementation by countries at every income level. All States must participate and provide feedback as equals in reviewing their differentiated responsibilities for meeting collective commitments, for example climate change, and financing.

States should report on their implementation of the Post-2015 Agenda and receive recommendations every 4-5 years.
National reviews should result in learning and actions. They need to lead governments to (re) formulate social policies which are based on human rights standards. Actions should also result in adequate budgetary allocations and delivery of essential services like comprehensive healthcare, education, and housing, among others, for all.Major Groups and Other relevant Stakeholders could make formal submissions on an annual basis on various themes. These submissions need to be formally incorporated and discussed in the HLPF meeting.

The HLPF needs to be inclusive, and this would need resources, to ensure diversity of participants and not be a New York centric activity. Selection of participants must be transparent and democratic. Some good learning and standards settings are in place from the Post-2015 negotiations
The HLPF secretariat could seek inputs from Major Groups & Other Stakeholders on various themes and their contributions. These inputs could be consolidated into global reports.
A key stakeholder in the implementation of Agenda 2030 is the private sector.

To improve the interaction between the public and the private, and enforce concrete obligations from the corporate sector regarding human rights, the following mechanisms could be considered:

•Businesses should be required to report on human rights, labour rights, and environmental sustainability.

•An intergovernmental tax body should be established to undertake investigations into the tax arrangements companies make, and the attached risks.

•Bilateral negotiations, such as international trade negotiations, must be transparent and participatory. No negotiation should be immune to public participation and oversight.

•Companies should be encouraged to take the lead by changing their business models to mould with a human rights agenda.

•Governments must agree to conduct regular sustainable development and human rights impact assessments. These assessments will look at the impacts of government policy on sustainable development and human rights both at home and overseas. These assessments should include triggers for policy action and must meaningfully include the contributions of the impacted community.

The seven calls for ensuring private sector accountability in the context of FFD and Agenda 2030 are:

1.Integrate the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

2.Set robust standards and safeguards for partnerships

3.Strengthen regulatory frameworks and safeguards

4.Commit to impact assessments

5.Make reporting mandatory

6.Provide access to remedy

7.Ensure sufficient scope and capacity in follow-up and review mechanisms

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/2117/2015/en/
26
van DamRinekefemaleRutgershttp://www.rutgers.international/r.vandam@rutgers.nlNetherlandsNetherlandsNoneIn order to have a robust, effective, participatory, transparent and integrated follow-up and review framework it is crucial that the General Assembly, ECOSOC and HLPF adapt to the new Agenda 2030.
Currently the three pillars of sustainable development are dealt with in siloes by the General Assembly (economy and environment by the Second Committee, social development by the Third Committee). The same accounts for functional commissions of ECOSOC.
Any revision of the General Assembly agenda and methods of work in line with the 2030 Agenda must bear in mind that this agenda goes beyond the Second and Third Committee. It includes matters related to peace and security, rule of law, which should also be taken into account during discussions.
For a participatory, open and inclusive follow-up and review process, civil society participation should be included along the lines with the experience in the Open Working Group and the Post-2015 negotiation processes.
All goals and targets should be treated equally and with a balanced approach to the three pillars of sustainable development. Goal 17 should be cross-cutting and included annually. The same accounts for gender equality, which should be included annually (cross-cutting) and as a goal in itself.
There should be a balanced division of labour between ECOSOC/HLPF/General Assembly so that implementation of all goals and targets are monitored and reviewed, if not annually, at least every two/three years.
There should be a clear link between the programme of work of the functional commissions under ECOSOC and the SDGs, as well as the Executive Boards and specialized agencies including WHO, ILO, UNICEF, UNFPA, UNESCO, UN Women, UNESCO, etc. in order to ensure coherence and coordination between them.
The General Assembly should give broad guidance as to how the products/outcomes from the functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies and forums should be focussed so as to maximise efficiency and coherence. This should be done in the context of the Secretary General’s report, which will then be taken up by the General Assembly for action.
However, these bodies and commissions need to remain independent, and keep control over the scope of their remit and mandate. While the General Assembly may have a strong and welcome interest in aligning the work of the SDGs across the whole UN system, it must also recognise that many of these commissions have remits that go far beyond the SDG agenda, and they must retain the space to continue to explore these mandates irrespective of the SDG agenda. The focus of the General Assembly should be on supporting alignment but not limiting or dictating the priorities of the functional commissions.
The HLPF thematic reviews should focus on clusters of closely related SDGs to ensure that related targets that may fall under different goal areas are considered together. Attention must be paid to ensure that the targets do not become siloed as a result of this clustering. The “Five Ps” of the preamble may be a possible avenue to reflect a holistic approach to the agenda
Some topics are cross-cutting and need to be addressed every year. These include gender equality (in line with paragraph 20 of the 2030 Agenda), and means of implementation (Goal 17). Also ‘population dynamics’ could be included as a cross-cutting theme.
All targets should be reviewed every 4 years to ensure that each of targets receives attention.
The HLPF should be the main forum for the review of all SDGs; none of these tasks can be ‘outsourced’ to functional commissions or other intergovernmental bodies. They could however be given a special mandate to contribute to the review of specific themes, goals or targets in the 2030 Agenda –with a negotiated outcome or a chair’s text reflecting on the link between their thematic focus and the SDGs (i.e. CSW with its expertise on gender equality; CPD on population and demographic issues). Note that the mandate and scope of these functional commissions need to remain intact.
The HLPF may also want to give a formal role to the chairs of functional commissions (such as the CPD/CSW) and other intergovernmental bodies, to report on the outcomes of their preceding session.
The HLPF should be required to integrate these contributions in its deliberations and outcomes, fully recognizing the expertise of these functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies, without renegotiation.
Examples are:
- Adolescents and youth;
- Inequalities within and among countries;
- Gender equality and empowerment of women and girls (although this should also be an annual/cross-cutting theme)
- Vulnerable and marginalized groups/leaving no one behind
- Basic social services, social protection and well-being
- Human rights and the right to development
- Population dynamics
The review themes of the HLPF should be decided well in advance to allow for harmonisation between the focus of the functional committees; the development of relevant research or reflection from UN Agencies (as required); adequate consultation with stakeholders; for civil society to prepare their reflections and input into the panel, including conducting research, holding national level consultations, etc. With an adequate lead-in time, intergovernmental platforms and other actors would have the opportunity to gather data and evidence, identifying challenges in particular areas of implementation and share experiences from the national level.
The outcome of the HLPF at the General Assembly should be related to an overarching theme, covering all goals and targets, and containing an assessment/analysis of the implementation of the full 2030 Agenda. This identifies areas of progress and gaps and challenges, and suggested ways forward.
The UNSC should have a large role in preparing the annual SDG report and is best placed to produce reports for the HLPF that reflect on implementation of each target, with more detail for the report on the review theme. The annual reports should cover:
• The number of countries that are collecting the indicators and the level of disaggregation for each, broken down by indicator (ie ABC countries collecting data on indicator 5.7.1, with X% disaggregating by age, Y% disaggregating by urban/rural etc)
• Breakdown on how the target is being met for the most vulnerable populations
• The baseline data for each indicator
• The revised annual data or projection for each indicator
• Update on the development of new data or data sets as required by those indicators that were agreed pending further refinement
• Any specific challenges and recommendations related to data collection and statistical capacity.
Periodically, (every two years?) the HLPF should consult other intergovernmental bodies (including ECOSOC functional commissions), member states, UN Agencies and civil society organisations to gather their reflections on new and emerging issues. The results of the consultation should be reviewed and published by the HLPF, which can then identify new issues to incorporate into the agenda of subsequent sessions.The HLPF should provide a space where these actors can be heard, where they share best practices and lessons learned on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
As agreed in resolution 67/290 (paragraph 8c and 15) these spaces need to be ensured so that non-state actors’ contributions to the debate are guaranteed, either through special forums or throughout the HLPF in plenary meetings, round tables, etc. Positive experiences with the inclusion of non-state actors should be drawn from the Open Working Group and post-2015 negotiation processes.
To lessen the burden on the Member States and to better streamline the Human Rights Council process with the ECOSOC processes, states should participate in state-led reviews at the HLPF every 4,5 year, with a two-year overlap of their Universal Periodic Review process. This would ensure that Member States are monitored regularly, and that they would not confront the administrative burden of having a UPR review and an HLPF review in the same year. Further, as many of the social issues raised through the HLPF review may be similar to those raise at the UPR, the HLPF review may be able to act as a sort of mid-term report on progress with the implementation of UPR recommendations. The UPR, as well as other Human Rights Council processes and outcomes, should be an important input into the HLPF, and UPR discussions should address progress on the national implementation of the 2030 Agenda.The HLPF should be provided with a permanent and adequately staffed and resourced secretariat, which should support Member States in their preparation for the review process. At country level, UN country and regional offices could be tasked with providing guidance to Member States in their preparations for the HLPF, and could also facilitate dialogue with civil society. A clear set of guidelines must be established so that all States report on the same subject matters and all goals and targets, and consult with civil society, academia, national statistics officers and others.
The HLPF could also be supported by special rapporteurs or advisory groups established to provide input and guidance on specific thematic or cross-cutting areas, such as gender equality. These could conduct independent research and provide recommendations on particular thematic areas, and could also, for example, be mandated to assess progress on specific thematic issues at regional or sub-regional levels.
The following issues should be addressed by the HLPF when examining national implementation reviews:
- Steps taken to achieve the 17 goals and 169 targets, as well as the gaps and challenges encountered. This includes specific policies or measures, institutional adjustment, national budgets, etc.
- Mobilization of resources – following the structure of Means of Implementation in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA)
- Reaching vulnerable populations and leaving no one behind
- Protection, respect and fulfilment of human rights
- Progress in achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls
- Best practices and policies/measures taken at national and subnational levels
- Data collection and disaggregation
It is essential that reporting guidelines reflect the universal and indivisible character of the 2030 Agenda. All Member States should be required to report on progress towards all goals and targets.
However, over and above an assessment of progress towards all SDG goals and targets, reporting guidelines could identify a core set of issues, which Member States should be encouraged to report on. As outlined under question 16, these should include reporting on how a gender perspective has been mainstreamed in their implementation of the SDGs and targets as well as what progress has been achieved specifically for marginalised and excluded population groups.
The country reviews should be held at the highest political level and in a spirit of collaboration and shared learning. All countries should be welcome to attend the reviews and contribute.
It is recommended that the review features a statement from the member state under review; a statement from the UN system summarising any relevant recommendations from treaty bodies, UPR reviews, special rapporteurs, and other mechanisms; and a statement from national civil society organisations.
Following these timed presentations, other member states would be invited to offer voluntary recommendations or commit support to the country under review. To ensure that the review remains apolitical and focused on support and learning, countries should be dissuaded from making bloc, group or affiliate statements, and to participate only in their national capacities.
During the national review, the state under review would be invited to request support or technical assistance on particular aspects of the agenda, and to seek collaborations with the UN system, other member states, civil society organisations, and others.
Member states, UN Agencies and others may also make offers of support or technical assistance to the state under review. This exchange of commitment may help to mobilise new support and partnerships.
The outcome of the national reviews should be a document that summarises the information submitted to the review (the national report, UN report and stakeholder submission, and any data reflecting on progress towards achievement), including any recommendations made by Member States, and offers of support and technical assistance. This report would be reviewed at the next national review, where states update on progress and respond to recommendations. Member States and UN Agencies making commitments of support or technical assistance but who did not fulfil their offer could also be request to comment on the reasons for non-fulfilment.The outcomes of regional reviews have a critical role to play in the HLPF and should be considered on an annual basis. A session at the HLPF should be dedicated to this, including during one of the 3 days ministerial sessions.
In these regional dialogues, there should be reflection on a) share findings, experiences, best practices and lessons learned in implementation among countries with similar development backgrounds and histories; (b) identify regional-level trends and challenges, as well as strategies to address them, including through cross-border approaches; (c) facilitate south-south and triangular cooperation to accelerate implementation, as well as other means of implementation; and (d) identify regional-level priorities for the HLPF.
General Assembly Resolution 67/290 clearly states that Major Groups have a critical role in the HLPF and it preserves the rights of the 9 Major Groups established in Agenda 21. The HLPF structure ensures a strong relationship between Member States and Major Groups and other Stakeholders. Major Groups and recognized constituencies should be allowed, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) Seats with nameplates for identification, which supports Member States and other colleagues in their own engagement with the recognized Major Groups, constituencies and other stakeholders
(b) Speaking slots during the general discussions (in addition to any other dialogues)
(c) Access to all meetings outside of the official meetings, such as workshops and informal consultations
(d) A clear and articulated role in the review process
(e) Access to databases and a role in monitoring implementation at all levels
(f) Invitations to submit shadow reports as part of the voluntary review process.
Prior to each HLPF, major groups and other stakeholders should have the possibility to submit statements on their contributions to achieving the SDGs. These reports could be grouped by national, regional and global contribution, and also be cross-referenced with the relevant targets. The reports could be published on the UN website and shared with member states and UN Agencies so they can reflect on the contributions of civil society in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda.
Attention needs to be paid also to reporting by private for-profit sector, to ensure also their activities in relation to the 2030 Agenda can be monitored and reviewed at the HLPF.
All agencies should produce an annual report on the steps they have taken to contribute to the 2030 Agenda. This can include the development and roll out of specific programmes, the realignment of existing programmes to the SDGs or the direct delivery of direct services towards achieving the Agenda. They should also include achievements and gaps encountered. These reports should be summarised and collated by the HLPF Secretariat ensure that they are accessible, effective and efficient.The HLPF should be provided with a permanent and adequately staffed and resourced secretariat, which should support Member States and other stakeholders in their preparations for the review process, support the coordination of the HLPF sessions and follow-up and facilitate engagement of civil society. Sufficient time should be allocated for the yearly HLPF sessions to allow for meaningful reviews, sharing of experiences, and exchange of lessons learned and best practices.
UN country and regional offices (including regional commissions) should provide support to Member States and other stakeholders in their preparations for and follow-up to HLPF reviews and should facilitate broad engagement of civil society throughout the review process, such as by supporting the organisation of civil society consultations or the development of civil society shadow reports on country-level progress.
The report by the Secretary General on the HLPF needs to address the issue of follow up and review of the other stakeholders, besides Member States, and in particular the private for-profit sector. Their activities and investments can either be a major contributor or obstruction to the achievement of the SDGs. A critical review on this matter is therefore indispensable for the follow up and review of the 2030 Agenda.
27
CousinsLaraFemaleWomen's Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR)www.wgnrr.orglara@wgnrr.orgCanadianCanadaNoneAll goals and targets should be treated equally and with a balanced approach to the three pillars of sustainable development. Goal 17 should be cross cutting and included annually; Gender Equality should also be cross-cutting as well as considered as a specific goal.

There should be a balanced division of labour between ECOSOC/HLPF/General Assembly so that implementation of all goals and targets is monitored and reviewed, if not annually, at least in a clear and established period.

A link between the programme of work of the functional commissions of ECOSOC and the SDG follow up process, as well as the Executive Boards and the specialized agencies including WHO, ILO, UNICEF, UNFPA, OHCHR, UNESCO, UN Women, etc. should be created to ensure more coherence and coordination among and between these organs and thus strengthening the implementation of the agenda.
The General Assembly should give broad guidance as to how the products/outcomes from the functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies and forums should be focussed so as to maximise efficiency and coherence. This should be done in the context of the Secretary General’s report, which will then be taken up by the General Assembly for action.

These bodies and commissions are independent, and have control over the scope of their remit and mandate. While the General Assembly may have a strong and welcome interest in aligning the work of the SDGs across the whole UN system, it must also recognise that many of these commissions have remits that go far beyond the goals and targets in the SDGs, and they must retain the space to continue to explore these mandates irrespective of the SDG agenda. The focus of the General Assembly should be on supporting alignment but not limiting or dictating the priorities of the functional commissions.
The HLPF thematic reviews should focus on clusters of closely related SDGs to ensure that related targets that may fall under different goal areas are considered together, though attention must be paid to ensure that the targets do not become “siloed” as a result of this clustering. The “Five Ps” of the preamble may be a possible way to reflect a holistic approach to the agenda
As paragraph 20 of the 2030 Agenda sets out, gender is a cross-cutting issue of all targets and must be addressed in each of them. Given this, gender must be integrated into every analysis of all thematic reviews. Indeed, every year, member states should answer the question “how has this theme been met for women and girls?”
In order to link the UN ECOSOC functional commissions to the review of the SDGs at the HLPF, we suggest giving each commission a special mandate to contribute to the review of implementation under specific themes and/or goals and targets, while ensuring that the HLPF serve as the main overall forum for follow-up and review. The HLPF may also want to give a formal role to the chairs of functional commissions or other intergovernmental bodies. The chairs of the CSW/CPD, for example, could be asked to report on the outcomes of the preceding session of the respective commission, paying attention to linkages to the topics discussed at the HLPF. The HLPF should reflect on these outputs (such as negotiated outcomes, summary of discussions, etc.) and integrate them into their deliberations and outcomes. Because of the expertise of these functional commissions, their outputs should formally contribute to the SDG review at the HLPF and be fully considered and supported, not renegotiated.• Adolescents, youth and young people
• Inequalities within and among countries
• Basic social services, social protection & well being
• Vulnerable and marginalized groups
• Gender equality and empowerment of women
• Capacity building at different levels, e.g. institutional, data collection, etc.
The review themes of the HLPF should be decided in advance to allow for harmonisation between the focus of the functional Commissions leading up to the HLPF, the development of relevant research or reflection from the UN Agencies (as required), adequate consultation with stakeholders, and to enable civil society organisations to prepare their reflections and input into the panel, including conducting research and holding national level consultations (as appropriate). With an adequate lead-in time, intergovernmental platforms and other actors would have the opportunity to gather data and evidence, identifying challenges with particular elements of implementation and share experiences from the national level.Periodically, the HLPF should consult other intergovernmental bodies (including ECOSOC functional commissions), member states, UN Agencies and civil society organisations to gather their reflections on new and emerging issues. The results of the consultation should be reviewed and published by the HLPF, who can then identify new issues to incorporate into the agenda of subsequent sessions. The HLPF should have a space where these actors can be heard, where they share best practices and lessons learned on the implementation of the agenda at national and regional levels.

As agreed in resolution 67/290 (paragraph 8 c and the various sub-paragraphs of paragraph 15) these spaces need to be ensured so that non-state actors’ contributions and voices to the debate are guaranteed, either through special forums or throughout the HLPF in plenary meetings, round tables, etc. Experiences should be drawn from the Open Working Group and the Post 2015 processes in this regard.
To lessen the burden on the state and to better integrate the Human Rights Council process with the ECOSOC processes, states should participate in state led-reviews at the HLPF every 4.5 year, with a two year overlap of their Universal Periodic Review process. This would ensure that states are monitored regularly, and that they would not confront the administrative burden of having a UPR review and an HLPF review in the same year. Further, as many of the social issues raised through the HLPF review may be similar to those raised at the UPR, the HLPF review may be able to act as a sort of mid-term report on progress with the implementation of UPR recommendations. The UPR should also be an important input into the HLPF, and UPR discussions should encompass progress on the 2030 Agenda as it is implemented.The HLPF should be provided with a permanent and adequately staffed and resourced secretariat, which should support States in their preparation for the review process. A clear set of guidelines must be established so that all States report on the same subject matters and all goals and targets, and include the participation of CSOs, academia, national statistics officers and others.
At country level, UN country and regional offices could be tasked with providing guidance to States in their preparations for the HLPF review, and could also facilitate dialogue with civil society.
The HLPF could also be supported by special rapporteurs or advisory groups established to provide input and guidance on specific thematic or cross-cutting areas, such as gender equality. These could conduct independent research and provide recommendations on particular thematic areas, and could also be mandated to assess progress on specific thematic issues at regional or sub-regional levels.
As indicated under question 6, and in line with paragraph 20 of the 2030 Agenda, it is essential that the HLPF systematically apply a gender perspective in examining national implementation reviews. Voluntary common reporting guidelines for State-led reviews should encourage Member States to systematically report on what progress has been made on specific themes for women and girls.

Furthermore, in line with the strong focus of the 2030 Agenda on combatting inequality and its commitment, as outlined in paragraph 4, to leave no one behind and to reach the furthest behind first, voluntary reporting guidelines should encourage Member States to report on how their implementation measures have sought to specifically reach excluded and marginalised population groups and what progress towards reaching the goals and targets has been made for these population groups in particular.
The country reviews should be held at the highest political level and in a spirit of collaboration and shared learning. All countries should be welcome to attend the reviews and contribute. It is recommended that the review feature a statement from the member state under review, a statement from the UN system summarising any relevant recommendations from treaty bodies, UPR reviews, special rapporteurs, and other mechanisms, and a statement from national civil society organisations. Following these timed presentations, other member states would be invited to offer voluntary recommendations or commit support to the country under review. To ensure that the review remains apolitical and focused on support and learning, countries should be dissuaded from making bloc, group or affiliate statements, and to participate only in their national capacities.The regional reviews and their outcomes have a critical role to play in the HLPF process and should be considered/feed into the HLPF debate on an annual basis.

A session of the HLPF should be dedicated to the regional reviews, including during one of the 3 days ministerial sessions, where Heads of Delegations, Executive Secretary of the UN Regional Commissions and other regional and sub-regional organisations, as appropriate, will have an opportunity to (a) share findings, experiences, best practices and lessons learned in implementation among countries with similar development backgrounds and histories; (b) identify regional-level trends and challenges, as well as strategies to address them, including through cross-border approaches; (c) identify south-south and triangular cooperation to accelerate implementation, as well as other means of implementation; and (d) identify regional-level priorities for the HLPF.
GA Resolution 67/290 clearly states that Major Groups have a critical role to play in the HLPF and it preserves the rights of the nine Major Groups. Further, the HLPF structure ensures a strong relationship between Member States and Major Groups and other Stakeholders as outlined in paragraph 15 of this GA resolution.

Full, inclusive and effective engagement of Major groups and other recognized constituencies requires political will, commitment on the part of governments and the UN, and financial support. The HLPF should take steps to amplify the involvement of civil society within the Forum itself, regional and national-level follow-up and review mechanisms, and in the implementation of sustainable development policies. Funding modalities should be identified to support participation of Major Groups and recognized constituencies in all levels of HLPF activities, in a way that is equitable and inclusive and supports the realization of equitable, rights-based sustainable development.
Besides the contribution at the national level in the definition of the national report process, CSOs and major groups should have a session to share their views and contributions similar to what happened during the OWG and Post 2015 processes. As stated by the co-chairs and several Member States, contributions from major groups was a key element to achieve a progressive, forward looking agenda that leaves no one behind.
Prior to each HLPF, stakeholders should be required to submit statements on their contributions to achieving the SDGs. These reports could be grouped by national contribution, regional contribution and global contribution, and also be cross-referenced with the relevant targets. The reports could be published on the UN website and shared with member states and UN Agencies so they can reflect on the contributions of CSOs in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda.
UN country and regional offices should provide support to Member States and other stakeholders in their preparations for and follow-up to HLPF reviews and should facilitate broad engagement of civil society throughout the review process, such as by supporting the organisation of civil society consultations or the development of civil society shadow reports on country-level progress.
28
ParamundayilCelineFSociety of Catholic Medical Missionarieswww.medicalmissionsisters.org.ukceline@mmsmission.netIndianUSANon-Governmental Organizations, WomenI would suggest periodic meeting of the second and third committees and close collaboration of the Ecosoc before it goes to the GA. A task force consisting of members from the various committees is another option.In each of the sessions a section be dedicated to ECOSOC. Integrating other stake holders like Civil society and business can be of great help. A shadow report from other stake holders would definitely bring out a different dimension.I think that would be a great idea to keep all in the same page and avoid duplication. some guiding principles applicable to all.UN Statistical Commission should review the national SC reports and citizens generated data nationally ot come up with an objective data for common use.

A data base of CSOs be made available globally so that they can work together nationally and globally.
Contact,Peoples movements , Citizens participation is key in identifying the emerging issues. Most of the issues are symptoms of the same root cause of faulty Economic Development. A just and people and planet centered approach before profit need to take the upper hand Internationally and nationally. In fact the UN is the right place to reinforce it. Peoples participation: citizens groups, local governments, faith based organizations, Womens and Students associations are sources to get the info needed. Every other year will be helpful with selected no of goals and cover all by the target year. meaning 4-6 reviews within 15 yrs. Civil society review could be integrated.
A common set of indicators measurable against the base of 2015 since states are at different levels with regard to development and the same yard stick can not be used for all. Common but differentiated responsibilities be the bottom line with country ownership.

Peoples participation and right to information, transparency and accountability of the states/ other stake holders. Transparency regarding funds including ODA, Taxation of Multinational companies.
The existing commitments before Agenda 2030 also need to be revisited and integrated to break the silo approach. Priority be given to addressing taxation and regulation of multinational corporations, and their environmental and social impacts, inequalities , Poverty, Health and Education of the most vulnerable persons and communities. Well being of the last person is to be assured in order to leave no one behind!main stream best practices of the countries who has achieved and encourage others to follow on a peer accompaniment , to learn from mistakes. Learning from each other in a global solidarity for the common good .
A reporting system indicating the source of income, and the gaps in meeting the needs.
A fair taxation system for people and corporations is essential. partnership with private sector and philanthropies sharing same values of keeping the people and planet focus can be supportive.
Create an enabling environment by providing space for Major groups and other Stakeholders at the HLPF like in the Open Working Group as well as reporting as in UPR. The model of OWG was great., Encourage Member states to provide space for CSOs at the national as well.

Some states are very supportive while others cautious of the Civil society ignoring that the Common good in which Member States and Civil society are greatly involved.

No 1. is effective Communication before and after including online portal system for people on the ground to access.
2. Steady staff to follow up
3. Circulate materials/ website
29
CukVladimirMaleInternational Disability Alliancewww.internationaldisabilityalliance.orgvcuk@ida-secretariat.orgSerbianUSOther Stakeholder, Persons with DisabilitiesThe UN and Member States should recognize that the UN System should undergo a significant reform in order to carry out the follow-up and review. This will require systematic and comprehensive review and alignment of the working methods of ECOSOC, and the 2nd and 3rd Committees of the GA. The HLPF cannot carry out an efficient review within the allocated 8 days without the focused and harmonized contribution by the UN System. It is necessary to review what other organs of the UN can contribute (eg Human Rights Council, Treaty Body processes).

Meaningful stakeholder participation should be ensured and addressed by revision of working methods of ECOSOC and GA Committees. Revised working methods should stress the need to engage, consult and promote participation of all stakeholders in an open, inclusive, participatory and transparent way, to make better use of expertise, aiming for stakeholder input reflecting voices of the poorest and most vulnerable, including persons with disabilities.
ECOSOC can make or initiate studies and may make recommendations (Charter Article 62). Consequently, ECOSOC can define overarching annual themes that should be serving as guiding themes for its functional commissions. Accordingly, the annual themes of the functional commissions should be aligned and the outcome of those commissions can be used as the basis of a study and recommendation compiled by ECOSOC with the intention to feed into the HLPF.

In addition, the different segments of ECOSOC can discuss through preparatory meetings, prior to the HLPF, and make preliminary observations with regards to the HLPF annual theme.

Finally, ECOSOC Bureau can also contribute by holding discussions/joint session with its functional commissions bureaus.
Yes. The General Assembly should encourage the review of existing working methods of different UN organs and bodies. It should establish that revisions should be guided by the fundamental principles as declared in 2030 Agenda. For example: by maintaining the intergovernmental character of the system, stakeholder participation and engagement should be encouraged by all UN bodies. In addition, the revised working methods could contain a paragraph that establishes interlinkeges with the HLPF and mandates the given organ to inform the HLPF of its work through executive summaries.

The final conclusions and recommendations following the review and follow-up should be compiled by HLPF on an annual basis, by taking into consideration all the feedback that it has received. The final findings should be communicated back to all the other organs/bodies of the UN.
The 2030 Agenda decided that the thematic reviews of the HLPF will be supported by the reviews conducted by the functional commissions of ECOSOC and “other intergovernmental bodies and forums.” These various bodies and forums are mandated to “reflect the integrated nature of the Goals as well as the interlinkages among them.” They “will engage all relevant stakeholders and, where possible, feed into, and be aligned with, the cycle of the HLPF.” The HLPF, when meeting under the auspices of ECOSOC, “shall have a thematic focus reflecting the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development, in line with the thematic focus of the activities of the Council and consistent with the post-2015 development agenda.” The thematic focus of the HLPF should allow the HLPF to follow-up and review the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The GA decided that ECOSOC will base its annual programme of work on a main theme and defined the characteristics of this annual theme.The political ambition of the agenda translates into leave no one behind and that all goals and targets must be met for all economic and social groups, including for persons with disabilities. This can only be realized if this principle becomes the foundation of all reviews. As long as ‘leave no one behind’ is applied on a permanent basis, as an integral part of all annual reviews, either proposal, (i) or (ii), are feasible. In case option (ii) is chosen, we recommend that the ‘leave no one behind’ principle is declared as transversal theme, to be applied every year and additional transversal teams should be added, aligned with annual themes. Finally, it is also important that the HLPF also assesses cross-border issues and impacts not easily captured at local, State and regional levels. Functional Commissions, intergovernamental bodies and forums could hold a half a day discussion on the annual HLPF theme. A summary of those discussion could be shared with the HLPF prior to its meeting. Such discussions should focus on SDGs implementation in line with the functional commissions mandate. For example: if the HLPF annual theme is poverty eradication, the Commission on Population and Development can convene a half a day discussion with regards to population growth in the context of poverty eradication.

The summary of such discussion should be limited in scope, well structured, and made accessible. The HLPF report should incorporate the main recommendations.
Annual themes of HLPF should be always cross-cutting/global in nature. This theme should always be aligned with the ECOSOC theme. For example: if the HLPF theme were poverty eradication, the ECOSOC annual theme could be social and economic aspects of the poverty eradication. Consequently, the HLPF can address the widest possible annual theme: considering all the goals, their implementation and the challenges, with the focus on poverty eradication, in this example. The ECOSOC annual theme could be more focused with regards to the outcomes of the functional commissions: poverty eradication as seen by the Commission on Status of Women, poverty eradication as assessed by the Commission on Population and Development, etc.Two years in advance themes should be decided, biannual: this will give proper time to functional commission and other UN organs to align their agenda and discussions.Principally yes, however it should also have the liberty to address other emerging issues.The UN Statistical Commission will have to keep working on further developing the global indicator framework as well assessing the current one. It will also need to establish global principles of data collection and methodology for internationally comparable data. The Statistical Commission should safeguarded disaggregation of data in line with SDGs 17.18.

However, the UN Statistical Commission needs to play a significant role in data revolution and innovation. This should include discussions on innovative ways of data collection and sharing, the engagement of stakeholders and the private sector, and the creation of global on-line data platforms.

The implementation of the SDGs should happen through evidence-based global policy making. It should discuss on an annual basis the global, regional and national indicators and how they best can serve as evidence-based policy orientation for HLPF decision makers.
For now, the ECOSOC Bureau could make the recommendations, however over time the HLPF should receive its own bureau.

However, an independent Advisory Expert Body could be established with rotating membership, that could guide the work and make recommendations for the HLPF.
An Advisory Expert Body could assist in this exercise and make recommendations for invitation. Obviously it is not possible to accommodate all the 193 Member States of the UN within the 15 years and during annual 8 days long session of the HLPF. Therefore, there should be two types of reviews: oral review, where a certain number of Member States make presentations and a discussion is conducted – including with stakeholders, and an online written review platform where Member States feed in by filling out a questionnaire. A written review mechanism would enable the HLPF to assess all Member States. The written questionnaires could also be helpful in establishing a global platform to share and compare best practices. The HLPF should have its own Secretariat that should be mandated to maintain an online platform.

Countries should be politically guided by the bureau of ECOSOC and supported by the HLPF Secretariat.
Common reporting guidelines to set questionnaires should be defined with a view to make then flexible and developing. Fundamental principles of the 2030 Agenda such as ‘leave no one behind’ should be systematically applied. National implementation should be supported with evidence based data. Apart from substantive questions that address implementation, the process on how implementation of the 2030 Agenda was achieved on the national level should also be reported. For example: were there any national roundtables or national discussions conducted, where the views of citizens were sought on how to achieve a specific goal? This is particularly important for persons with disabilities because if they are not consulted at the phase of designing the implementation it is likely that barriers will be put in place that their will prevent their participation in society.We recommend the development of a questionnaire divided into sections with each section including a flexible addition, where Member States can input what they wish. Accordingly, each Member States will be able to provide additional information on each section. This will maintain flexibility while the fixed questions will enable international comparison.The sessions of the HLPF should be open, transparent and inclusive, ensuring the meaningful engagement of all stakeholders. In line with ARES/67/290 paragraph 15, the representatives of the stakeholders shall be allowed: to attend all official meetings; to have access to all official information and documents; to intervene in official meetings; to submit documents and present written and oral contributions; to make recommendations; to organize side events and round tables, in cooperation with Member States and the Secretariat. In addition, it is imperative to increase the accessibility (by providing, for example, physical access, sign language, captioning, accessible broadcasting, web-design and ICT) of sessions, to make them inclusive for persons with disabilities. National development action plans should be designed in collaboration with persons with disabilities or their representative organisations in order to ensure disability inclusive development plans. This level of collaboration with stakeholders will mobilize help and support through new partnerships. Any new development strategies on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda should not undermine existing commitments towards inclusive development, but rather serve to compliment and strengthen them. The alignment of new implementation plans to existing ones will provide adequate attention to the means of implementation. Recommendations should be widely shared, including with other organs of the UN System. Recommendations should be picked up by other bodies of the UN and acted upon and they should incorporate relevant questions into their substantive review mechanism. We recommend that representatives of the stakeholder groups are invited to participate in a working group, that prepares the HLPF session. Accordingly, the participation and mechanism of stakeholder interventions, and compilations of recommendations, can be adequately addressed. This working group should include Member States, organizations of persons with disabilities and other civil society representatives, as well as representatives of academia and the private sector. Such a group would review and offer policy and technical advice to the HLPF and Member States on a number of thematic issues, including on the mainstreaming of the rights of persons with disabilities. This advisory group could also establish safeguards to ensure that the sessions of the HLPF do not create or perpetuate institutional, attitudinal, physical, legal, and information and communications technology (ICT) barriers to the inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities into society.The A/RES/67/290 paragraph 16 clearly mandates stakeholders to autonomously organize themselves and establish an effective coordination mechanism. This process is underway and intends to ensure that stakeholders can contribute in a focused and effective manner. It will be the responsibility of the UN System to provide and allocate space to stakeholders to make their professional interventions.

Consequently, stakeholders must be granted time and opportunity to participate meaningfully in the national review processes, to be able to formulate questions and to offer recommendations. This needs to be recorded and made part of the official reporting package.
Existing and future development plans must simultaneously address the
development of support services for persons with disabilities and the removal of physical, informational and attitudinal barriers. To achieve this, we are recommending a twin track approach: mainstreaming and disability-specific approaches. Most importantly, persons with disabilities must be included in all phases of any future development processes, starting from design and planning, through to review and follow-up.

Secondly, specific projects must be put in place that are designed in accordance with the principles of universal design, to support access and accommodation of persons with disabilities in order to remove barriers to full participation.
30
KercherJuliaFemaleGerman Institute for Human Rightshttp://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/en/homepage/ kercher@dimr.deGermanGermanyNational Human Rights InstitutionThe General Assembly needs to ensure coordination and coherence across the UN system, especially for an agenda with universal and integrated character. In particular,
• For key decisions regarding HLPF review and follow-up, e.g. HLPF annual themes, both the 2nd and the 3rd Committee need to be engaged.
• The GA needs to transfer SDG-relevant information which it receives from its subsidiary organs (such as the Human Rights Council and its Special Procedures) to the HLPF for consideration in country and thematic reviews (e.g. for country reviews: national reports, stakeholder and UN information from Universal Periodic Review, country reports from Special Procedures; for thematic reviews: thematic reports on from Special Procedures).
• The GA needs to ensure that overall objectives and principles of the 2030 Agenda are pursued, e.g. by providing resources required for effective review and follow-up (e.g. for participation of non-state actors, live webcast and knowledge platforms).
To ensure an effective review and follow-up mechanism in line with the principles agreed in the 2030 Agenda, in particular para 74d, ECOSOC needs to review the efficiency and independence of its Committee on NGOs. It is indispensable that the GA distinguish clearly between the two very different roles in which UN entities and stakeholders will be involved in the global review and follow-up:

1) Holding governments accountable for progress on the 2030 Agenda by providing complementary information (see Questions 7, 13, 22) - ´holding accountable´
2) Being themselves accountable for progress on the 2030 Agenda by reporting on their own contributions (see Question 23/24) – ´being accountable´

For the former, information should be compiled in a ´Compilation of UN Information´ (see Questions 7, 15) and a ´Compilation of Stakeholder Information´ (see Questions 13, 15, 22) and it would be useful to draw on experiences from the Human Rights Council´s Universal Periodic Review in this regard.

The latter should be ensured through a ´Platform for Partnership Review´ (see Question 23/24).
Given the integrated nature of the SDGs, option (i) or (ii) would be preferable. It is also recommended to
• Allow sufficient time for preparation by all involved actors by deciding on annual themes in advance and for a four-year timeframe. For example, each year could cover a topic from one of the three dimensions of sustainable development and the fourth year could cover a topic in the realm of Goal 16.
• Decide themes by involving both the 2nd and the 3rd Committee of the GA.
• Identify both positive and negative trends and to analyse experiences and approaches.
• Consider two aspects in a cross-cutting manner for all themes: 1) MoI and 2) Inequalities as agreed in para 74 e (focus on most vulnerable) and g (data disaggregation) of the 2030 Agenda.
These inputs serve the purpose of holding governments collectively accountable for progress (see Q. 4).

It is recommended to
• Provide a common format to submit information
• Decide to compile all information in a single ´Compilation of UN Information´
• Identify an UN entity responsible for compilation. It is important that this task be given to a UN entity with a coordinating role, e.g. HLPF support structure, and not to UN entities with a substantive mandate to reduce the risk of ´appropriation´ and erosion of ownership by other UN entities and member states. At working level the coordinating entity must of course consult with relevant UN entities, e.g. thematic groups of the UN Technical Support Team.
• Ensure UN coherence by systematically draw on information from UN human rights mechanisms, e.g. thematic reports from UN Special Procedures.
• Make the ´Compilation of UN Information´ available online well in advance of the HLPF so it can be used by all actors for preparation.
To ensure maximum coherence, it is recommended that the ECOSOC annual theme, the HLPF annual theme and the theme of the thematic review be closely connected. To allow time for preparation by all involved actors, option (i) is preferable. It is recommended to decide on annual themes in advance and for a four-year timeframe (see Question 6).
It is recommended that the Statistical Commission
• Make country level data accessible online, building on the existing practice with MDG data (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx)
• Guide and support member states on methodological, technical and ethical/human rights considerations in relation to the required data disaggregation, as needed in collaboration with UN agencies, funds and programmes which can support in-country capacity development (see Question 25).
It is recommended that the process to identify new and emerging issues involve non-governmental stakeholders, including academia and civil society, e.g. though consultation with (but not restricted to) Major Groups. These inputs serve the purpose of holding governments collectively accountable for progress (see Question 4).

It is recommended to
• Provide a common format to submit information
• Decide to compile all information in a single ´Compilation of Stakeholder Information´
• Identify one or more UN entities responsible for compilation. The task of compilation could be given to one or several entities, e.g. Global Compact for information from the private sector, NGLS for information from civil society and National Human Rights Institutions, SDSN for information from academic institutions and the compilation could be organized in such chapters.
• Make the ´Compilation of Stakeholder Information´ available online well in advance of the HLPF so it can be used by all actors for preparation.
It is recommended that, to ensure accountability (para 47 of the 2030 Agenda), all countries participate in the review and report at least once between 2016 and 2030, ideally once between every two HLPF meetings under the GA, i.e. once every four years.It is recommended to
• Prepare country reviews through three main inputs, drawing on relevant experiences of the Universal Periodic Review and based on common reporting formats:
o ´Country Reports´ (see Question 16) / Country Presentations (Question 18). UN entities at national level could offer support in the reporting process. In the interest of national ownership, this must, however, not lead to an ´outsourcing´ of the reporting to UN entities or external consultants as has happened with the MDGs.
o ´Compilations of UN Information which could be compiled by a UN Country Team or other UN entity (see Question 7), including information on and recommendations to the country from UN treaty bodies and the UPR.
o ´Compilations of Stakeholder Information´ which could also be compiled by the UN Country Team or other UN entities (see Question 13).
• Make all three documents available online well in advance of the HLPF so they can be used by all actors for preparation.
It is recommended that the guidelines ensure that national reviews adhere to the agreed review and follow-up principles (in particular 73 and 74 d, e, and g, i.e. accountability inclusion, participation and transparency).

The guidelines should thus include questions on
• Consultation on the report within the government and with parliament
• Participation of a broad range of non-state actors at different levels, including marginalized groups, and the National Human Rights Institution in the drafting of the report
• The national review mechanism
• Integration of recommendations from international and national human rights mechanisms
• Accessibility of the country report in local language/s and other formats
It is recommended that all countries
• Make specific commitments on implementation and identify responsibilities of specific state entities for implementation actions.
• Report on all goals or explain why they do not report (´comply or explain´).
• Report on progress for different population groups based on disaggregated data and sharing the reasons for focusing on these groups as well as sharing methods for data disaggregation and for focusing implementation on vulnerable groups.
• Report both on successes and on challenges and lessons learned with regard to both.
It is recommended
• For the first review, for each country to focus on: commitments and adaptation efforts, including identification of responsibilities of different state entities, adaptation of targets and indicators, establishment of a national review mechanism etc.
• For subsequent reviews, for countries to report on adopted recommendations (see Question 20) as well as to highlight one main success and one main challenge experienced during implementation.
• For all presentations to be public and accessible via live webcast and for all information to be available online well in advance.
• To reserve time for stakeholders (including but not limited to Major Groups) to ask questions to the country under review. The reading of statements on behalf of organisations should be allowed in case of individuals facing or fearing serious personal repercussions on the basis of their in-person participation.
It is recommended that
• Country reports, Compilations of UN Information and Compilations of Stakeholder Information include information on MoI gaps
• Country reviews are NOT designed as pledging events since this would unduly influence the reports, presentations and discussions
It is recommended that the outcome of country be
• Recommendations to the country under review by other countries
• A statement of the country under review as to which recommendation it adopts and commits to report on in future reviews.
It is recommended to
• Clearly define the objective of regional reviews, e.g. as peer exchange and learning, analyses regional trends based on information from regional bodies.
• Avoid under all circumstances regional reviews that act as a ´filter´ for information from the national level, i.e. country reports, UN compilations and stakeholder compilations should not be summarized or condensed at the regional level but should remain the basis for country reviews at the global level.
It is recommended to

• To distinguish clearly between two very different roles in which stakeholders will be involved in the global review and follow-up:

1) Holding governments accountable for progress on the 2030 Agenda by providing complementary information (see Q 7, 13, 22) - ´holding accountable´
2) Being themselves accountable for progress on the 2030 Agenda by reporting on their own contributions (see Q 23/24) - ´being accountable´

For the former, information should be compiled in a ´Compilation of UN Information´ (see Q 7, 15) and a ´Compilation of Stakeholder Information´ (see Q 13, 15, 22) and it would be useful to draw on experiences from the Human Rights Council´s Universal Periodic Review in this regard.

The latter should be ensured through a ´Platform for Partnership Review´ (see Q 23/24).

• Provide resources for stakeholders to engage in national review mechanisms and to participate in their country´s review at the global level.
It is recommended to
• Establish a ´Platform for Partnership Reviews´ as envisaged in para 84 of the 2030 Agenda, e.g. as a regular session of the HLPF which would allow different stakeholders, including civil society, the private sector and foundations, as well as the UN, to present on their contributions to the 2030 Agenda.
• The partnership reviews could organized thematically by aligning them with the annual theme of the HLPF and thematic reviews, or institutionally by focusing on a different group of stakeholders every year.
• Standards: Private sector contributions should reflect reports from the Global Compact and the Forum on Business and Human Rights and consider the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. For NGO contributions, standards such as the INGO Accountability Charter or the Istanbul Principles (Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness) could be taken into account.
It is recommended that
• the UN System report on its own contributions to the 2030 Agenda as part of the ´Platform for Partnership Reviews´ (see Question 23)
• these reviews consider annd feed back to relevant information from related processes such as the QCPR, Human Rights Up Front and the effort to make the UN ´fit for purpose´.
It is recommended that
• At national level, UN Country Teams and other UN entities support member states and stakeholders in the reporting process. In the interest of national ownership, this must, however, not lead to an ´outsourcing´ of the reporting to UN entities or external consultants as has often happened with the MDGs (see Question 15)
• At global level, all UN entities ensure that the global review process adhere to para 74 of the 2030 Agenda including by 1) systematic flow of information between different parts of the UN system and the HLPF (e.g. between the human rights mechanisms and the HLPF) and integration of this information into the HLPF review process, 2) mobilizing sufficient resources for stakeholders to engage in national review mechanisms and to participate in their country´s review at the global level (e.g. for participation of non-state actors, live webcast and knowledge platforms).
It is vital that the SG report provide clarity on the objective of the overall review and follow-up process as well as objectives, inputs and outputs of the different elements of the global review process.

The following is recommended in this regard:

• Clarify overall objective of the 2030 follow-up and review system: accountability of governments to people.

• Thematic reviews:
o Objective: Ensure collective accountability of all countries
o Input: Compilation of UN Information (see Question 7, 22), Compilation of Stakeholder Information (see Question 13, 22)
o Output: Thematic report feeding into GSDR

• Country Reviews:
o Objective: Ensure accountability of individual countries
o Inputs: Country Reports (see Questions 15-20), Compilation of UN Information (see Question 15, 22), Compilation of Stakeholder Information (see Question 15, 22)
o Output: Recommendations and country statement on adopted recommendations feeding into GSDR

• Platform for Partnership Reviews
o Objective: Ensure the accountability of other actors
o Inputs (by themes or institutions): Reports by partners, independent evaluations of partnerships, information from other relevant processes (see Question 23, 24)
o Outputs: Report or recommendations feeding into GSDR
31
CardinalNicoleFemaleSave the Childrenhttps://www.savethechildren.net/nicole.cardinal@savethechildren.orgCanadianUnited StatesNon-Governmental OrganizationsThe General Assembly should hold a Special Session in 2017 to track progress on the SDGs in relation to children. Children constitute more than 30% of the world’s population and virtually all of the SDGs will have an impact on children’s lives and the realization of their rights. A Special Session in 2017 would align with the 15th Anniversary of the Special Session of the General Assembly on ‘A World Fit for Children’ and would provide a high-level political space to discuss the SDGs in relation children.

This Special Session could be followed up with a second General Assembly Special Session in 2027 and complemented with a specific overarching HLPF theme on children and the SDGs (see further information provided under question 8).
It should request that commissions, bodies and forums provide the following information related to their area of expertise in a short report:

• Progress, achievements and critical success factors to attain the SDGs
• Challenges and gaps
• New and emerging issues
• Recommendations to mobilize further actions to accelerate implementation.

In line with para. 74(e) of the agenda, this information should be gender-sensitive, respect human rights and have a particular focus on the poorest, most vulnerable and the social and economic groups or ‘segments of society’ that are the furthest behind. The recommendations should be considered by the HLPF for inclusion in the negotiated Ministerial Declaration.

Inputs should be sought from other accountability mechanisms such as the Human Rights Council (including its special procedures and the UPR), human rights treaty bodies and UN Secretary General Special Representatives (including on Violence against Children and Children in Armed Conflict.)
Thematic reviews should focus on clusters of closely-related SDGs (option i) or examine progress for all SDGs based on a transversal theme (option ii).

Regardless which option is pursued, all thematic reviews should ensure:

In line with para. 74(b) of the agenda, the universal nature of the agenda is respected and all goals are reviewed at least three times from 2016-2030.

In line with para. 74(e) of the agenda, the situation of the poorest, most vulnerable and those furthest behind are considered each year. All thematic reviews of progress should support the pledge to leave no one behind by ensuring a focus on progress of those social and economic groups that are the furthest behind to achieve the SDGs, based on income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migration status, disability, geographic location or other characteristic.

The process for selecting the theme is inclusive, transparent and participatory and provides the opportunity for input from civil society including children.
Commissions, bodies and forums – and sector-specific global partnerships – should provide the following inputs based on their area of expertise and in consultation with civil society:

• Progress, achievements and critical success factors to attain the SDGs;
• Challenges and gaps;
• New and emerging issues; and
• Recommendations to mobilize further actions to accelerate implementation.

They should also be able to provide conclusions and/or negotiated outcomes. For example, recommendations issued by UN international human rights mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council special procedures and the UPR, and treaty body concluding observations, should inform national and thematic reviews of progress under the HLPF by being considered for inclusion in the negotiated Ministerial Declaration.

The written inputs of various bodies should be available online and can be presented through their participation in multi-stakeholder national and thematic review sessions at the HLPF.
Good overarching annual themes for the HLPF include the following:

• Leaving no one behind and reaching the furthest behind first: Putting promises into action for all segments of society
• Achieving progress on the SDGs for children
• Towards a new accountability paradigm: Good practices and lessons learned in ensuring people-centred follow-up and review from the local to the global level
• Measuring progress for women, children and other marginalized groups: Are we reaching the most vulnerable?
• Measuring the means: Adequacy of the MoI to achieve the SDGs
• Achieving the SDGs in conflicted-affected and fragile states
• Achieving the SDGs for migrants and refugees, including children

Ideally, the overarching theme for the HLPF should relate to the cluster of goals or specific thematic focus selected for that particular year. In terms of alignment, the HLPF theme should not necessarily have to align with ECOSOC’s theme given that the HLPF is a universal forum whereas ECOSOC is not.
Paragraph 18 of General Assembly Resolution 67/290 specifies that the agenda of the HLPF shall be ‘focused, while allowing flexibility to address new and emerging issues.’ Accordingly, the selection of HLPF themes should be determined every two years to provide some predictability, but also flexibility to respond to new and emerging issues. Providing the programme of work four years in advance would not allow the HLPF to be sufficiently flexible or responsive to new and emerging issues.

In selecting the themes for the HLPF, an inclusive, transparent and participatory process should be conducted that provides for the inputs of Member States, other intergovernmental platforms, and civil society including children. A similar process to this online consultation could be considered.
The UN Statistical Commission can contribute to the HLPF’s work by providing updates every 2 years on the following:

• Progress on reporting against all global indicators including progress on the full disaggregation of data for all global indicators;
• Recommendations to refine the global indicators framework based on feedback from Member States and non-state actors;
• Progress and challenges related to the collection and analysis of high-quality, accessible, timely, reliable and disaggregated data;
• Measures taken to support capacity-building for data collection and analysis at a national level;
• Measures taken to establish minimum benchmarks for data (eg: ‘a data floor’);
• Measures taken to engage non-state actors, including children and marginalized groups, in the collection and analysis of data;
• Measures taken to ensure data is available, accessible and useable to all, especially marginalized groups; and
• Recommendations to further strengthen data collection and analysis.
Rather than allocate a specific session or dedicated time slot to consider new and emerging issues, the HLPF should require that all inputs and reports identify and reflect upon new and emerging issues across all goals on an annual basis. In this regard, new and emerging issues can be mainstreamed across all national and thematic reviews under the HLPF.

Accordingly, all Member States, UN entities, other intergovernmental bodies and forums, and non-state actors including civil society, should provide the following information based on their area of expertise in relation to the SDGs in a short report:

• Progress, achievements and critical success factors to attain the SDGs;
• Challenges and gaps;
• New and emerging issues; and
• Recommendations to mobilize further actions to accelerate implementation.
Platforms and processes outside the UN system, including by non-state actors and sector-specific global partnerships, should provide inputs to the HLPF via the SDG Progress Report, the Global Sustainable Development Report, written reports and statements at reviews. These entities should report on progress, challenges, emerging issues and recommendations related to their area of expertise.

Civil society, including children and marginalized groups, should be able to submit independent supplementary information and participate in thematic reviews. To ensure children can engage meaningfully in reviews, they need access to age-appropriate information in a language they understand well in advance of a review. They should be able to participate in reviews remotely using new technology, with all HLPF meetings webcast. Children should be allowed to provide input in a format that is suitable for their level of development and should receive feedback on how their inputs have been considered.
Countries should participate in state-led reviews every 4-5 years or at least three times during the 15 year implementation period of the 2030 Agenda. This could be achieved by conducting simultaneous or parallel reviews of country progress every year during four days of the HLPF. (See question 18)

Ensuring countries participate in reviews at least three times between 2016-2030 will allow the HLPF to periodically assess national progress and make recommendations to mobilize further action on implementation if countries’ policies, programs or interventions are not achieving their intended aims. Such touchpoints are critical to allow the HLPF to collectively ‘keep its finger on the pulse’ in overseeing the implementation of the SDGs and to be in a position to address new and emerging issues.

In addition to reporting on progress, challenges, emerging issues and recommendations, all countries should report on their actions taken to follow-up HLPF recommendations from previous reviews.
The HLPF discussions should be based on:

1. A government report with information provided by the state under review;
2. A report from the UN summarizing information submitted by non-state actors including civil society and children; and
3. A report from the UN summarizing information and data from across the UN system, including from UN agencies, the Universal Periodic Review and UN treaty bodies.

In line with para. 74(e) of the 2030 Agenda, all reports should have a particular focus on the poorest, most vulnerable and the social and economic groups or ‘segments of society’ that are the furthest behind. As noted above, these reports should provide information on:

• Progress, achievements and critical success factors to attain the SDGs;
• Challenges and gaps;
• New and emerging issues; and
• Recommendations to mobilize further actions to accelerate implementation.

A synthesis of recommendations provided should be considered for inclusion in the Ministerial Declaration.
The HLPF should systematically address the following:

• The situation of the poorest, most vulnerable and those furthest behind, per para. 74(e) of the agenda based on income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migration status, disability, geographic location or other characteristic

• The actions countries have taken to fulfil the pledges to leave no one behind, reach the furthest behind first, and meet goals and targets for all segments of society

• The actions countries have taken to consult with civil society, including children, in implementation and accountability processes

• Progress made to achieve the full disaggregation of data.

In line with the universal and integrated nature of the agenda, the HLPF should encourage all countries to report on all SDGs by outlining the following:

• Progress, achievements and critical success factors to attain the SDGs
• Challenges and gaps
• New and emerging issues
• Recommendations to mobilize further actions to accelerate implementation.
Guidelines should encourage countries to report on progress, challenges, emerging issues and recommendations for further implementation of all SDGs. Ensuring countries report on these key topics for each SDG can provide a level of cross-country comparability.

Guidelines should also encourage countries to report on the following:

• Actions taken to prioritize marginalized groups in order to leave no one behind, to reach the furthest behind first and to meet all goals and targets for all segments of society

• Actions taken to promote the participation of civil society, children and marginalized groups, in awareness-raising of the 2030 Agenda, and implementation and accountability processes including the production of national reports

• Actions taken to produce high-quality, accessible, timely, reliable and disaggregated data that is publicly available and to consider citizen-led or third party data

• Actions taken to independently monitor progress on the SDGs at national levels.
Country reviews should be discussed via peer or partnership reviews at the HLPF.

Each year, a number of countries could be reviewed over four days of the HLPF. Parallel or simultaneous partnership/peer reviews could be conducted by groups of countries representing a balance of high, middle and low-income countries, as well as geography. The Ministerial Segment could then focus its attention on reviewing global progress, building on discussions from national reviews. Each country could be reviewed every 4-5 years or three times over the course of the 2030 Agenda.

Partnership/peer reviews should provide for the meaningful participation of non-state actors in the country under review, including the private sector, civil society and children. A space for such reviews would help to facilitate a dynamic ‘platform for partnerships’ where countries, UN agencies, the private sector and civil society alike come together to address challenges, showcase good practices and share lessons learned.
The HLPF can ensure adequate attention to the means of implementation by providing a space where countries of different income levels share progress and challenges, especially in relation to transnational issues which directly or indirectly impact the means to deliver on the SDGs.

As noted in question 18, a model of partnership/peer reviews for country-level reviews under the HLPF would help to facilitate ‘a dynamic platform for regular dialogue and for stocktaking and agenda-setting to advance sustainable development’ per para. 18 of Resolution 67/290. Providing a multi-stakeholder space for countries of different income levels, UN agencies, the private sector and civil society to reflect on implementation is essential to mobilize new support and partnerships for the means of implementation.

The eight days of the HLPF can also provide informal spaces to facilitate interaction, matchmaking and networking among different stakeholders to further promote multi-stakeholder partnerships.
There should be a written summary of recommendations from each national review that is made publicly available and accessible in a timely manner. These recommendations should contribute to a continuum of accountability at national, regional and global levels.

At national and sub-national levels, recommendations should be considered by government and non-state actors in the period between reviews, in order to make further progress in implementing the SDGs and to address any challenges, gaps or emerging issues.

At the regional level, key recommendations should be used to discuss shared regional challenges in implementation and possible solutions.

At the global level, countries should outline the steps they have taken to address recommendations arising from previous reviews. Country reports for subsequent reviews under the HLPF should thus outline: progress, challenges, emerging issues, follow-up on previous recommendations and any new recommendations that will further implementation.
The HLPF should support the participation of stakeholders including civil society by:

• Providing dedicated time for interactive dialogue with Member States at meetings
• Establishing a trust fund to support stakeholders to participate in reviews
• Using new technologies to facilitate the participation of stakeholders outside UN Headquarters including through video calls and other online platforms
• Addressing other financial, linguistic, logistical or age barriers that prevent the participation of specific groups.

Stakeholders should be able to contribute to reviews by:

• Providing written inputs for national reviews to a UN report that summarizes information submitted by non-state actors including civil society
• Providing written inputs to thematic reviews for consideration by the HLPF
• Providing written inputs to the SDG Progress Report and the Global Sustainable Development Report
• Participating in multi-stakeholder thematic review and national partnership review sessions.
Stakeholders, including civil society organizations, can report on their voluntary contribution to the 2030 Agenda by:

• Participating in multi-stakeholder thematic review and national partnership/peer review sessions;

• Providing written inputs to national and thematic reviews;

• Contributing to an independent report that summarizes non-state actors’ contributions to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, such as an annual Global Accountability Report. The report could be prepared with inputs from multilateral institutions, UN agencies, international agencies, the private sector, and civil society organizations that are supporting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda;

• Contributing to existing and emerging sector-specific global partnerships, such as the Global Partnership for Education, the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, and the Global Partnership and Fund to end violence against children; and

• Reporting through other independent civil society processes.
The UN system can report on their contribution to the 2030 Agenda by:

• Participating in multi-stakeholder thematic reviews and national partnership/peer reviews as ‘One United Nations.’ The UN should adopt a ‘Delivering as One’ approach not just at a country level in delivering programs, but in relation to national and thematic reviews under the HLPF;

• Providing individual agency written inputs to national and thematic reviews; and

• Contributing to an independent report that summarizes non-state actors’ contributions to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, such as an annual Global Accountability Report. The report could be prepared with inputs from multilateral institutions, UN agencies, international agencies, the private sector, and civil society organizations that are supporting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
The UN system can take the following steps to best support follow-up and review:

• Integrate the outcomes and recommendations from reviews at the HLPF into the UN’s funds, policies and programmes and, where appropriate, into other international and regional accountability mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council;

• Provide support to countries to follow-up recommendations from reviews at the HLPF including by facilitating the participation of civil society, children and marginalized groups in accountability and implementation processes; and

• Provide support to countries to further their implementation of the SDGs based on key recommendations from reviews at the HLPF.
Follow-up and review for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda should be seen as a continuum of accountability from local to global levels. Recommendations, good practices and lessons learned emanating from global and regional reviews should feed into national actions to accelerate implementation of the SDGs. While the framework must ensure coordination and flow of information across all levels, particular focus must be placed on strengthening national accountability between states and citizens, including children.

The HLPF should be the global platform for accountability for the 2030 Agenda acting as an umbrella to bring together different processes. Sufficient human and financial resources must be allocated to the HLPF in order for it to fulfil its mandate.

Accountability processes at all levels should be people-centred with meaningful opportunities for citizens, including children and marginalized groups, to engage effectively in follow-up and review at all levels, including through providing written and oral independent supplementary information in formal review processes at all levels.

Data collection systems and processes should also provide space for data collection with citizens, including children, and other stakeholders. Engaging citizens in participatory monitoring and data collection will not only increase the availability of data but also ensure it accurately reflects the context and realities of local communities.

Finally, to operationalize the commitment to Leave No One Behind and incentivize equitable progress across all goals, the HLPF should encourage Member States to set national interim equity or ‘stepping stone’ targets for different social and economic groups. Set for interim points between 2016 and 2030, these targets would specify the progress that disadvantaged groups must make to ensure they are on track to achieve 2030 targets and to catch up with more advantaged groups.
32
WoodJacquelineFemaleTask Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environmenthttp://taskteamcso.com/woodjacqueline@hotmail.comCanadianCanadaMulti-stakeholder body including CSOs, aid provider and recipient governmentsThe Task Team suggests ii) and offers the transversal theme of CSO engagement. The SDGs monitoring framework will be a driving force behind development cooperation in the next fifteen years. Because CSO engagement is crucial for the SDGs – both as a means as captured in SDG 17 and an end as captured in SDG 16 on peaceful and inclusive societies and effective institutions – it would be a welcome part of the Monitoring Framework in order to encourage stakeholder efforts on this front. In the absence of an indicator on CSO engagement within the framework of the IAEG-SDGs work, the Task Team offers CSO engagement as a cross-cutting theme of the respect for human rights and the rule of law underpinning the SDGs. In view of the Task Team, any decision-making process on the transversal theme should engage stakeholders including CSOs. Such an approach can help build ownership and commitment to the follow-up and review framework as part of this people-centered and people-owned agenda. The Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) is a multi-stakeholder platform that seeks to maximize development impact guided by the principles of effective development cooperation that have evolved out of a global dialogue since the early 2000s. Its efforts are relevant to realizing the SDGs, requiring engagement of a diverse group of stakeholders and the mobilization of vast resources. With 161 member states supporting the GPEDC along with CSOs, the private sector, local governments and parliamentarians, its voluntary and state-led biennial monitoring offers a complement to SDG monitoring that would not create an additional burden on participating GPEDC governments. The HLPF could take consideration of the GPEDC’s next monitoring report in its thematic review. The GPEDC’s monitoring is largely focused on effective development cooperation, which is significant to Goal 17 on means of implementation. The GPEDC monitoring also includes a CSO engagement indicator. The HLPF could learn from the GPEDC’s monitoring exercise that engages non-state actors in various ways. Indicator Two of this monitoring (on an enabling environment for CSOs) for example was developed and will be monitored through a multi-stakeholder process, seeking not only to assess progress, but to spark multi-stakeholder dialogue CSO engagement in a particular country context. This approach corresponds well to the principles of country ownership and multi-stakeholder partnerships underlying the SDGs. In addition, some elements of the monitoring framework make use of studies submitted by other stakeholders. Overall, stakeholder participation can be strengthened by allowing a more active and predictable role for non-state actors’ contributions, for example by including CSOs in working groups established to contribute to and shepherd particular country or thematic reviews.
33
DonaldKateFemaleCenter for Economic and Social Rightswww.cesr.orgkdonald@cesr.orgBritishUSAOther StakeholderThe primary priority of ECOSOC in this regard should be supporting robust and participatory country and thematic reviews, reporting and monitoring of progress and challenges in implementing the SDGs. The end goal, as expressed in Transforming Our World, is accountability to people.The Forum on Financing for Development - which will follow up commitments made in Addis Ababa - must be closely linked to the Agenda 2030 follow-up and review processes, in particular review and monitoring of progress and challenges related to Goal 17. In particular, the findings and outcomes from the FFD Forum should be considered in country and thematic reviews at the HLPF where relevant. In particular, these outcomes will be very pertinent in helping to review a country’s efforts in mobilization of domestic resources, policy coherence, development cooperation, and the global partnership for development.As far as possible, the HLPF thematic reviews should take a cross-cutting approach, to emphasize that the goals are all interdependent.In particular, CESR believes the role of the human rights mechanisms (e.g. Universal Periodic Review, the treaty bodies that oversee the international human rights treaties, the Human Rights Council’s special procedures, & the regional human rights bodies) will be key. These mechanisms collect a wide range of information and issue recommendations to countries that are very relevant to SDG implementation. For example, compilation reports produced for the UPR could be submitted directly to HLPF for its country reviews, as well as country findings from treaty bodies & special procedures’ missions. The special procedures also issue very relevant thematic recommendations and reports in their mandate areas, many of which are closely relevant to the SDGs. The UN system should ensure a systematic information flow between the human rights mechanisms & the HLPF, and integration of this information into the HLPF reviews. Two important overarching themes for the HLPF to address would be 1) inequalities (including economic inequality) and 2) human rights. Both of these are important cross-cutting issues that impact on the achievement of nearly all the SDGs. In the case of human rights, it is also extremely important to a) consider the human rights impacts of the SDGs; b) bring a human rights-based approach to bear on implementation and monitoring of the SDGs (given that the HRBA to development has been adopted by the UN system, many development agencies and many governments now; and c) increase coherence and integration between the New York development platforms/commissions and the Geneva-based human rights mechanisms (see response to previous question).The main contribution of the UN Statistical Commission should be to identify and approve a set of global indicators against which progress can be assessed at the HLPF reviews, and help to ensure that the HLPF reviews have access to high-quality, accurate and up-to-date data. This should include consideration of data from independent sources, including academia and civil society, not just official national data sources.

The UN Statistical Commission can also play an important role in highlighting data gaps and deficiencies in funding/capacity for collection of certain data. In particular, it would be very valuable for the Statistical Commission to highlight data gaps relating to measurement of the human rights dimensions of the goals and targets, and provide guidance/best practices on human rights measurement, monitoring and statistics (see for example CESR’s recent policy brief on human rights and the SDG indicators http://www.cesr.org/downloads/cesr_measure_of_progress.pdf).
Firstly, the outcomes and processes of national-and regional-level reviews should be strongly considered and discussed in the thematic reviews at the HLPF. Secondly, non-State actors including civil society organizations and academics should be able to formally contribute to the thematic reviews. They should have official channels to submit reports, which should be made available online, ideally synthesized by the UN system into a compilation document, and used in the reviews and their preparation. These independent reports will be important to complement (and sometimes challenge) official reports from Member States and the UN – they may for example find different outcomes, include alternative data or interpretations of data. This will be crucial for a holistic understanding of progress and challenges. Civil society representatives and other experts who have contributed reports should be invited to present their findings to the HLPF thematic reviews. Ideally, each country should be reviewed at least 3 times during the 15 years of implementation. This would allow for an initial review of planning and early implementation, a ‘mid-term’ review to identify major areas of progress, challenges and setbacks, and a final review of progress and action based on earlier recommendations and reviews.The critical element to ensure the reviews are robust & effective is providing channels for ‘shadow’ reports (e.g. from civil society) which can independently assess progress. Ideally, HLPF country reviews should be based on 3 reports:
a.Official state reports, informed by national processes & stakeholder consultations & based on disaggregated, up-to-date data.
b.Independent stakeholder reports, compiled from submissions by non-State actors -particularly civil society- into an official document for the review by the HLPF Secretariat.
c.UN reports, compiling assessments from UN agencies as well as other UN mechanisms e.g. human rights monitoring bodies.
All these reports must be publicly available. This reporting modality will be essential for ensuring holistic reviews of progress, leading to more effective, inclusive implementation. Any review process based on just 1 governmental report will lack legitimacy & will fail to meet principles of participation & transparency.
1) A human rights & gender perspective in reporting (consistent with States’ existing human rights obligations, explicitly referred to in Transforming Our World). 2) A particular focus on the most disadvantaged & marginalized groups in order to live up to ‘Leave No One Behind’. 3) Transparency about challenges and setbacks as well as progress, to allow for informed & constructive guidance & recommendations. 4) Assessment of partnerships & private sector activities for financing/implementation, to ensure these are transparent & compliant with human rights obligations. 5) The HLPF is a crucial site for States to collectively address shared challenges. Therefore, reviews should not concentrate solely on domestic implementation, but also the global partnership for development and policy coherence.The goals, targets and indicators should provide enough structure for comparability. Besides, introducing a new ‘core set of issues’ could risk detracting and distracting from the goals and targets, which were carefully negotiated over many years.

However, all countries should certainly be encouraged to report on the progress of the most disadvantaged and marginalized groups in their country with regard to SDG implementation, and on what progress the country is making in closing inequality gaps. This will help to make the ‘Leave No One Behind’ promise a reality.
The country reviews should be the core focus of the HLPF, to generate evidence about successful strategies, & emerging problems requiring corrective action. These reviews are key for reinforcing the accountability of national governments to their people, as well as fostering mutual accountability between states. The country reviews should involve the country under review, other countries, UN agencies, & civil society organizations including those who operate at the national level. The reviews must be more than just an opportunity for the country to present a report or showcase its good practices. Rather, they should be an opportunity for real dialogue & learning. Different strategies & incentives should be considered to encourage participation. To ensure balanced focus & attention on States with different resources, developing countries could be paired with developed countries for reviews & presentations. National reviews must pay careful attention to MOI as a cross-cutting issue as well as via dedicated attention to Goal 17. It may be helpful to require/encourage that all reviews & reports address MOI, particularly financing stratgies & financing gaps. Countries (esp. developed countries) should be encouraged to present based on a) domestic implementation including MOI b) direct contribution to implementation overseas via ODA/development cooperation & c) overall policy coherence e.g. how far countries are attending to the overseas ‘spillover impacts’ of their policies, e.g. on tax, trade, & environment, which can have a profound effect in creating an enabling/disabling environment for sustainable development globally. Honest assessments during national reviews can help to mobilize new support & partnerships by drawing attention to challenges & areas in which countries need support. Importantly, partnerships themselves must also be subject to review, monitoring and accountability.A summary report could be written, including commitments from the country under review, and with recommendations issued by other countries, civil society, and UN agencies and platforms.

Follow-up could take place at the national level (i.e. the commitments and recommendations should be reviewed and monitored at the national level processes and mechanisms) and then at the country’s next HLPF review.
Major groups & other stakeholders (MG&OS) have a critical role to play in monitoring progress, & must therefore be given ample opportunity to participate meaningfully in all reviews. In particular, CSOs operating at national & local levels have indispensable insights. The HLPF should facilitate both in-person attendance by MG&OS (including financial support for attendance by grassroots groups & designated speaking slots) and independent reporting by MG&OS as a crucial part of reviews (see Q15 response). This will be essential for ensuring holistic reviews; reviews based just on official government reports will lack legitimacy & fail to meet principles of transparency, participation and accountability. Financial support could be provided through a trust fund established to support travel & technology for remote participation. Access & transparency should be ensured by publication of all review documents online, & webcasting of reviews.The major groups and other stakeholders (MG&OS) should be able to participate in national and thematic reviews at the HLPF, including by submitting independent reports. There must be an official channel for these reports – in particular independent reports from civil society stakeholders - to be submitted and considered to complement official reports from Member States. In these reports, MG&OS should be encouraged to report on their contribution to the implementation of the agenda, but also on implementation by the government and relevant partnerships, based on their experience working at the national, local and community levels.

The private sector could also be encouraged to report on their contributions towards implementation, with an emphasis on their sustainability and human rights impacts, and compliance with relevant international standards such as environmental standards and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (see para. 67 of Transforming Our World).
Coherent and effective follow-up and review will require dedicated support from the UN system (human resources and technical support) to the reviews at the HLPF, but also regional and national levels. The UN system could play an important role in supporting and facilitating independent reporting by MG&OS, in particular civil society. For example, the UN system could create a compilation report summarizing the inputs of civil society organization re. country reviews – this could be done at DESA or at UN country team level.
34
HaslegraveMarianneFemaleCommonwealth Medical Trust (Commat)www.NGOsBeyond2014.oegmh@commat.orgBritishUnited KingdomNone• For robust, effective, participatory, transparent & integrated follow-up and review framework the GA, ECOSOC and HLPF must adapt to 2030 Agenda
• Business as usual is not an option. Different organs and bodies of the UN system work in silos. Even the 3 SD pillars are dealt with by GA in silos, eg economy and environment by 2nd and social development by 3rd Committees, similarly some functional commissions of ECOSOC, eg Commission for Social Development by 3rd Committee. GA could debate on UNSG’s annual SDG progress report; discussion forum for the Global Sustainable report in ECOSOC; and national reports presented in a specific forum at HLPF
• Processes for revision of GA agenda and methods of work in line with 2030 Agenda must bear in mind that the agenda goes beyond the 2nd and 3rd Committees. Monitoring and accountability related to peace and security, rule of law, human rights must be addressed
• CSO participation should be included along the lines of OWG & IGN processes
• All goals and targets should be treated equally and with a balanced approach to the three pillar of sustainable development. Goal 17 should be cross cutting and included annually. And Gender Equality should also be cross-cutting as well as considered as a specific goal.
• There should be a balanced division of labour between ECOSOC/HLPF/General Assembly so that implementation of all goals and targets are monitored and reviewed, if not annually, at least in a clear and established period, maximum every two / three years.
• A link between the programme of work of the functional commissions of ECOSOC and the SDGs, as well as the Executive Boards and the specialized agencies including WHO, ILO, UNICEF, UNFPA, HRC, UNESCO, UN Women, etc. should be created to ensure more coherence and coordination among and between these organs and thus strengthening the implementation of the agenda.
• Follow-up and review of the UN conferences and processes on LDCs, SIDS and LLDCs could be an annual agenda item on HLPF or the General Assembly, taking into account existing platforms and processes.
• There are, however, equally important UN follow-up conferences that the HLPF needs to deal with in accordance with para 11 of Agenda 2030, such as ICPD and Beijing. Although the HLPF is not responsible for the monitoring and review of these international conferences and their follow-up conferences, which is part of the CSW and CPD mandates, their follow-up and review should also be considered under the HLPF, as appropriate; and the outcomes of the functional commissions fed into the HLPF discussions.
• While recognizing that interlinkages between the ECOSOC functional Commissions and the implementation of the SDGs must be established, these Commissions have remits that go far beyond the goals and targets in the SDGs, and they must retain the space to continue to explore these mandates irrespective of the SDG agenda.
• They can provide technical guidance on the issues for final policy discussions according to the HLPF themes and their outcomes can provide a contribution to HLPF, particularly as they meet annually. However, in no way will the work of the functional Commissions substitute the monitoring and accountability of the Agenda by the HLPF whose central role is overseeing the implementation of all goals and targets at the global level, as agreed in Agenda 2030.
• Reports presented to the ECOSOC functional commissions could also be submitted to the HLPF, depending on the theme.
• HLPF thematic reviews should focus on SDGs, as in Option 1, recognizing importance of integration, interlinkages among goal & targets & transversality of certain matters/subjects across them
• Issues such as gender (see para 20 of 2030 Agenda) or MOI are cross-cutting and must be addressed in context of all goals & targets, independently of chosen option or theme
• Option 2 offers opportunity to monitor & review particular issues throughout whole agenda. However concept of “transversal theme” may be open to interpretation and possible misuse (eg to include issues not agreed in the 2030 Agenda). This option may also not ensure that all goals and targets will be tackled equally or at all within the HLPF thematic reviews
• Option 3 would make it hard to establish existent interlinkages between goals & targets & their direct or indirect impact on related goals and targets; ultimately it won’t give right information
• The functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies have their own specific technical mandates and remits that allow them to have a technical greater and in-depth understanding of particular issues (for example, the Commission on the Status of Women has a special expertise on gender equality while the Commission on Population and Development has specific expertise on population and demographic issues), their outcomes should be inputted into the HLPF’s deliberations.
• Some kind of an official input, determined by the functional commission, summarizing the discussions should be submitted to the HLPF. The approach to their inputs should however be flexible, allowing them to decide how best to submit their findings. In some instances they might be negotiated outcomes on the theme, in others they might be a chair’s text.
• Adolescents and Youth
• Inequalities within and among countries
• Basic social services, social protection & well being
• Vulnerable and marginalized groups
• Gender equality and empowerment of women
• Capacity building at different levels, e.g. institutional, data collection, etc.
• Right to development
• There should be a triennial work programme of HLPF under auspices of ECOSOC, with the High-level meeting in 4th year at GA level (as decided in resolution 67/290) considering all aspects of the Agenda with objective to identify progress and emerging challenges and mobilize further actions to accelerate implementation
• Outcome of the HLPF at the GA level should relate to an overarching theme tackling all 17 goals & 169 targets, containing an overall assessment/analysis on implementation of the Agenda, identifying areas of progress, & gaps & challenges encountered and possible ways forward, including at policy level
• In this regard, the 2023 High-level meeting will provide an opportunity for a mid term in-depth assessment of implementation of the Agenda as with MDGs in 2010.
• Programme of work is supported by reliable data and is evidence-based, identifying challenges with particular elements of implementation and sharing experiences from the national level
UNSC produce annual reports for the HLPF on all goals and targets, with a more detailed analysis of targets related to review theme or to contribute to, as appropriate, the two SG annual reports – the GSDR and the annual SDGs progress report. Their work/input should cover:
• No. of countries collecting the indicators and level of disaggregation, broken down by indicator (ie ABC countries collecting data on indicator 5.7.1, with X% disaggregating by age, Y% disaggregating by urban/rural etc)
• Specific focus on how target is being met for most vulnerable populations what is needed so that “no one is left behind”
• Baseline data and revised annual data or projection for each indicator
• Any specific challenges relate to data collection, capacity building, which could relate to infrastructure development, national capacity, political pressure, lack of clarity etc
• Recommendations to strengthen data collection to better monitor the implementation of the Agenda at the country level
• The decision should be taken by the Bureau in consultation with Member States, Major Groups and other Stakeholders, Academia and UN System, as it is the practice in other UN bodies, such as CSW. • The HLPF should have a space where these actors can be heard, where they share best practices and lessons learned on the implementation of the agenda at national and regional levels.
• As agreed in resolution 67/290 (paragraph 8 c and the various sub-paragraphs of paragraph 15) these spaces need to be ensured so that non-state actors’ contributions and voices to the debate are guaranteed, either through special forums or throughout the HLPF in plenary meetings, round tables, etc. Experiences should be drawn from the Open Working Group and the Post 2015 processes in this regard.
• Member States should be able to participate in regular state-led reviews at least twice in the next 15 years. This would ensure that states have the chance to monitor regularly the implementation of the agenda, be able to identify gains/progress, gaps and challenges and to define or redefine policies accordingly • A clear set of guidelines must be established so that all Member States report on the same subject matters and address the 17 goals and 169 targets in a clear and pre-defined manners. Based on this report, Member States should present their national report sharing their experiences, defining challenges and progress achieved
• Based on each Member State’s presentation and the intergovernmental debate thereafter, a set of recommendations and guidance on the way forward could be prepared/agreed for the country’s consideration
• Member States may ask the UN system assistance on the elaboration of the report
• It will also be important to ensure participation of CSOs, academia, national statistical institutes/commissions in the elaboration of these reports as well
• Additionally separate/independent reports should be submitted by CSOs and others from the UN system, which should complement the national reports
• Track progress on the implementation of the 17 goals and 169 targets, as well as the gaps and challenges encountered as described in para 74 c) of the Agenda 2030, e.g. specific policies or measures to advance the agenda, institutional adjustments with the view to enhance its implementation, national budget
• Mobilization of resources at both domestic and international levels;
• Which measures have been taken to meet the needs of the most vulnerable populations so that we ensure that “no one is left behind”
• Gender equality and Empowerment of Women
• Mainstreaming children, adolescents and youth
• Protection, respect and fulfilment of human rights
• Best practices and policies/measures taken at national and subnational levels
• Accountability
• Data collection and disaggregation
• While Member States should have the flexibility to present a more national pressure/emergent issue/s at the HLPF, a set of concrete guidelines must be established to ensure that the review process is fair and equal for all Member States.
• This is a universal agenda and the follow-up and review must also be universal, otherwise it’ll be impossible to understand the differences and to measure progress between and among countries.
• The country reviews should be held at the highest political level and in a spirit of collaboration and shared learning, best practices, identify challenges and possible new and emerging issues. All countries should be welcome to attend the reviews and contribute
• It is recommended that the review feature a statement from the member state under review
• Following these presentations, other member states would be invited to offer voluntary recommendations or commit support to the country under review. To ensure that the review remains apolitical and focused on support and learning, countries should be dissuaded from making bloc, group or affiliate statements, and to participate only in their national capacities
• During the national review, the state under review would be invited to request support or technical assistance on particular aspects of the agenda, and to seek collaborations from the UN system, other member states, civil society organisations, and others.
• In order to support effective international cooperation Member states, UN Agencies and others may also make offers of support or technical assistance to the state under review. This exchange of commitment may help to mobilise new support and partnerships. If necessary some kind of ‘pledge conference’ could take place during Member States presentations, especially in the case of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs)
• The outcome of the national reviews should be a document that summarises the information submitted to the review (the national report, and stakeholders report, and any data reflecting on progress towards achievement), including any recommendations made by member states, and offers of support and technical assistance
• This report would be reviewed at the next national review, where states would update on progress and respond to recommendations
• Member States and UN Agencies making commitments of support or technical assistance but who did not fulfil their offer could also be request to comment on the reasons for non-fulfilment
• The regional reviews and their outcomes have a critical role to play in the HLPF process and should be considered/feed into the HLPF debate on an annual basis.

• A session of the HLPF should be dedicated to the regional reviews, including during one of the 3 days ministerial sessions, where Heads of Delegations, Executive Secretary of the UN Regional Commissions and other regional and sub-regional organisations, as appropriate, will have an opportunity to (a) share findings, experiences, best practices and lessons learned in implementation among countries with similar development backgrounds and histories; (b) identify regional-level trends and challenges, as well as strategies to address them, including through cross-border approaches; (c) identify south-south and triangular cooperation to accelerate implementation, as well as other means of implementation; and (d) identify regional-level priorities for the HLPF.
• Agenda 2030 says follow-up and review must be open, inclusive, and transparent (para 72). GA Res 67/290 says Major Groups (MGs) have critical role in the HLPF. The HLPF structure ensures strong relationship between MS and MGoS as outlined in para 15
• MGs and recognized constituencies should be allowed to:
Speaking slots during general discussions/ ministerial meetings
Access to any meetings outside of the official meetings, as per OWG and Post 2015 processes
Clear and articulated role in the review process
Access to databases and role in monitoring implementation at local, national and regional levels
Invitations to submit reports as part of voluntary review process
• Robust, inclusive and effective engagement of MGs and other recognized constituencies requires political will, and government and UN commitment
• Funding modalities for participation of MGs and recognized constituencies in all levels of HLPF, and dedicated funding for the coordination of CS input
• Besides the contribution at the national level in the definition of the national report process, CSOs and major groups should have a session to share their views and contributions in line of what happened during the OWG and Post 2015 processes. As stated by the co-chairs and several MS contributions from major groups was a key element to achieve a progressive, forward looking agenda that leaves no one behind
• Prior to each HLPF, stakeholders should be required to submit statements/reports on their contributions to achieving the SDGs. These reports could be groups by national contribution, regional contribution and global contribution, and also be cross-referenced with the relevant targets. The reports could be published on the UN website and shared with member states and UN Agencies so they can reflect on the contributions of CSOs in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda.
• All bodies and agencies of the UN system responsible for the implementation of the Agenda should produce an annual report on the steps they have taken on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, achievements and gaps encountered, lessons learned, etc. which should be presented at the HLPF by the SG.
• This can include the development and roll out of specific programmes, the realignment of existing programmes to the SDGs or the direct delivery of direct services towards achieving the Agenda.
• The UN system as a whole can play a critical role in supporting the implementation and follow-up and review of the agenda at the national and regional levels, including in the definition of national action plans, provide technical assistance, support capacity building, etc
• The UN system should also support Member States on the elaboration of the national report, e.g. ensuring that the report guidelines are respected, etc
• The review and follow-up at the regional level should also be substantively supported by the UN system including through their regional commissions. UN regional commissions should be responsible for the follow-up and review
• The follow-up and review process of Agenda 2030 should also take into account Global independent reports based on existing mechanisms, such as Independent Accountability Panel (IAP) for the Global Strategy for Women¹s, Children¹s and Adolescents¹ Health, or the UNESCO global education report 2015.
35
ShahMeeraFemaleCenter for Reproductive Rightswww.reprorights.orgmshah@reprorights.orgUSAUSAWomenHLPF thematic reviews should adopt a cross-cutting approach to assess progress across all of the SDGs with respect to a particular theme in order to ensure a holistic approach to interdependent goals. The theme should be decided on a timeline that would allow all relevant stakeholders sufficient time to prepare inputs.Information, outcomes, and recommendations from functional commissions and intergovernmental bodies and forums, particularly human rights mechanisms, should be compiled and provided to the HLPF. In particular, the human rights treaty monitoring bodies, the UPR process, and Special Procedures collect country-specific information and reports and issue recommendations on obligations that are central to the successful implementation of the SDGs. It will be essential to ensure that the HLPF integrates the reports and recommendations from human rights mechanisms into the review process.

The functional commissions also have an important role to play in contributing to the HLPF, but the HLPF should remain the main forum for follow up and review so as to ensure a holistic approach to the entire 2030 agenda.
Overarching themes that the Center for Reproductive Rights believes it would be important to address include: (1) sexual and reproductive health and rights; (2) gender equality; and (3) addressing disparities in maternal mortality.Each country ideally would be reviewed three times between 2016 and 2030, allowing opportunities to provide an initial review of national plans and initial progress as well as multiple opportunities to address challenges and provide and follow up on recommendations. To conduct meaningful and robust reviews it will be important to ensure the integrity of the reporting process at the HLPF by integrating reports from independent sources, including civil society. The Center for Reproductive Rights and our partners have suggested that HLPF country reviews should include:
1. Member State reports, in which States monitor progress and analyze challenges, and which are informed by national-level review processes and stakeholder consultations, particularly with civil society organizations, and are based on disaggregated, updated data.
2. Stakeholder reports, compiled by the HLPF Secretariat from civil society and others’ submissions into official, detailed documents for the review.
3. United Nations reports, summarizing assessments of UN agencies as well as outcomes of other relevant reviews, particularly those from human rights treaty monitoring bodies and the UPR process. Information should be shared systematically between these different review bodies.
The HLPF reviews should assess not only a state’s progress under the SDGs, but also the obstacles or challenges it continues to face. Moreover, the HLPF reviews should address not only outcomes under all goals, but also relevant processes and structures, including legal and policy frameworks. For example, structural issues, like the functioning of a national health system, are central to the realization of a number of the proposed targets, including those relating to maternal mortality, universal access to sexual and reproductive health information and services, as well as inequalities and discrimination in accessing these services. Reports that feed into the review process should be made publicly available. A summary report that includes recommendations to the country being reviewed from other states, civil society, and UN agencies would be useful outcome document. Follow up at the global level would take place at the next HLPF review, though the recommendations from the HLPF could also be taken up at the regional and national level review mechanisms. The meaningful participation of major groups and other stakeholders (MG&OS) is essential to ensuring a robust and participatory follow up and review process for the SDGs. As the Center for Reproductive Rights and our partners have said, a people-centered sustainable development agenda must permit individuals and civil society organizations to actively participate in the reviews, as well as submit alternative reports. Civil society organizations, including those without ECOSOC status, should be permitted to attend and participate in interactive dialogues. The HLPF reviews should be broadcast in live webcasts, and all data and information should be made publicly available. The participation of marginalized and disadvantaged people must be ensured, including by providing financial support for travel and technology, and their experience represented, so as to leave no one behind.The meaningful participation of major groups and other stakeholders (MG&OS) is essential to ensuring a robust and participatory follow up and review process for the SDGs. These groups should be able to submit independent reports that address both their contributions to as well as their experiences with the state’s implementation of the agenda as part of both national and thematic reviews at the HLPF. These reports should be compiled and considered as part of the HLPF review and a complement to the official state report. Participation by these groups could be encouraged by webcasting all reviews, making all documents publicly available, and providing funding to support travel and technology for remote participation in the reviews. The UN system could play an important role in ensuring the flow of information and reporting between the UN bodies, particularly the human rights mechanisms, and the HLPF as well as facilitating and summarizing independent reports from civil society. Moreover, the UN system will need to ensure that the HLPF is adequately resourced in order to conduct meaningful reviews of implementation.
36
KannerJussomaleThe Finnish NGDO Platform to the EU - Kehyswww.kehys.fi/enjussi.kanner@kehys.fiFinnishFinlandNon-Governmental OrganizationsFollowing its mandate, ECOSOC can make regular recommendations to the UN and related international organizations (such as the Bretton Woods institutions) to integrate Agenda 2030 and respect for human rights in all their activities as well as in the monitoring, review and reporting of their activities.- National coordination and implementation mechanisms and strategies for Agenda 2030
- Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development: how well policies at national, regional and global level support the achievement of various SDGs outside the given policy field or outside the given country/region?
- Rights base of SDGs: how well progress towards SDGs have also built the underlying right base to these goals?
Consultation for major groups and key stakeholders (including civil society)
37
GreerGillianFpost 2015volunteering working groupforum-ids.org/ggreer@vsa.org.nzNew ZealandNew ZealandOther Stakeholder, Volunteering
The three arms of the UN decision making have distinct but interrelated roles to play. To maximize the realisation of the value of the review and reporting to the implementation processes it is essential that the distinct roles of each are identifies and enhance. Join sessions of the leadership of the three arms is essential in building coherence. This could take the form of joint informal sessions on annual basis.
Secondly, coherence could be realised through shared resources such as the DESA secretariat.
























































Ensure the involvement of civil society, as in the preparatory processes for the SDGs
It would be good for HLPF, in its sessions to receive inputs from the various other reveiew processes such as ensure follow-up and review arrangements of UN conferences and processes such as the annual Commission on the Status of Women, reporting on CEDAW etc. There needs to be clarity on how these feed into and shape HLPF thinking.
Utilise existing processes and gatherings that will provide annual or bi-annual data and thematic expert interpretations of progress.
The guidance should have some core principles for review that are at the heart of the SDGs,ie that review is participatory, inclusive, open, transparent for all people and supports the reporting by all stakeholders (para 74d of the Agenda 2030 outcome document). Review is people-centred, gender sensitive, respects human rights and has a particular focus on poorest, most vulnerable and those furthest behind (para 74e)
They will benefit from the active support of the UN system and other multilateral institutions.
The guidance should specify that these functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies should seek CSO/ other stakeholder/ range of stakeholder inputs within their analysis. For example within Asia Pacific there is already in existence a civil society segment of the ECOSOC functional commission – the Asia Pacific Regional Engagement Mechanism that interacts with ESCAP.
Options i and ii are preferred as option iii would make it difficult to feature the interlinked nature of the goals.
Leave no one behind should be a theme
The role and contributions of civil society and volunteering to the achievement of the SDGs would be an excellent theme, particularly since they are called on to participate in the implementation of all of the SDGs. Disaggregation of data in respect to how it is shaping our review and analysis of progress. Progress on partnerships and the theme of a new global partnership and how these are working.
The UNSC should:
· help to identify how the existing statistical systems (including, but not limited to, the System of National Accounts) can be tapped to generate information documenting progress in achieving the goals;
· encourage and support efforts to build the capacity of national statistics offices;
· encourage statistical office-civil society partnerships in the planning, development, analyzing, and dissemination of data.
· support the development of new methodologies, guidelines, and recommendations for the generation of information on key national aspects of importance not yet covered, or covered well, by existing procedures.
Update on grey indicators development for sure or refinement of indicators?
Update on data disaggregation
Update on capacity building initiatives and challenges
Civil society is discussing its own platforms and processes and some of these should be regularly contributing in the work of HLPF. As in the SDG formation discussions, civil society should have a clear process to engage in their full diversity in all HLPF meetings and have a process of making statements – thematic or goal by goal . Major Groups and Other stakeholder system could be extended but it is important that the diversity of stakeholders is given the opportunity especially as the HLPF’s purpose is to assess / measure progress.
Engagement of civil society partners in the planning, implementation, follow up and review processes at the national level.
By featuring the main types of partners they are working with, and identifying specific cases where further support is needed and inviting help from local partners.
Space/people at the table- Volunteer groups should have a structured mechanism or engaging with the process. Provide space for structured in puts similar to the OWG and the Post 2015 IGN where co-chairs provided sessions for CSOs with presence and reactions from member states. The CEDAW example where CSOs are permitted to officially table shadow reports is worth emulating.
Invest in CSO engagement in articulating what is happening behind the data in the corners – tell the stories behind the gaps
Shadow report- support the volunteer groups to develop reports
Resourcing for shadow reporting and self organising- To cover travel to NY
Strengthen and increase funding to DESA & UNGLS support-
Develop measures/indicators to capture volunteering across the development sector and in all –
Capture cost of time gifted against what it is worth
Map where volunteers work in the system- in policy, people
Quantify contribution in hours and value
Outcome- what is the contribution towards outcomes
Support self-organisation in the sector to be able to take care of this extra collective work
Capture data from the programs, including different types of effective partnerships eg Private sector and civil society
38
ogbangaMinaFCenter for Development Support Initiatives/ECO Powerwww.cedsinigeria.orgcedsi2000@yahoo.comNigeriaNigeriaNon-Governmental OrganizationsSet in place a planMonitoring mechanismnetworkingYesCentral funding processExamine progressPlace standards in planeach SDG6,omthsnot necessarilytrainingBuild a teampartnershipbiannualresearchClimate Change/AdministrationLocal organisng Committeewebsitemeasure evaluatecapacity built of memberssessionsapplicationsmonthly reportsfunding localstrainingafrica should be top priority
39
KhullarAashishMaleUN Major Group for Children and Youth- Children and Youth Internationalwww.childrenyouth.orgaashish.khullar@childrenyouth.orgIndianUSA/IndiaChildren & YouthThe GA should incorporate the lags identified through the follow up and review process and orient the thematic element of the proceedings to reinforce support to those areas.

In terms of working methods, the GA committees should move towards the open nature of MGoS modality of the HLPF and OWGs. This will ensure ongoing year long participation by MGoS which will create a more inclusive and enabling environment in terms of impact on content of work.

The thematic elements of the GA proceedings should follow an SDG checklist to identify the cross linkages associated with the goals, targets and indicators.
By consistency of modalities, actors and thematic topics, in addition to collaborated timelines.By making the receptive processes/conferences the primary convening entity of the thematic reviews associated with the topic within their mandate.Treat it as a formal input and progress report, which would suggest content for resolutions, and policy formatting. from a technical point of view Option 2- "Examine progress in all SDGs based upon a transversal theme such as gender, health pr education".

However it should not be limited to one theme but also include other complimenting ones in order to identify and report of positive and negative feedback loops.
The inputs should span all those mentioned here. How they are presented should be based on what the input is.

Negotiated outcomes could be used for consistency of positions to increase the ambition level for policy making.

Summary and discussion could serve a knowledge function to provide insight into agenda setting and reccomendations.

Theme should be determined every year.it should address how the content of the forum can and has conributed to the SDGs and other processes feeding into the HLPF.

This would also suggest policy interventions and help add new attributes to the discussions at the HLPF that could focus on how to fast track and enhance effective implementation.
Provide technical updates on how the indicators for progress should be inferred in line with the intended outcomes.

Additionally, the commission should update the measures of progress and the scope and sources of data through the follow up and review cycle.
Multi stakeholder dialogues specifically roused on this topic along with parallel discussion in different processes

Crowd sources third party data and trend analysis.

The Global Sustainable Development Report.
Be officially part of the follow up process by self identifying with any of the MGoS clusters or be part of the process of thematic reviews convened by the relevant mandated entities with in the UN system.
These reviews should be an ongoing processes in line with the agenda of the GA committees and other relevant processes with a minimum number official reviews at the HLPF.The template of the format of the reviews will play a role in this matter.

In addition, as mentioned earlier, the ancillary and parallel processes should seek to answer this question as a critical component of their work.
Shadow reporting and counter narratives from.

The official guidelines should include dedicated space for formal inputs by the whole range of self organised MGoS actors which transparent governance mechaisisms.

These inputs should not be subject changes by member states and should be taken as in.
Be a dedicated agenda item with open space space for MGoS in line with the full range of modalities available to them.

Where ever there is a dedicate space for country review there should also be dedicated space for the presentation of third party presentations through MGoS in line with shadow reporting
National reviews in regards to MOI, should assess a country's national as well extraterritorial obligations in regards to MOI.

In this regard the involvement of MGoS becomes critical specially when doing a third party thematic assessment across national jurisdictions.
The concept aspirational lags is something we had raised in our HLPF Paper.

The offical reviews will repot on the global and national indicators, however all stakeholder will not be satisfied with the scope and robustness of the indicators.

The implementation should take in inputs and reports from the MGoS range that provide a narrative on what the agenda should be measuring and not just what the indicators limit it to.
Be coordinated with the national reviews and have an official segment for it.

The elements of the regional reviews should be coordinated with the thematic and national ones.

There is value in both broadening the topics or discussion and in narrowing them them.
Engage them all year beyond the two weeks in New York. Made dedicated space (not subject time availability at the end of a session) available for official interventions across all review proceedings.

IN addition in terms of access to information they should be at par with member states.


They should also be included in a decision making context to set the agenda and map the scenarios of the review process.
This is very critical. Each group will do it separately and as per their own style of functioning. This should be allowed within strong guidelines and templates developed through multi stakeholder dialogue and the secretariat.

As UN MGCY we are working on a few initiatives to this end, including the Youth Gateway to the SDGs.

Additionally governance reporting requirements to DSD should include this as an element.
Evaluation of activities undertaken and program delivery.Too many :-)

The secretariat has the critical role of operationalizing all this input wing received form all stakeholders.

There could be a coherency check process to ensure deliberate action on that front.
GOOD LUCK. This is a massive undertaking and a fundamental reorientation of how the UN will work.
40
HuffinesJefferyMaleCIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participationwww.civicus.orgjeffery.huffines@civicus.orgUSAUSANon-Governmental OrganizationsIn order to ensure the successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda, alignment of policy priorities with the SDGs will be key at all levels. The streamlining of the work of the GA Committees and ECOSOC and their respective agendas with the agenda of the HLPF will maximize the impact of the HLPF as the apex body designed to “provide political leadership, guidance and recommendations for sustainable development.” The rationalization of the agendas of ECOSOC and the General Assembly, especially its Second and Third Committees, presupposes that the agendas of the General Assembly and ECOSOC should build upon one another in an annual cycle that culminates in the annual meeting of the HLPF. This cycle should form a coherent annual process, which allows for complementary and mutually reinforcing roles of the GA and ECOSOC. The GA should provide broad political direction, while ECOSOC should ensure more detailed analysis, including periodic input from stakeholders.

ECOSOC should ensure that the process continues to be collaborative, bringing in a wide range of views from each of its functional commissions to ensure meaningful follow-up and review. This could include for example: a) effective online presentations of functional commission outcomes related to the 2030 Agenda; b) ensure meaningful engagement of NGOs at the functional commissions and HLPF by adopting robust modalities of engagement that includes access to all official meetings and documents, contribute to agenda setting, submit documents and present written and oral contributions, right to intervene in plenary sessions, participate in dialogue sessions with Member States, and to self-organize.The GA should continue to authorize the IAEG to finalize the indicators for as long as necessary and ensure commitment from across the UN system so that there is a robust approach to monitoring and review.ECOSOC has now been charged with this additional coordination role as well as preparing reports from both the FFD Forum and the STI multi-stakeholder forum. Member States should strengthen the ECOSOC secretariat and provide it with the necessary expertise to take on the task of coordinating the nexus of finance/economy/trade to make it relevant to the MOI of the SDGs, and to ensure effective follow up on the recommendations to be made on STI.
It is clear that all the SDGs are inter-linked and cannot therefore be taken in isolation. Our preference would therefore be for option (ii) to focus on a transversal theme each year. These transversal themes could be selected through an open online poll with a number of key options set out in July and finalised in September ahead of the next HLPF. At the same time, the annual review should also include detailed progress reports by countries on progress made under every goal. There should be a progress review of at least 25 countries per year.Inputs should be gathered from across the UN system on a regular cycle. These should be compiled in the form of regular reports by March preceding the HLPF.The themes should follow a wider logic of the global challenges that are most pressing in each year, these could include: inequality; nutrition; access to resources. They would be proposed in July for the following year and put forward to an open online poll, until September to ensure wider awareness. The theme would then be finalised in September preceding the next HLPF. There should be two parallel streams of review within HLPF:
a) Thematic review on a broad theme- this would consider global trends on a given theme, this would draw from comparative data and the key UN commissions etc.
b) Country by country progress reviews- these would focus on a detailed review of approx 25 countries according to all the indicators at each HLPF, on a rotating basis, whereby each country is reviewed once in the 4 year cycle and then a summary after 4 years.
The Statistical Commission should support and give guidance to the IAEG-SDGs over the next 15 years and take on a coordinating role in order to ensure that the IAEG-SDGs can provide technical support for the implementation of the approved indicator and monitoring framework. This will include support to the IAEG-SDGs in order to ensure timely and comprehensive input to relevant reports such as the Annual SDG Progress report. This will include liaising with relevant officials within the UN Secretariat in the drafting process of the Annual SDG Progress report. They should not spend resources producing reports but rather provide the platform for others to extract the data and assess progress. Specific bodies of the UNSC – such as the Praia Group on Governance and Peace Statistics – could be drawn upon to continually engage on strengthening the global indicators and supporting methodological and capacity development.
There should be a focal point within the UN Secretariat who would receive input from different stakeholders on new and emerging issues, with the responsibility to act accordingly and brief the HLPF on these issues on a regular basis if necessary. HLPF will need to have the necessary mechanisms in place in order to be able to respond to these issues. It can for example involve adding an 0,5-1 day to the 8-day HLPF consultation period in order to deal with these issues and discuss whether they will need to be included under selected annual themes going forward.Information outside the UN and national statistics system must be recognised as a critical input to understanding SDG progress. This holistic vision is essential if the HLPF is to be truly participatory, transparent and accountable and able to provide an accurate picture of progress.

Shadow reports conducted by non-state actors on the different SDGs should be available online, compiled, synthesised and made available in advance of the HLPF. In addition, CSO representatives who have produced shadow reports relevant to the annual theme should be invited to present their findings to the HLP. Potential discrepancies between the findings of civil society and the official data presented by UN Member States in their reviews should be discussed and analysed. Global partnerships, initiatives and platforms that are relevant to specific themes being discussed by the HLPF should be invited to brief the HLPF on how they and their members are facilitating global action on meeting the SDGs.
Country progress reviews should be conducted on an annual basis, with approx 25 countries per year. Every country would participate in a detailed review at least once every 4 years and should be prepared to offer a summary at the four-yearly GA HLPF meetings. The HLPF discussions should enable countries carrying out the progress review to present their findings and to highlight key areas of progress and also key challenges. It would be helpful to have a common template for review against the agreed indicators.

There should also be time allocated for dialogue and reflection from stakeholders to share perspectives, formal expert submissions and shadow reports on the countries in each review.
We recommend that every country adopt a National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) through a participatory process that is inclusive such as the Major Groups/Stakeholder structure. This strategy should make meaningful, measurable commitments on the progressive realization of all the SDGs (and on associated means of implementation). It should address each country's equitable contribution to global achievement of the goals within a human rights framework. Member States should agree to a public, inclusive and participatory national review mechanism, led by a National Council for Sustainable Development, as already agreed in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. Countries should be prepared to report once every four years on all targets and indicators. This should take the form of a detailed progress review according to an agreed template, with specific targets and indicators covered by supporting evidence. In addition, there would be annual thematic reports prepared by UN agencies in collaboration, which would draw from latest country-level data as well as national case studies.The ECOSOC Annual Ministerial Review (AMR) process offers several points of departure for the HLPF review process, yet its concrete implementation reveals a significant need for improvement. The main critique of the AMR is its lack of incentives and absence of follow-up on the review and recommendations. The participation of NGOs through shadow reporting should also be included. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) under the Human Rights Council is, according to some experts, the best model for the HLPF review. It is also mentioned in the Secretary-General’s synthesis report. The UPR has achieved broad acceptance despite its obligatory elements and intense stakeholder participation. It is designed to be highly transparent that includes the participation of NGOs, for example it includes a regular country-by-country review process, which welcomes formal submissions from stakeholders, yet it is also clearly state-led. National and local review can only function within open societies with governments that protect and promote civil and political freedoms and participation. Goal 16 should be taken as a baseline for ambition in this respect. An equal right to participate in all domestic processes of accountability must be guaranteed and realized through concrete steps. These must include the development and implementation of participatory monitoring and accountability mechanisms and provision of financial support for the groups that defend the most marginalized and advocate for the protection of the environment to enable their meaningful participation in decision-making processes. If done in a participatory way, these reviews should draw in views of stakeholders across each country, thereby raising awareness and ownership of the process by citizens. Every national review should produce a report following an agreed template to cover progress on all the targets and indicators. The reviews should be presented in a searchable website, alongside submissions and shadow reports by stakeholders, so that citizens can read and understand the latest progress. There should be a follow-up on a four-yearly basis and countries that are under-performing should be provided with additional support to address challenges.Each UN Regional Commission should establish mechanisms for peer review, drawing on existing structures. These reviews should be comprehensive in their coverage of the sustainable development agenda - encompassing all SDGs, as well as their accompanying targets and means of implementation. The regional level would also be the appropriate forum for the discussion of particular regional challenges, policies and strategies and the development of regional cooperation. The full and effective participation of Major Groups and other Stakeholders must be guaranteed with modalities in line with standards mandated by Resolution 67/290 that established the HLPF.The adoption of innovative modes of stakeholder participation in the HLPF should be encouraged, building on best practices throughout the UN system. The preparatory process for the HLPF should be multi-stakeholder in nature and is well-placed to oversee the production of a monitoring and progress report on the SDGs. To increase accountability and legitimacy, the HLPF review, monitoring and accountability processes should provide mechanisms for the inclusion of data from MGoS sources in state-led thematic and country reviews as well as support separate third-party reviews by Major Groups and other stakeholders, and include reporting of voluntary commitments and partnerships. Technical and financial support for the participation of developing country stakeholders and the more marginalized major groups should be provided.We recommend that national and regional non-state stakeholders are permitted to submit evidence within the global review process and present written and oral contributions which should be formally incorporated into both state-led thematic and country reviews, and that all official information and documents are easily accessible to all. NGOs should also be invited to present technical reports at the thematic review of the SDGs. Moreover, the UN should take the lead to make its processes more relevant and attractive to Major Groups and other stakeholders. This means ensuring regular face-to-face meetings and an online interface to provide transparent up-to-date information on latest policy developments. In addition to ensuring the fulfillment of rights of participation in inter-governmental processes, the UN should also develop and support structures for NGOs to have meaningful and timely exchanges with UN senior officials and governance bodies.The various UN agencies should be included in the global thematic reviews, and be requested to provide their own data and case studies. They should also produce their own separate progress reports on a four-yearly basis to coincide with the GA-hosted HLPF sessions, highlighting their contribution towards progress in the SDG framework.In line with Paragraph 8 of 69/270, major groups and other stakeholders are given an important role in contributing to reviews at all levels. When adopting the thematic and country progress review, it is important that the HLPF secretariat, with relevant bodies of the UN with expertise in monitoring and reviews, develop templates. Major groups/stakeholders should contribute to official reviews, through formal submissions -- as they often did during the CSD period -- but can also conduct their own reviews, in the form of shadow reports. These reviews should be part of the written documentation that major groups//stakeholders are asked to produce for the HLPF.
In addition to national statistics and the UN system, civil society and citizen‑generated data is essential to providing an accurate picture of progress on the SDGs. The HLPF must put formal mechanisms in place to leverage this data for its follow-up and review functions, including potential thematic reviews. It could also be be included in the Global Sustainable Development Report and/or in a parallel civil society‑led shadow reporting process.

Innovation in SDG monitoring and reporting will be richest when it involves a diverse range of actors working together as part of an open and dynamic ecosystem of data production. Pluralistic data production will also mean data ownership across society

Civil society and citizen‑generated data could be particularly useful for shedding light on issues which national statistical offices struggle to collect sufficient data on, helping to fill gaps and provide more detailed, more frequent data. Similarly, there are certain issues where civil society is likely to be better placed to provide data for SDG monitoring than governments, such as corruption.

The ideal SDG monitoring system, including at the level of the HLPF, would therefore draw on multiple sources of data in a complementary way, leveraging the comparative advantages of each data type.
41
TanejaAnjelaFGlobal Campaign for Educationhttp://campaignforeducation.org/en/anjela@campaignforeducation.orgIndiaIndiaOther StakeholderBased on our experience of the Global Monitoring Report on Education for All goals, a combination of (ii) and (iii) could be good. That is, transversal themes are selected, so the SDG Agenda is tackled in an intersectorial manner, while at the same time each Goal receives full attention within a given periodicity. Transversal themes could be chosen every four years, when the HLPF meets under the auspices of the General Assembly. This gives it a periodicity and better planning conditions. We would like to highlight that the education community organized around the Education 2030 Framework for Action will be monitoring Goal 4 periodically and intends to do so in a coordinated manner with the SDG processes that will be put in place. The main body within the Education 2030 architecture is the Education Steering Committee and an Global Education Monitoring Report is intended to exist (following up on the EFA Global Monitoring Report), always in dialogue with SDG processes.We feel that option i) will be beneficial to ensure that all stakeholders can plan forward for the process. The UN Statistical Commission will contribute to the working of the HLPF by ensuring data availability to the greatest possible extent, develop and improve indicators when possible and reviewing them if proven necessary. We strongly recommend that the Stats Commission dialogue with major groups and other stakeholders during the process. Where representative partnerships around goals exist, CSOs have an important stake in supporting and monitoring implementation of agenda. Space for participation should be provided for these stakeholders in the processes of monitoring and the functioning of the HLPF. More specifically, they may
• act as providers of data, especially citizen generated data.
• Undertake shadow reporting to support and/or validate official statistics and reports with this contributing to submissions.
• Organizations with a remit that is more regional could engage with a thematic strand as part of regional reviews
• The HLPF should establish clear guidelines for acceptable public –private partnerships in line with the OHCHR United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
• Each state should participate the process of comprehensive review globally at once every five years. The HLPF should develop consistent guidelines for national reports.
• National reports should be reviewed at regional level before being transferred to the HLPF. This could be undertaken more frequently (once every 3 years) and be part of the process of preparing for the global five year review. It will also serve to identify issues that are common to the region and which could be further discussed at the HLPF
• Irrespective of the above, annual reporting on progress against the entire set of SDG indicators is expected.
• HLPF discussions on reviews should be framed in a way that create the potential for learning and concrete policy change. States should be incentivized to put forward in which ways they plan to address identified challenges for the full realization of the targets.
• Key challenges that have been identified in the reports of given Members States can be focus of specific discussions and panel sessions, where other MS and different Stakeholders can express their views and experiences on that matter, in order to concretely induce learning
• Meetings must be organized ensuring enough time is provided, in order to provide the necessary conditions for in-depth discussions
• Resources for participation of stakeholders, especially from global south
• Investment in capacity building of stakeholders to facilitate ongoing engagement across the entire 15year period.
• Progress on the SDGs overall- including the thematic MOIs and Goal 17- including both overall progress and progress against benchmarks laid down under existing human right law or other internationally agreed standards
• The process adopted for the review should be in itself be an issue for the HLPF to address, including the nature and extent of involvement of stakeholders, in particular that of civil society.
• The experience of the process should draw on the Universal Periodic Review and identify gaps, risks and specific actions to be taken by member states to ensure improvement. This final report should be placed in the public domain.
The issues listed in qn 16 should be part of the core issues expected of all states. Additional issues could likewise be included as aspects on which countries are encouraged to report. • Parallel reporting on behalf of stakeholders to the national progress report. All materials submitted and final recommendations to be placed in the public domain.
• Civil society should have the space to make oral and written submissions with the materials placed in the public domain.
• Final outcome report of the review process to be placed in public domain
National reviews should be derived from national SDG implementation plans (accompanied by changes in national law to ensure conformity with the new standards). They should not be restricted to the outcomes
achieved, but give equal weightage to the Means of Implementation- including the thematic MOIs. Similarly, monitoring of progress on the FFD track/financial MOIs should be undertaken. The process of monitoring extent of progress should leverage collective engagement around these goals, including stronger monitoring and accountability mechanisms for delivery. ODA should be leveraged to support countries in need of external financial support to implement the agenda and tackle inequalities between countries.
• As with the UPR, recommendations made during the preceding round should be revisited during the upcoming round, along with the new report.Regional reporting can happen every three years giving time to prepare for the five year review at the HLPF. At the same time, it will providing shorter time span for needed adjustments in policy change. Thematic inputs

The outcomes of the regional reporting can take place at specfic sessiona of the HLPF that allow and foster dialogue between regions.
A coordination group of MGoS is useful to facilitate engagement with HLPF
• Recognize MGoS role in structuring accountability mechanisms providing formal role for participation at all levels. Provide guidelines for national reviews to ensure CSO participation in line with precedent globally
• Recognize autonomy,democratic processes of MGoS,give them space to self-organize, including selection of panelists, speakers at events. Provide adequate space for “other stakeholders” in all processes. Provide support (including financial) for participation
• Build structural interface with existing communities around specific SDGs, encourage their participation
• Ensure ECOSOC accreditation take place as speedily as possible, provide formal mechanisms for engagement for those unable to attend ongoing NY sessions
• Provide full,timely access to all official documents,information,translated into all UN languages
• Invest in capacity building of civil society, especially for newcomers to process
• Sited in the individual goals and take place concurrently with thematic and regional reviews.
• Reviews of CSO contribution should not obscure the fact that prime responsibility for implementation lies with the state as the duty bearer to ensure implementation of agenda.
• Private sector accountability and compliance with human rights standards should also be assessed.
• Specific MGoS sessions should be held within HLPF meetings, allowing an intersectorial analysis of these groups, covering the set of SDGs
Supportive in nature, intended to strengthen systems and mechanisms to deliver better impact. In so doing, it should look at both effectiveness & efficiency of the UN system.
• More specifically, it should cover the role of the UN system in terms of
o promoting monitoring of progress on the specific goals and targets and ensuring that this is done in line with human rights principles,
o ensuring action is coherent with human rights principles
o promoting solution centred shared learning,
o fostering inclusive and representative civil society partnership and support extended to governments and civil society.
o promoting action to address the enabling factors for sustainable development, including aid, fostering popular participation, policy coherence, regulating global finance, trade, technology transfer etc.

• Free open access to base data, government reports in timely manner and transparency of the review process.
• Structural mechanisms for participation of MGoS in processes of review- regionally, globally, thematically. Model guidelines for CSO engagement at national level
• Channels Mechanisms for shadow reporting by civil society to complement official reports. Parallel submissions to be given equal weight. Citizen generated data to be considered in reviews.
• Recognize people and communities as partners in the process of implementation of the SDG agenda
42
LongGrahamMaleInstitute for Sustainability, Newcastle Universityhttp://www.ncl.ac.uk/sustainability/graham.long@ncl.ac.ukUKUKI'm part of the Science and Technology Community, but don't claim to represent them.None of these, necessarily – the theme might be guided by 4 considerations:
(1) The themes should reflect the current stage of the lifecycle, and state of attainment, in respect of the SDGs. Directing attention to key and emerging issues for the SDGs generally, and for particular SDG areas, is one way in which the HLPF fulfils its mandate of providing leadership and direction.
(2) In the early years of the SDGs, themes should focus on establishing the institutions and processes that will support the SDGs: national plans and review procedures; measurement; a global enabling environment; implementation that leaves no one behind.
(3) The HLPF has a distinctive role in assessing overarching and underpinning concerns, and this should be reflected in the themes.
(4) The HLPF should prioritise SDG areas where global – or regional – progress is slowest.
In general, there is a case for negotiated outcomes, but also a summary of discussion and analysis of key issues to be the pattern for the input from other processes and bodies. This should all be a matter of record, and publicly available, but not all of it requires detailed discussion.

Inputs from existing review processes covering parts of the SDGs – e.g. the Universal Periodic Review, the monitoring regime associated with CEDAW, etc. should be summarised, then recorded and considered at each HLPF – not least, to recognise and strengthen policy coherence.
The ECOSOC 2016 theme"Implementing the post-2015 development agenda: moving from commitments to results" is wholly appropriate. As per 6 above, themes could include key enablers for general SDG attainment (msupport for national plans, institutions and review processes, measurement, global MoI); key commitments of the SDGs – universality, leaving noone behind; key overlaps – human rights and sustainable development; key issues – financing for development; and also thematic areas within the SDGs where progress is slow – or learning from areas where progress has been strong.

The ECOSOC theme could be related to the HLPF theme in a way that allows the programme of work to support progress on it ahead of that year’s HLPF.
On balance, themes could be decided annually, though a year in advance. It is critical that the HLPF is able to deliver effective direction and leadership, and that means responding to issues as they emerge. It also strengthens the relevance of the yearly HLPFs under ECOSOC.Not wholly, though it could devote some of its time to a focus on the theme. It is imperative that this forum has the independent capacity to focus its attention wherever it deems optimal across the SDG agenda.There are 2 clear roles that the UNSC (in addition to potential involvement in collating the annual progress report) could fulfil:
- An annual input to the HLPF aiming at critical, focused improvement of the indicator set over time, offering options for how the indicators could better reflect the SDGs, and developing new concepts and measurements – for example, to help realise the SDG commitment to measures of progress ‘beyond GDP’. The HLPF might invite the wider UNSC to aid the IAEG-SDG in considering options for improvement of particular indicators as required.
- Statistical support for the HLPF review process, e.g. to help with commensurability and methodology between national reports and so aid the HLPF in its deliberation.
- The Global sustainable development report, and a presentation of it in summary form near the outset of the ministerial component of the HLPF, is a key way for emerging issues to be identified. If this role is to be fulfilled effectively, the GSDR needs to be an annual input.
- More generally, the HLPF needs to retain an open and deliberative character with genuine multi-stakeholder involvement, and to be the hub of a network of UN, multistakeholder and national bodies in which a wider deliberation can take place, beyond the annual formal meeting.
- The HLPF could reserve time within the ministerial segment for discussion of new and emerging issues.
To ensure the recognition of interlinkages, different actors in these thematic strands should constitute a network, linked at multiple levels - formally by regular meetings between them, informally via a series of contact groups on cross-cutting issues. My view is that states should participate in HLPF reviews on a four-yearly cycle, with the expectation that every country is reviewed three times within the 15 years of the SDGs.

The terminology, of “HLPF national reviews” might be confusing. Countries should carry out their own national-level review of implementation through an inclusive and participatory domestic process every 2 years. The HLPF, at a global level, should review each country’s implementation, including its implementation of a process of domestic review. The aim for the HLPF review process should, in part, be to encourage and strengthen internal country review processes.
Review should be an interactive process:
• States could submit written reviews of SDG implementation in their country context.
• These could be pre-circulated, then presented (briefly) and discussed in public session.
• The commitment in Resolution 67/290 that these reviews should focus on “follow-up and implementation of sustainable development commitments and objectives” (para 8) should be borne in mind, with implications for both the content of the review but also the nature of the review process.
• The HLPF might consider pairing each presenting country with two partners – one from within that country’s region, and one from beyond it, who would be expected to lead in constructive discussion of issues arising, and potentially assist in preparation of each country’s report.
• National implementation reviews should identify country commitments and objectives, where present, across all SDGs, including their MoI.
•The HLPF should:
- address (1) gaps between commitments present and the SDG goals and targets, as well (2) as progress towards these commitments and objectives.
- scrutinise both ‘internal’ actions towards SDG attainment within countries and ‘external’ contribution (positive and negative) to global achievement of the SDGs
- scrutinise how far the SDG agenda has been addressed in an interlinked way between all three dimensions of sustainable development, by coherent policies and objectives for sustainable development.
Reviews should clearly identify:
- whether, and how far, they are the outcome of an inclusive and participatory national review process.
- the progress of the most vulnerable and marginalised groups, bearing in mind the commitment of the SDGs to “leave no one behind”.
The guidelines should:
• address not just the status of all SDGs and targets, but the commitments and objectives present in each country context.
• require states to address both ‘internal’ attainment and ‘external’ contribution to global achievement of the SDGs, including means of implementation.
• encourage states to highlight their most problematic and positive experiences.
• encourage the participation of all domestic stakeholders in the preparation of country reports.
• ensure that reports address key commitments of SDGs – especially universality, “leave no one behind” and the requirement to uphold the integrated and indivisible nature of these priorities.
• encourage reviews to give extra reflection on that year’s theme in their content.
• encourage countries to ask for support and highlight the potential for partnership where needed
Beyond this content, the content of country reviews would be flexible.
- Time should be found within the 5-day pre-ministerial HLPF schedule for presentation and discussion of each review. Presentation and discussion could be relatively short and focused. To address timing issues within the 5 days, these discussions could take place in parallel sessions, perhaps 3 or 4 concurrently. This would allow 40-50 states to be reviewed in a timely fashion, potentially in a more conducive environment for detailed discussion. Plenaries would share information, challenges and best practices across the sessions.
- All country reviews should take place in public, be open to major groups and other stakeholders, and be televised and recorded, and the deliberation in each session accurately noted.
- Chairs’ summaries of the country review sessions, with notes from each session appended, would form a written input and standing agenda item for discussion on the first half-day of the 3-day ministerial segment.
Adequate attention to MoI is ensured by stipulating it in country reporting guidelines, and allocating time in the ministerial segment of the HLPF to discussion of overarching and underpinning issues of implementation, including global finance, trade, technology, popular participation, governance and policy coherence for sustainable development.

Needs for new partnerships, or problems with existing ones, could be identified in country reports, in the outcomes of country reviews (see 20 below) or in the deliberations of the HLPF.
Each national review should result, by the end of the ministerial segment, in a number of agreed action points allocated to different actors. These should be agreed on the basis of the country review process and subsequent discussion of key issues in the ministerial segment. Some of these would be for the state reviewed, but others would be for other states, regional bodies, and the full range of stakeholders and partnerships.

A clear expectation would be established that these would be explicitly addressed in the next country review, but also followed up at the regional level in the interim.
This depends on the nature of those review processes. To the extent that they are universal meaningful and consistent, they might ease the demand for extensive global review. Where more piecemeal, they should still be a meaningful input to countries’ own reports and summaries should be considered by the HLPF as part of their standard business each year.• The HLPF could make space, generally, for stakeholders to contribute to its business on each item of its agenda, including through the making of short statements and contributions to interactive dialogue, but also through written reports on thematic and emerging issues.
• The HLPF could consider a segment of the annual meeting in which other stakeholders could set the agenda for interactive dialogue.
• Country review sessions should follow the modalities established by resolution 67/290 and allow for written submissions and oral contributions in public review sessions. Given the state-led nature of such processes, the total length of both written and oral contributions from stakeholders could be subject to limitations, and agreed between the chairs of the review sessions and the stakeholders. It is expected, as per resolution 67/290, that stakeholders will self-organise to maximise the quality and coordination of their inputs.
• In addition to country reviews, time could be found within the HLPF schedule for limited review of stakeholders in a similar format to that of states – a written report, a presentation and deliberation in public session. Perhaps somewhere between 5-10 actors or partnerships, dependent on the decision of the HLPF and the relevance of non-state actors to that year’s theme, could be reviewed.
• Given the diversity of stakeholder communities, reviews and selection of bodies to be reviewed could be linked to that year’s theme. Stakeholders could be selected partly on basis of self-nomination, but also identified by UN-DSD and member states to ensure balanced coverage of stakeholder constituencies.
• Willingness to submit to review could be a precondition for stakeholder involvement in the wider review and HLPF process.
• A summary of these reviews could be considered by the HLPF as an input into the ministerial segment.
As above, UN entities could submit a written report, which would form the basis for presentation and public discussion. These could perhaps take place on a rota, ensuring that each UN entity reports at least 3 times in the 15 years of the SDGs, but also that UN bodies are selected bearing in mind that year’s theme. To deliver on its role in the global review and follow up of the post-2015 agenda, UN member States should agree to provide the HLPF with a well-resourced, dedicated and independent Secretariat. The secretariat must have sufficient capacity to enable the HLPF to effectively coordinate the HLPF sessions and reviews, to support states in their efforts, to coordinate the assessment of global progress, to facilitate the broad engagement of civil society and other stakeholders and to manage an agenda of thematic and institutional assessment.

The UN could establish networks of rapporteurs and expert advisory groups, to be established on key thematic components of the framework. Such groups would review, and offer policy advice on, progress in specific areas, and prepare inputs for consideration at (and in the run-up to) the annual HLPF.

I was surprised not to see a more direct question on how, and how far, other relevant review processes, notably the Universal Periodic Review of human rights, CEDAW, the monitoring framework of the GPEDC etc. should contribute to the HLPF. In the case of well-functioning review processes, these should continue to be independent from the HLPF, but their conclusions should certainly formally inform the HLPF’s work.

The advancement and monitoring of a renewed global partnership for sustainable development should be a key feature of the HLPF’s work. Whilst different partnerships - and different kinds of partnerships - must have their own rules and systems of review (e.g. through the ECOSOC forum for partnerships), the health of the overall global partnership should be identified as a constant concern of the HLPF – this questionnaire currently makes no mention of it.

Generally, many of these large and complex questions are not amenable to 1000-character answers, or are best addressed together, or in a deliberative context with states. Given the complicated and interlinked nature of these questions, time and space for consultation and deliberation should be maximised. It is critical that this consultation not be taken as the only route for stakeholder engagement.

Please note, these comments are “informal” – as per the guidelines for the questionnaire. They are personal first thoughts, and should not be taken as representing the position of any larger group or organisation.
43
FellussLeaFemaleInternational Chamber of Commercewww.iccwbo.orgLFS@iccwbo.orgUSAUSABusiness & IndustryIn order for the 2030 Agenda to have a global and national level impact, it will be imperative that the HLPF have the authority to provide direction and guidance at the national levels. The General Assembly should conduct a mapping exercise and consolidate the agendas of the Second and Third committees in order to avoid overlaps in their agendas. This mapping should pay particular attention to the question of whether/how HLPF is authorized to act on or make recommendations relating to the processes destined to report to it.See Question 1As with Question 1, there needs to be greater clarity with respect to the authorities of HLPF in its various roles. Within the programming of the HLPF, dedicate one session to evaluate and review all conferences related to countries with special needs, in order to frame any appropriate recommendations to ECOSOC. Business supports the mandate of the HLPF as defined in GA resolution 67/290. At the outset, it is our recommendation that the GA examines whether or not there are any direct communication links between the General Assembly and the functional commissions of ECOSOC. If yes, then the General Assembly can provide political guidance, while ECOSOC provides technical guidance.

Moreover, clarify the nature and bounds of HLPF programmatic responsibilities and authorities, and the extent to which such authorities extend to any other UN or other intergovernmental bodies.

Further recommendation to conduct regular meetings with DESA entities as well to make sure coordination is in place and has a dedicated session to review outcomes of the HLPF with specific view to seeing how they impact the overall agenda.
Relevant secretariats, who manage the forums, should coordinate regular meetings in the lead-up to the HLPF and have dedicated sessions to review the outcomes of both the ECOSOC Forum on Financing for Development and the multi-stakeholder forum on Science, Technology, and Innovation. During joint HLPF, dedicate a session on the ECOSOC Forum on Financing for Development and the multi-stakeholder forum on STI. Option iii: Address four consecutive SDGs and goal 17 each year. Every fifth year, we suggest a dedicated focus on goal 17, identify two thematic reviews based on the themes covered by the roundtables that were held during the SDG Summit in September 2015:

• Ending Poverty & Hunger
• Tackling Inequalities, Empowering Women & Girls & Leaving No One Behind
• Fostering Sustainable Economic Growth, Transformation & Promoting Sustainable Consumption & Production
• Protecting Our Planet and Combating Climate Change
• Building Effective, Accountable & Inclusive Institutions to Achieve Sustainable Development
• Delivering on a Revitalized Global Partnership

In addition, we also propose that every fifth year, emerging issues be considered. Please see below proposed schedule.
They should inform programmatic review and monitoring. Multi-stakeholder partnerships like “Every Woman Every Child” and “Sustainable Energy for All” and the “Global Partnership for Sustainable Transport” among others should be allowed to participate and contribute. It is our strong recommendation that the focus remains on the goals instead of an overarching theme, which could distract from the attention on the review of goals, targets and indicators. As we suggested in Question 6, we would propose to follow the format of “option iii” with a view to a dedicated review of goal 17 every five years, along with thematic reviews based on the themes identified for the SDG Summit roundtables held in September 2015, as well as consideration of new and emerging issues. Learning from the lessons of the CSD, we anticipate an exorbitant amount of challenge for the HLPF to effectively carry out its mandate in support of the 2030 Agenda. History suggests, as evidenced by the CSD, that focusing primarily on themes to conduct these sessions distract from the main objective of implementation, review and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda.

While we recognize that the modalities resolution for the HLPF (A/RES/67/290 para 7.c) indicates that the HLPF annual reviews “Shall have a thematic focus reflecting the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development, in line with the thematic focus of the activities of the Council and consistent with the Post-2015 Development agenda,” our recommendation is to focus the annual meetings on a set of goals and identify a theme that encapsulates the main elements of the goals being reviewed for that period.
STI forum should address the same set of goals that will be reviewed during that cycle for consistency as STI issues are cross-cutting and affects most if not all of the goals. Ensure constant communication between UNSD and HLPF to determine if evolving indicators framework is robust enough to support the set of SDG goals being reviewed. At the annual HLPF session, UNSD should have the entry point to share how the indicators process is going and an open review of the indicators should be conducted. Recalling the mandate of the HLPF as indicated on paragraph 2 of A/RES.67/290 that the HLPF, it is our recommendation that emerging issues be considered on a case-by-case basis. While the 2030 Agenda is broad and covers a wide range of issues, the implementation and work towards its achievement will take a considerable amount of dedicated resources.

As suggested in Q6, we would propose to follow the format of “option iii” with a dedicated review of goal 17 every five years, along with thematic reviews, as well as consideration of new and emerging issues. Considering emerging issues based on this frequency will help ensure that resources of all kinds earmarked for the HLPF including capacity, funding, etc., be focused primarily on the Forum’s original mandate which is to support achievement of the 2030 Agenda. It will therefore be challenging to assess progress and identify concrete milestones if resources were to be diverted to multiple emerging issues.
Every fifth year, platforms and processes outside the UN system could be featured and allowed to share their contributions, the same time as the thematic reviews are considered. For example, selected multistakeholder global partnerships such as those cited in our response to question 7 above, could be featured to illustrate how they have contributed to the successful implementation of the SDGs.National reviews should be technically supported by the regional commissions. Ideally countries should conduct annual reviews on the same group of SDGs being reviewed at the global level. At the national level, engage with business and civil society in order to allow full picture assessment. Furthermore, it would be prudent for the regional commissions to produce a report which summarizes country experiences.Below are issues we would like to see addressed systematically in the national implementation reviews:
• Level of capacity in providing relevant statistical information (in collecting and tabulating statistical information
• Level of transparency in developing and sharing relevant statistical information with stakeholders and business
We would recommend that indicators being developed by the IAEG-SDGs, reporting to UNSD, once again be sector-specific and serve as the normative framework by which all countries should report. Country reviews should feature inclusive stakeholder reviews and at the first instance should be presented at the regional level.

Would also recommend considering the process used by the UN Human Rights Council in terms of reviews. Further:
● During the meeting, dedicate one meeting room for countries to report back.
● Each country could have a two hour session and in one day there could be four (4) report back sessions.
● Each session could include report back from member states, civil society and business
● Participation in this meeting would be voluntary
● All member states and observers would be invited to attend.
The process must recognize the unique role of Business & Industry in delivery of progress toward sustainability, both through formal partnerships and through voluntary initiatives driven by the emerging public expectations symbolized by the SDGs. Explicit attention must therefore be given to encouraging and assessing the progress of countries and regions in working with B&I to both develop partnerships to enable progress toward SDGs, and to encourage and reinforce voluntary initiatives at the industry and industry-sector levels that further enable progress.Secretariat staff to capture the relevant points discussed or highlighted during the day and either report back or be included in the official documentation. Business and Industry will be important actors in all countries in delivering progress toward the SDG. The business constituency recognizes the global community expects the most change from business and governments in delivering a successful 2030 Agenda.

In this regard, Business and Industry should be distinguished as an important collaborator for all countries in advancing toward the SDGs. As an element of the non-governmental community that occupies a singular role, business and industry must be given its own voice, independent of the rest of civil society, if the opportunities of Sustainable Development are to be realized.

In this respect, please go to: http://www.gbafor2030.org/uploads/1/9/6/4/19640823/hlpf_business_engagement_architecture.pdf for an initial draft of a “Business Engagement Architecture for the HLPF” that provides suggested modalities of engagement with the business community.
For business and industry, common corporate reporting standards have been evolving for decades, and are increasingly the norm. The SDGs are now likely to provide even greater impetus toward both participation and consistency. Corporate and industry sector-wide sustainability reporting is thus likely to provide the “common currency” sought. Would recommend that the UN system establish constant communication with each other in order to better improve coordination and avoid significant overlaps.

Each HLPF session should also have a dedicated time for a “UN fit for purpose” review.
The Addis Action Agenda and the 2030 Agenda affirm the critical and essential role of business to their successful outcomes. Therefore the role of the UN to maintain the constructive engagement of business during key meetings, including the HLPF is critical.

Recognizing the importance of having different voices heard, we recommend that business and civil society be accorded their own separate engagement architecture that connects with the UN system to ensure that the distinct voices of business and civil society are considered equitably in the discussions.

To facilitate this, we propose the establishment of a High-Level Political Forum Business Coordinating Group (HLPF/BCG) that could be supported by the offices of the Stakeholder Engagement Programme in the Division on Sustainable Development (DSD), the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement & Outreach Branch in the Financing for Development Office (FFDO), and the ECOSOC Support and Coordination Office.

This proposal has received the support of all the GBA for 2030 members representing around 20 million businesses in all sizes and regions:

• Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD
• UN Global Compact
• International Chamber of Commerce
• International Organization of Employers
• World Business Council for Sustainable Development
• American Sustainable Business Council
• Aquafed
• Business Fights Poverty
• Business Action for Africa
• Center for International Private Enterprise
• International Agri-Food Network
• International Council of Chemical Associations
• International Council on Mining and Metals
• International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations
• International Fertilizer Industry Association
• International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations
• IPIECA, the global oil and gas industry for environmental and social issues
• International Road Transport Union
• World Ocean Council

To view answers in full, please go to: http://bit.ly/1PuGuXX
44
SEVEREJosephMUnion des Amis Socio Culturels d'Action en Developpement (UNASCAD)Web coming soonunascad15janv@gmail.comHaitianHaitiNon-Governmental OrganizationsPour remplacer les objectifs du millénaire de développement (OMD), l’ONU a lancé un nouvel agenda de développement durable étant vu comme le nouvel instrument universel pour l’humanité. C’est un accord mondial introduisant concrètement un programme d’action étoffé et complet à la recherche d’un monde meilleur jusqu’en 2030.Voilà pourquoi, il est recommandé la mise en place d’une structure dynamique, inclusive et transparente de suivi et d’examen capable d’assurer pour tous l’efficacité de ce programme aux niveaux national, régional et mondial. L’assemblée générale, dans sa mission tous les 4 ans envers chaque Etat membre, doit être en cohérence avec ECOSOC, suivant les mandats existants, pour permettre au FPHN d’offrir des conseils politiques de haut niveau concernant le programme et sa mise en application, d’identifier les progrès et les défis, de promouvoir le partage d’expériences et de leçons apprises et de mobiliser tous les moyens pour le succès du développement durable.Institué en 1946 aux termes de la charte des NU, ECOSOC a pour mission de débattre toutes les questions afférentes aux défis économiques, sociaux et environnementaux auxquels le monde est confronté en formulant des recommandations. Autour de profondes études, les NU avancent des décisions pour le bien-être de la planète. Ce qui a accouché les OMD en 2000 transités en 2015 par les ODD avec ses 3 piliers ‘’développement durable, développement social et protection de l’environnement’’. Si prometteur pour le futur meilleur de notre monde, les scientifiques admettent, sous la coupole de l’ECOSOC, un plan de suivi et de révision pour la décennie+5 de l’agenda 2030.Donc le rôle vital de l’ECOSOC est de continuer à inciter d’abord les gouvernements, puis les parlements, les autorités locales, les entreprises, le secteur privé, la communauté universitaire et la société civile pour être les vrais responsables du suivi et d’examen à tous les niveaux de l’espace planétaire.Toutes les observations montrent que l’agenda 2030 est l’objet d’un processus très élargi, inclusif et clair en quête d’un monde plus dynamique et plus émergent. En plus des pays développés, les pays moins avancés (PMA), les petits Etats insulaires en développement (PIED), les pays en développement sans littoral (PDSL) ont leur place dans cette nouvelle feuille de route de développement durable. Sous les auspices de l’ECOSOC, le FPHN, pour être plus efficace, va être capable d’assurer les liens directs du suivi et de l’examen suivant les dispositions des conférences des NU à partir de la mise en place des commissions nationales de développement durable avec l’implication de tous les acteurs influents comme les gouvernements, les instituts scientifiques et universitaires, la société civile, le secteur privé, les entreprises, les chefs d’autorités locales, les réseaux de femmes et de jeunesConsidérée comme l’un des 6 principaux organismes de la structure de l’ONU avec pour mandat spécifique’’ principal organe délibérant’’, l’Assemblée générale, à la suite de la résolution 57270B, confiait à l’ECOSOC en 2003 le mandat de coordonner la mise en œuvre et le suivi des sommets de l’ONU. L’ECOSOC permet à la composition de 10 commissions fonctionnelles et de 5 commissions régionales de responsabiliser l’examen et l’évaluation des progrès réalisés sur les accords des sommets et en même temps de jouer un rôle clé pendant la facilitation des leçons apprises des gouvernements des pays. Voilà pourquoi que l’Assemblée générale a de grand intérêt à alimenter ces commissions, les forums et autres pour la collection des données, de l’analyse, de la défense des intérêts, de la surveillance et l’évaluation des plans régionaux et mondiaux, de l’intensification des conférences ministérielles et de l’animation des ateliers nationaux et d’ONG accrédités auprès de l’ECOSOC.Sur le plan fonctionnel, la mission de l’ONU consiste à formuler les priorités mondiales et à mobiliser l’engagement profond aux plans d’action mises en œuvre à travers les principaux organismes qui forment sa structure. Les objectifs transformateurs pour le développement durable reposent activement sur les 3 éléments fondamentaux comme la science fournissant la connaissance pour la vie, la technologie considérée comme de puissants leviers d’exécution du programme de développement pour l’après 2015 permettant aux pays surtout en développement de faire face aux défis et l’innovation liée à la nouveauté étant des moyens de mesurer le bien-être et la viabilité au niveau national. Puisque l’ECOSOC et le FPHN forment un couple institutionnel, il est évident d’harmoniser le leadership dans un esprit de bonne gouvernance pour que le forum multinational sous la coupole de ses co-présidents puisse nécessiter une prise de conscience nouvelle sur le financement de développement.L’agenda de l’après 2015 représente un accomplissement remarquable qui unit le monde entier autour d’objectifs communs pour un futur plus durable. Il est vu comme l’aboutissement d’un agenda universel pour tous les pays riches ou pauvres. Voilà pourquoi que le forum politique, sous les auspices de l’ECOSOC, doit trouver tous les moyens pour inciter les dirigeants du monde en liaison avec la société civile d’accentuer sur les thèmes transversaux comme des inégalités étant l’une des menaces pouvant handicaper l’atteinte des objectifs fixés. En tant que la moelle épinière du processus de suivi et d’examen, le forum doit permettre d’établir un dialogue mondial approfondi sur d’autres thèmes particuliers faisant face aux défis qui devront être résolus comme l’éducation et la santé. Ces démarches si importants au regard de cerveaux pensifs et imaginatifs sont aussi bien des moyens pour atteindre avec efficacité la clé du succès dans la réalisation des ODD.Transformons notre monde- tel est le véritable credo qui doit guider le monde à toucher le plafond du programme de 2030 pour le développement durable ouvrant la voie à la vie décente pour tous les habitants de la planète. Dans cet ordre d’idée, le forum politique de haut niveau (FPHN) doit faire appel à des transferts de technologies, aux apports de la science et aux bienfaits de la nouveauté pour être en mesure de s’acquitter de sa procuration, d’élever le niveau de sa tache et de prouver sa capacité incitative. Le programme de 2030 exige l’inclusion de la société civile, des organisations régionales, du secteur privé devant se considérer comme des moteurs du financement. Ce qui peut faciliter ECOSOC dans son rôle de coordination des activités des NU et de ses agences à intensifier sa farouche détermination pour intégrer de nouvelles exigences découlées de commissions fonctionnelles, de commissions régionales, d’ organes interministériels et de diverses plates-formes qui s’y adhérent.Pendant la transition des OMD et aux ODD, l’une des attributions du FPHN est de soutenir en accord avec la résolution 67/290 la participation dans le processus du suivi et de l’examen des partenaires influents. C’est vrai l’importance octroyée au FPHN montre clairement qu’il doit se tendre vers des progrès immenses. C’est avec raison qu’il est placé sous le contrôle de l’ECOSOC même si certains observateurs estiment qu’ils sont formés un couple institutionnel. Ce qui laisse persuader globalement que les thèmes annuels du FPHN peuvent être alignés à ceux de l’ECOSOC en tenant compte des considérations suivantes :
-Placement des centres de coopération des technologies de l’information et des communications
-Adoption des politiques ascendantes
-Fournissement des directives sur les pans politique, social et environnemental
-Amplification d’un leadership éclairé
-Incitation à l’adoption des plans nationaux bien définis
Le FPHN, à la lumière des observations scientifiques, est vue comme une nouvelle architecture aidant les Etats membres de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU à mettre en exergue les ODD. Pour cela, pour parvenir à harmoniser le suivi et l’examen de ces actions, un agenda temporel bien structuré autour d’une période plus longue que celle prévue pour les 4 années entre 2 réunions uniques doit être élaboré avec clarté et concision. Ce qui va amener à une meilleure compréhension des thèmes du forum parmi tous les acteurs ayant à leur charge de contribuer à la transformation du monde pour la décennie + 5. Ladite période va être plus que déterminante pour pouvoir surmonter les obstacles capables de contrecarrer le blocage. Cela facilitera aussi aux acteurs impliqués d’avoir plus de temps de se familiariser avec les transferts de nouvelles technologies et approches scientifiques devant les guider vers des inspirations de niveau élevé pour aboutir aux succès énormes.Selon toutes les observations, l’investissement est vital pour promouvoir le développement durable et déterminer à relever les défis de société mondiaux qui appellent des solutions urgentes. En ce sens, vu le niveau surélevé des attentes des ODD en tant que moteurs d’accélération des grands axes de l’agenda de l’après 2015, le forum multilatéral doit se joindre au FPHN pour aborder les mêmes thèmes. Sans contestation, il est mathématiquement impossible de placer le développement durable au sommet dudit agenda sans prioriser l’importance de la science étant le fournisseur des connaissances dans tous les domaines, le transfert et la diffusion de technologies permettant à tous les pays surtout les PMA de renforcer leurs capacités techniques et administratives et les innovations actuelles qui offrent des perspectives prometteuses en vue de trouver des solutions face à des enjeux et représentent la source de plus en plus importante de croissance économique future.Face à cette grande obligation, le FPHN doit adopter sa propre feuille de route pour mieux guider les Etats dans l’application du programme de développement durable. De ce fait, l’une des approches systématiques pour bien huiler ce processus se base sur la coordination de système intégré de collecte, de traitement et de diffusion de données statistiques. C’est là que la commission statistique de l’ONU peut contribuer aux travaux du forum étant l’instance la plus douée pour ce qui est des activités statistiques à travers le monde, en particulier l’établissement des normes statistiques, la mise au point des concepts et des méthodes ainsi que leur mise en œuvre aux niveaux national et international. En raison de l’envergure du programme de l’agenda d’après 2015, cette commission est appelée simplement à être renforcée à partir de l’appui à fournir au forum. Ce dernier doit en toute transparence analyser les performances des pays et se montrer inclusif et fiable.En 2012, lors de la conférence de Rio, le forum politique de haut niveau a reçu le mandat spécial d’agir en tant que ‘’pierre angulaire’’ pour le suivi global des politiques de développement durable par la pleine mobilisation de tous les acteurs influents et de tous les secteurs de la société. Sans aucune suspicion, des dispositifs d’envergure doivent être bien définis pour permettre au FPHN d’être en mesure d’identifier et de considérer les questions récentes et émergentes comme la dotation des moyens nécessaires, le renforcement des capacités de ses commissions fonctionnelles et régionales et cette alliée en puissance étant la société civile pour qu’il soit la plate forme d’une conversation avec la communauté scientifique . En sus, il peut jouer le rôle de catalyseur pour stimuler les Etats avec une ambition très poussée de partager les expériences et les meilleures pratiques.Pour réussir le programme de développement de l’après 2015, le FPHN doit être fort et visionnaire. Cela veut dire aucun des 17 objectifs et aucune des 169 cibles des ODD ne pourront être atteints si tous les groupes concernés ne sont pas touchés. Voilà pourquoi autre que les 192 Etats de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU, les 54 Etats membres de l’ECOSOC élus à l’Assemblée générale, tous les acteurs non-étatiques comme les ONGs, les communautés scientifiques et technologiques, les plates-formes, les réseaux sociaux mondiaux, le secteur privé, les entreprises industrielles et la société civile en général peuvent tout aussi contribuer au suivi et aux examens du programme de développement durable. Ce qui est très important de souligner comme la toile de fond, c’est de n’oublier personne et d’atteindre les plus pauvres et les plus démunis surtout dans les pays à faible revenu. Car la lutte surtout contre la pauvreté extrême concerne tous ceux qui peuvent fournir des apports considérables.Depuis le début du FPHN remonté au 7 juillet 2014 pour arriver au mois de juillet 2015 à la recherche de l’amplification des objectifs et des cibles pour mieux transiter les OMD vers les ODD en septembre 2015, tous les experts qui se sont articulés sur le fond et la forme ou qui ont participé entièrement à l’émergence des idées et à la rédaction de ce précieux instrument n’ont plus tergiversé à qualifier ce programme de développement durable comme un programme étoffé d’ambition qui, si toutes les conditions se réuniront, pendant les exercices d’exécution, peut conduire le monde à la paix, à l’exubérance, à l’égalité, à l’éducation, à la santé ,à la sécurité alimentaire et à l’environnement sain pour tous d’ici à 2030. Donc il est utile de mentionner que le FPHN a intérêt à quantifier autant de rencontres pour promouvoir des échanges fructueux et recueillir des rétroactions surtout pour les pays moins avancés qui manquent de données et de mécanismes de suivi de qualité.Les questions multidimensionnelles dans les aspects économiques, sociaux et environnementaux des ODD, pour atteindre le summum du succès réclament de la part de tous les acteurs, de quelque nature d’implication, d’une part, une attention très soutenue et, d’autre part, un engagement vital sans arrêt. C’est le signe annonciateur du changement porteur de transformation, de réussite au superlatif. Tout d’abord il faut un partenariat renforcé et huilé entre les gouvernements, le secteur privé et la société civile, entre le secteur privé et la société civile et aussi bien une participation proactive et plus large des populations locales, des femmes, des jeunes dans le processus d’examen et de suivi des progrès réalisés en matière de développement. Toutes ces démonstrations vont faciliter des échanges d’expériences, au niveau de dirigeants politiques et produire des conseils et des recommandations pour l’élaboration d’une feuille de route pour le forum à plus de moyen et long termes.Le programme de développement durable pour l’après 2015 de tous les pays du monde exige un engagement de haut niveau et des concertations collectives. Il va falloir que, en récompense du succès escompté de tous les efforts consentis et conjugués sur tous les plans, les pays peuvent envisager de traiter les questions suivantes :
- Comment peuvent-ils orienter le partenariat renforcé entre les gouvernements, le secteur privé et la société civile?
- Comment sont-ils capables de s’allier aux pays développés en tant que chefs de file?
- Comment le FPHN peut-il se servir d’eux comme point de référence pour les directives stratégiques?
- Comment peuvent-ils amplifier le processus du plaidoyer pluri actif pour avoir des prêts concessionnels?
- Comment le FPHN peut-il les assister à s’inspirer des renseignements tirés par la commission du développement durable?
- Comment peuvent-ils mieux consolider leur engagement face aux ODD?

Le programme d’action mondiale pour les 15 prochaines années (2015-2030) est rédigé pour tous les peuples de la planète, quels que soient leur appartenance continentale. C’est un mélange d’actions où l’on retrouve tous les engagés de l’exécution dudit programme. C’est pourquoi des paramètres de haute portée significative sont importants à souligner comme les lignes directrices pour le suivi et l’examen, où à travers ce créneau, le FPHN doit ouvrir la voie aux Etats membres à la flexibilité pour faciliter des échanges de comparaison des pays autour des actions posées dans tous les aspect relatifs aux ODD et les aider à suivre les progrès accomplis au fur et à mesure qu’on avance dans la mise en œuvre des engagements que prenaient les chefs d’Etats et les gouvernements en septembre 2015. Ce qui va prouver que chaque pays dispose assez d’outils pour réaliser les objectifs de développement durable selon ses propres priorités et avec des orientations de son choix.L’agenda 2030 adopté par et pour tous les Etats s’inscrit dans la continuité ‘’l’avenir que nous voulons’’ dessiné à Rio +20 en 2012. Ce qui permet de croire qu’une appropriation nationale est la clé de la réussite du développement durable. Tous les Etats membres doivent être impliqués directement dans le processus de révision et de suivi, en prenant en compte les différences entre pays en termes de capacités et de niveau de développement ainsi qu’en respectant les politiques fondamentales et les priorités nationales. Lors des séances officielles du FPHN, en habile tacticien et en vigueur, les résultats d’actions concrets et palpables au niveau national devront être communiqués à un niveau plus élevé ‘’ régional et mondial ‘’ pour permettre la circulation des informations ventilées et classées selon la philosophie du FPHN au profit de l’avancement des ODD.Au cours de débats de haut niveau du 7 juillet 2014, le Secrétaire général de l’ONU, M. Ban Ki-moon, s’est voulu rassurant en estimant que les nouvelles opportunités scientifiques et le développement des partenariats conféraient aux Etats membres et aux acteurs de la scène internationale de nouveaux moyens d’atteindre les objectifs qu’ils se fixent en dépit des défis importants à relever. L’assistance des chefs d’Etat et de hauts représentants de gouvernements peut contribuer à donner une attention suffisante et à mobiliser des partenariats au tort et à travers à condition qu’ils se mettent d’accord sur une série d’objectifs et de cibles pour l’après 2015 afin de pouvoir mieux les appliquer et les mesurer avec plus de facilité. A partir de ce moment, ils seront mieux armés pour s’attaquer aux défis urgents que sont la lutte contre la pauvreté, le combat à mener pour réduire les inégalités et l’adoption des tactiques pour faire face aux conséquences des changements climatiques.

Au niveau de ses pays, tous les Etats membres doivent être stimulés à fournir dès que possibles des réponses nationales ambitieuses et étoffées aux ODD dans l’agenda d’après 2015. Puisque les processus de suivi et d’examen doivent être guidés par une énormité de principes comme la façon de mesurer les progrès, le maintien d’un objectif à long terme, l’identification des réalisations et des facteurs de réussite critiques, l’appui aux pays à faire des choix politiques éclairés, la mobilisation des moyens de mise en œuvre et les partenariats nécessaires, la participation de toute personne et de toute partie prenante, la construction sur la base de plate-formes et de procédés existants, l’évolution avec le temps, la minimisation de la charge administrative auprès des administrations nationales, la rigueur et les données factuelles, fiables et dépourvues de toute considération de revenu et autres, la résultante dynamique doit être axée uniquement sur le FPHN.Sous la houlette magique de l’ECOSOC, le processus régional est mené par les 5 commissions régionales. En travaillant de façon cohérente avec l’Assemblée générale, l’ECOSOC et d’autres acteurs influents , en accord, bien sûr, avec les mandats existants, FPHN doit être placé au sommet du réseau mondial de suivi et d’examen des conférences des NU sur les pays moins avancés, les petits états insulaires en développement et les pays en développement sans littoral pour faciliter le partage des expériences et des échanges approfondis, de réussites, de défis et de leçons à retenir et favoriser une cohérence de l’ensemble du système à partir de la coordination des politiques de développement durable. Ces liens adéquats définissent l’uniformité et la conformité pour aboutir à des résultats efficaces et efficients selon l’approche visionnaire des objectifs de développement durable pour la décennie +5 (2015-2030).ECOSOC demeure le seul organisme de l’ONU ayant une structure formelle pour la participation des ONGs. Il agit en tant que forum central afin de discuter des questions économiques et sociales d’envergure internationale et de produire des recommandations politiques aux Etats membres ainsi qu’au système onusien. Il est en mesure de pendre toutes les dispositions utiles pour consulter les ONGs et de s’occuper des questions relevant de sa compétence pouvant être appliquées à des organisations internationales et nationales après consultation du membre intéressé de l’organisation. C’est en ce sens que, en accord avec la résolution 67/290, le FPHN soutient avec perspicacité la participation dans le processus du suivi et de l’examen des conférences de société civile, de grands groupes, des partenaires influents comme le secteur privé, les compagnies d’affaires et autres qui apportent leurs contributions de manière accrue dans l’élaboration et l’accouchement de l’agenda d’après 2015.En liaison avec la70e Assemblée générale de l’ONU, l’agenda 2030 consomme une ambition très forte avec l’adoption des ODD. Ce qui fait que l’humanité aspire à un futur meilleur, à une nouveauté et à un profond changement. La proclamation de l’agenda 2030 a pour effet la recherche de la cohérence dans l’ensemble de la globalisation suivie de 2 autres séquences celle de la conférence pour le financement de développement ayant eu lieu à Addis Abeba en juillet 2015 et celle de la conférence pour le climat (COP21) à Paris qui se tiendra du 30 novembre au 11 décembre 2015. Grâce au cadre d’accréditation de l’ECOSOC et du système des NU, les grands groupes représentant les femmes, les enfants et jeunes, les personnes à handicap… et d’autres parties prenantes comme le secteur privé, les peuples autochtones… peuvent contribuer à faire le poids dans la balance à partir de rencontres multilatérales pour la contribution au suivi et à l’examen des sommets de l’ONU.

Les NU représentent les chefs de file de toutes les sphères d’action mondiales. C’est sur les cendres de la guerre et de la division que cette organisation est bâtie en s’appuyant sur des éléments de valeurs comme la paix, le dialogue et la coopération internationale. Nous savons que la structure bien charpentée de l’ONU contient 6 grands organismes. Certains d’entre eux ont reçu le mandat pour créer des commissions responsables de l’examen et de l’évaluation des progrès réalisés sur les accords des sommets. En termes de contribution à l’agenda d’après 2015, l’ONU doit continuer à bien compter sur la haute influence de la science, de la technologie et de l’innovation en renforçant les capacités fonctionnelles de ses organismes pour être plus performants dans la délivrance des services. Comme disaient les initiateurs << Nous pourrions être la première génération à réussir à éradiquer la pauvreté, tout comme nous sommes les derniers à avoir une chance de sauver notre planète>>.<< Nous, peuples>>, c’est par ces mots célèbres que commence la charte des NU. Et c’est par ces mots magiques que nous empruntons aujourd’hui la route vers 2030, dixit certains onusiens. Alors il n’y a rien qui soit de plus complexe pour ce qui a trait à l’entreprise de nouvelles démarches de l’ONU y compris son secrétariat pour assurer le meilleur suivi et l’examen des ODD de manière très efficace. Il s’agit tout simplement de renforcer les liens sur tous les angles, sur tous les fronts et dans tous les domaines avec tous les acteurs influents comme surtout la communauté technologique et scientifique, les gouvernements, les législateurs, la communauté universitaire, la société civile, le secteur privé, les réseaux sociaux mondiaux et aussi bien de détecter les gaps et les signes de faiblesse et de mieux renforcer le fonctionnement des organismes y compris les commissions fonctionnelles et régionales pour pouvoir toucher le plafond du succès.- Que c’est beau que 150 pays aient adopté l’agenda 2030 étant un accord qui définit un évènement historique et une avancée considérable pour l’action mondiale en faveur du développement durable!
- Que c’est fascinant que le nouvel agenda 2030 ouvre la voie à la nouveauté, à la stabilité de la paix, à l’innovation et à un futur meilleur pour l’humanité toute entière !
- Que c’est passionnant que le nouvel agenda 2030 soit le fruit d’un processus vraiment ouvert pour que personne ne soit laissé pour compte!
- Que c’est vital que le nouvel agenda 2030 prévoie de libérer notre monde de la pauvreté extrême, de la maladie, de la rareté de l’assainissement et de la potabilisation de l’eau et de combler les besoins de toutes les populations mondiales!
- Que c’est significatif que l’agenda 2030 implique les dirigeants mondiaux dans un programme d’envergure devant amener au chemin du développement durable!
- Que c’est magnifique que le nouvel agenda 2030 reconnaisse la nécessité de construire des sociétés pacifiques, justes et respectueuses de tous, fondées sur le respect des droits de l’homme du développement durable!
- Que c’est ravissant que le nouvel agenda 2030 impose des conditions fondamentales pour la réalisation du développement durable en passant par le partenariat mondial renouvelé et renforcé!
- Que c’est compréhensif que le nouvel agenda 2030 se base sur un programme de développement qui soit solide, ambitieux et inclusif centré sur l’humain!
Conjuguons sans relâche et sans arrêt nos efforts pour un monde plus dynamique, plus prospère, plus émergent et plus profitable.
45
SanerRaymondmaleCSENDwww.csend.orgsaner@csend.orgswissswitzerlandNon-Governmental Organizations, Science & Technological CommunityThe three entities should supervise and support the UN Statistics Division to define the metrics to be used for measuring progress of the SDGs implementation and to set up committees with statistical offices, universities, IOs, the private sector and statisticians worldwide to monitor how those metrics are applied at national and subnational levels. The committees should develop strategies per country and a quality control scheme so that statistics are meaningful and timely regardless of development stages of the various countries. The GA should set up an agenda which (1) requests a first report from the UN Statistics Division on the accomplishment of the fore-mentioned tasks, (2) determines milestones for the committees to make publically available their strategies per country in data collection and monitoring, (3) and establishes a reporting schedule per country. This would fit with the working methods and agendas of the three entities as they presently exist and are applied.With ECOSOC being a member-driven organization, representatives of the member countries should be delegated to the committees set up as per suggestion #1 by the United Nations Statistics Division. Coherency could be ensured through close cooperation between those representatives. Data provided by the countries should be aggregated at sub-national/regional level which in turn means that country representatives should contribute to the process of defining homogeneous criteria per region and development. From there, principles and guidelines should be agreed that are robust for intra-regional comparison and analysis, and valid in regard to the underlying logic yet taking account the inter-regional differences and allow for country specificities.
Working groups (WG) should be designated by HLPF that are co-chaired by members of the HLPF and government representatives of one of the countries concerned by the Working Groups ‘deliberations. Standardized procedures and governance policies need to be developed which require implementation methodologies that are suitable for LDCs, SIDS and LLDCs. The WGs should have joint oversight with the committees set up as per suggestion #1 and the ECOSOC delegates as per suggestion #2. The Working Group should consist of representatives from a) governments of LDC-LLDC-SIDS countries, b) governments of donor countries providing capacity building to these countries; c) NGOs-Civil Society representatives from the special situation countries and from the countries providing capacity building; d) representatives of International Organisations involved in the countries in special situation and e) private sector companies from the special situation countries as well as from the donor countries
Yes, this type of guidance would be helpful as it would contribute to a homogenous procedure and strengthen the overall legitimacy of the process. This procedure would have to entail a conceptual format (How do the ECOSOC functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies and forums reflect their contribution?) and an access format (Which platform is to be used for uploading and accessing the contributions?).The HLPF would need to establish two working groups who prepare an itinerary for building the strategies on how to deal with those outcomes; these itineraries would then serve for building a program of activities. The activities would comprise implementation and review/monitoring and should be closely coordinated with the United Nations Statistical Division. It is essential that the following IOs participate in the HLPF process namely 1. UNCTAD (department in charge of sovereign country debt); 2. IMF-WB (joint task for in charge of current PRSPs)

Given the interlinkages between the SDGs, best would be for the HLPF to focus on clusters of closely related SDGs. However, all of them need to encompass SDG 17. These clusters need not be the same for all regions, e.g. clusters related to health and education would be chosen for developing nations, while the clusters for developed nations should rather be on e.g. sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Apart from summaries of discussions and analysis, the inputs provided to the HLPF should as well have the character of project plans (for clusters of member states and for clusters of SDGs). The format of presentation should be such that it allows all functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies and forums to view and compare their peers’ activities. There should be one revolving theme, and this would be “Progress on the Elaboration of a Statistical Base to Measure Progress”. From there, overarching annual topics that align with ECOSOC’s responsibility to integrate the three dimensions of sustainable development could be “Systemic Linkages Between Indicators” and “Balancing Economic, Ecological and Social Sustainability in SDGs 7, 9, 12 and 13”. In light of the key factors resulting in un-sustained development, the following topics should be added on a regular annual basis namely a) for developed countries= production and consumption patterns and b) for developing countries = equitable provisions of water, food, health and education.Themes should be determined every year because most probably there will be unexpected developments. This would enable other intergovernmental platforms and other relevant actors to provide their opinion and thus contribute to widening the scope and the integration of the HLPF review.No. While the HLPF would focus on the review of implementation and monitoring, the Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation should focus on developing the scientific and technological base for practical improvements throughout all spheres of the society that have work on reaching the SDGs. The Statistics Division should define the metrics to be used for measuring progress of the SDGs implementation and to set up committees with statistical offices, universities, international organizations, the private sector and statisticians worldwide to monitor how those metrics are applied at national and subnational levels. The committees should develop strategies country per country and a quality control scheme so that statistics are meaningful and timely regardless of development stages of the various countries. A first report of the Statistics Division on the accomplishment of the aforementioned tasks is to be delivered to the HLPF before it goes to the General Assembly, and the Statistics Division together with the HLPF determines a set of milestones for the committees to make publically available their strategies country per country in data collection and monitoring and to establish a reporting schedule for country per country statements.

The HLPF should receive continuous advice on issues that emerge in the process from both the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) and the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG). For this, the IAEG-SDGs and the OWG should determine a small group of their members to be acting as a standing committee to support the HLPF.
ECOSOC should collect input e.g. through a format chosen for the four roundtables in the Informal Interactive Hearings of 26-27 May 2015, enlarging this format by diligent recording of the messages and providing feedback including an agenda on how to deal with the messages. In a similar format, businesses and civil society organizations should be expressly invited to present their ideas on how they think they can support the implementation and review process. The messages and the ideas would then be forwarded to the supporting committee comprising members of IAEG-SDGs and the OWG. The HLPF would then decide if and which specific partnerships should be set up in order to make use of the resources offered by businesses and civil society organizations.
In order to allow for a “warm-up”-phase, the first regular state-led reviews should be scheduled for 2017 for developed countries and for 2018 for developing countries, with the consecutive reviews taking place every second year after this. When completion draws closer, a review should take place each year in 2027, 28 and 29. Following the example of the WTO-TPR, large developed and emerging countries should be reviewed in shorter intervals, e.g. every two years while LDCs-LLDCs-SIODs could be reviewed every 6 years.
The discussions should be prepared in a way that allows for an unbiased deliberation on deficiencies, errors and shortcomings. This would as well enable a learning process throughout all member states. On good help would be to have the supporting committee comprising members of IAEG-SDGs and the OWG available when the reviews are prepared at the local level.

Two issues to be addressed would be:
a) The quality of the national systems of statistics supporting the SDG indicators and b) The quality of the national institutions that oversee the implementation process.From the outcome of these two issues the HLPF would determine which action is to be taken towards the respective status of implementation.

On annual basis, HLPF should analyze progress made by each country using time line statistics (e.g. starting from 2016 and onwards) to show trends in a graphically comprehensive manner to give each countries’ residents an quick reading of progress made or not in regard to which of the goals.
The guidelines should follow a format that allows for individual prioritization by a member state. There would have to be a difference for developing and developed nations, where the core set of issues is identical for all, but the requirements on how to deal with the issues would be less stringent for developing countries. Giving a chance to address a number of issues only if feasible might be counterproductive: States that cannot address an issue should have to give a reason and explain when the situation will be remediedEach country review should be presented by both a representative of this country and one member of the HLPF’s support team (as per the answers to questions 12 and 15) who must have taken part in the preparation of the report. National reviews should show on a continuous basis whether a country’s implementation involves business and civil society actors in the setting, implementing, reviewing and adjusting of the national and sub-national SDGs. The national reviews should also clarify how their SDGs are integrated and coordinated with their respective neighbouring countries and the international community in general. One might expect that each and every national review will report shortcomings, so the natural outcome would be a plan to improve the process; this plan will be followed up either in the bi-annual cycle of the next review or in between according to what the presenter and the HLPF commonly decide. See answer to the preceding question. All regional international organisations should make the proceedings of their SD meetings publically available (e.g. UNECE, ECA, ESCAP, ECLAC, ECWAS,

See answer to question 13 and all regional international organisations should make the proceedings of their SD meetings publically available (e.g. UNECE, ECA, ESCAP, ECLAC, ECWAS, Major groups and other stakeholders can only contribute to the implementation of 2030 Agenda in a meaningful way if this contribution is channelled and coordinated on the local levels and if wide feedback is given 360 degrees wide. For this to happen, a UN SDG representative should be established in each country who must find an organizational methodology that concurs with this country’s special situation. This will encourage the local groups to engage not only in the review but also in the implementation process. One first report to be asked by HLPF would have to regard this methodology and what the locals expect from it. The follow up reports would build on that. The best approach to guarantee successful implementation would be to create a SDG observatory in each country and to provide it with independent and adequate financial and expert resources.
The system should be amended in a way that facilitates a close(r) interaction in the implementation process between governments, businesses and civil society, led by a (new type of) local UN SDG representative namely a SDG observatory (see previous answers).
With the follow-up and review being highly dependent on local input and local engagement, the answer must lie in strengthening the position of a SDG observatory as suggested above. Such an autonomous SDG observatory could ensure coherence and effectiveness of the global follow-up and review through the UN system, including the Secretariat. none so far
46
RomanoJohnMaleTransparency, Accountability & Participation (TAP) Networkwww.tapnetwork2015.orgromano@wfuna.orgUSAUSAOther Stakeholder, Global coalition of CSOsOperating at both the ECOSOC and UNGA levels, coherence between the various levels of work must be prioritized. The three years of the HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC must focus on identifying gaps for implementation and ways to address these shortcomings as an international community. The UNGA HLPF should focus on the bigger picture and on political leadership and guidance, and be used for strategic discussions on issues coming out of the HLPF and ECOSOC committees. This includes lessons learned from the follow-up and review processes at the ECOSOC level, and taking up decisions made by the functional commissions of ECOSOC and the UNGA committees. However, the Presidents of ECOSOC and the UNGA must ensure balance and coherence of this work on a regular basis (not just at the beginning/end of each four-year cycle) – potentially even through joint sessions hosted every year. When the HLPF meets annually under the auspices of ECOSOC it should focus on thematic and national review (building on the AMR) and the UN system review (building on the QCPR). ECOSOC’s subsidiary bodies and other entities reporting to ECOSOC should help provide tailored input for the HLPF review. A UN Task Team (possibly linked to the CEB) could help assemble and aggregate this kind of information. Engagement of civil society and all other stakeholders in these discussions will also be critical. These discussions must take into account the lessons learned and experiences from all member states, and enable civil society stakeholders to participate actively in all relevant processes. Robust and inclusive stakeholder engagement modalities will help ensure that civil society participates actively in national review processes and that their views are reflected in the final national reviews that are being put forward to the HLPF. The HLPF could provide a formal space for the UN conferences and processes to present their results. Inversely, the HLPF could provide the organising framework for the thematic framing of the conferences and processes.The SDG agenda needs to be integrated.

It is also important that the HLPF helps continue to forge an inclusive global partnership for sustainable development, and helps create a space for governments to partner on implementation, particularly in issue areas where collective capacity is lacking.
The following information should be sought from all related intergovernmental bodies and forums:

· Progress, achievements and critical success factors to attain the SDGs – including data sources and progress against global-level SDG indicators;
· Challenges and gaps;
· New and emerging issues; and
· Recommendations to mobilize further actions to accelerate implementation.

In line with para. 74(e) of the agenda, this information should be gender-sensitive, respect human rights and have a particular focus on the poorest, most vulnerable and the social and economic groups or ‘segments of society’ that are the furthest behind. The recommendations should be considered by the HLPF for inclusion in the negotiated Ministerial Declaration.

Inputs should be sought from other accountability mechanisms such as the Human Rights Council (including its special procedures and the UPR), human rights treaty bodies and UN Secretary General Special Representatives.
The Forum on Financing for Development must be closely linked to the Agenda 2030 follow-up and review processes, in particular review and monitoring of progress and challenges related to Goal 17 and the Means of Implementation.

The annual HLPF should devote a special time slot to discuss the outcome of the annual meeting of the ECOSOC Forum on FFD together with the other Means of Implementation that are necessary to implement the SDGs. All of these processes should be seen as individual parts of the same whole.

In particular, the findings and outcomes from the FFD Forum should be considered in country and thematic reviews at the HLPF where relevant, helping to review a country’s efforts in mobilization of domestic resources, policy coherence, development cooperation, and the global partnership for development. It will also be important for finance ministers and related high-level representatives to attend both the FfD and the HLPF discussions to increase coherence.
To ensure an integrated follow-up and review framework for the SDGs, the preferable option for reviews would be to base them on a transversal and over-arching theme (option ii.) One of these themes should be SDG 16 and the interlinkages between this goal and all other goals. One way could be to identify the themes based on the five Ps in the preamble of the 2030 Agenda – these cross-cutting issues have already been approved through the GA adoption of the 2030 Agenda. Additionally, we could build upon the clustering of issues identified for the Post-2015 Summit through the those six roundtable clusters.

Regardless which option is pursued, all thematic reviews should ensure:

a. In line with para. 74(b) of the agenda, the universal nature of the agenda is respected and all goals are reviewed at least three times from 2016-2030;
b. The process for selecting the theme is inclusive, transparent and participatory and provides the opportunity for input from civil society including children.
Functional commissions need to align themselves closely to it and to producing outputs that support the work plan of the HLPF (including related monitoring and follow-up).

There should be a template for their input, and these inputs should be provided to the HLPF in written form during a preparatory period ahead of the HLPF - they should be framed around and linked to specific SDGs that are subject to each thematic review. This process should be inclusive of civil society stakeholders and inputs should be fully transparent and accessible to all.

In particular, the role of the human rights mechanisms will be key to supporting accountability to people in follow-up and review at the global level. The UN system should ensure a systematic flow of information between the human rights mechanisms and the HLPF, and integration of this information into the HLPF review process – and these inputs should be considered in the negotiated ministerial declaration of the HLPF.
As the HLPF is a “hybrid” between the GA and ECOSOC: The annual theme of the HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC could be decided in close consultation of the President of ECOSOC and the President of the GA or the head of the Second Committee. Yearly joint consultations with the ECOSOC and UNGA Presidents and Member States (including civil society) will be needed.

The themes should be strategically selected to highlight topics where progress is slow or there are concerns about results or where an issue is already flagged as being critical. A multi-year work programme, as suggested below, is needed in advance.

One option could be to frame the annual themes for the HLPF around the five Ps (People, Planet, Peace, Partnership and Prosperity) that are included in the preamble of the 2030 Agenda.

Ideally, the overarching theme for the HLPF should relate to the cluster of goals or specific thematic focus selected for that particular year.
The Second Committee could make suggestions for a four-year cycle of themes for the HLPF meetings under the auspices of ECOSOC - but be able to adjust this should there be presssing new or emerging challenges. To provide this flexibility, the selection of HLPF themes could be determined every two years. Providing the programme of work four years in advance would not allow the HLPF to be sufficiently flexible or responsive to new and emerging issues. In order to provide additional predictability, the programme of work could also be structured around the five “Ps” outlined in the preamble of the 2030 Agenda.

In selecting the themes for the HLPF, an inclusive, transparent and participatory process should be conducted that provides for the inputs of Member States, other intergovernmental platforms, and civil society. A similar process to this online consultation could be considered.
The UN Statistical Commission should also play a key role in the drafting process of the Annual SDG Progress report, in identifying key data gaps, progress against the global indicators, and disaggregation of data. Specific bodies of the UNSC – such as the Praia Group on Governance and Peace Statistics – could be drawn upon to continually engage on strengthening the global indicators and supporting methodological and capacity development. Finally, the UNSC should play a role in encouraging and supporting its members – national NSOs – to provide the necessary data required for global monitoring of progress. The UNSC should also provide guidance and recommendations Recommendations to refine the global indicators framework based on feedback from Member States and non-state actors. They should not spend resources producing reports but rather provide the platform for others to extract the data and assess progress. This work should continually feed into the HLPF processes, and vice-versa.There should be a focal point within the UN Secretariat who would receive input from different stakeholders on new and emerging issues, with the responsibility to act accordingly and brief the HLPF on these issues on a regular basis if necessary. Accordingly, the HLPF will need to have the necessary mechanisms in place in order to be able to respond to these issues.

Rather than allocate a specific session or dedicated time slot to consider new and emerging issues, the HLPF should require that all inputs and reports identify and reflect upon new and emerging issues across all goals on an annual basis. In this regard, new and emerging issues can be mainstreamed across all national and thematic reviews under the HLPF. The views of civil society stakeholders will be a critical element to this process, and therefore a transparent and inclusive mechanism for soliciting the views of all stakeholders will be critical to this exercise.
The HLPF should encourage independent “shadow reporting” by all stakeholders. These shadow reports conducted by non-state actors on the different SDGs should be available online, compiled, synthesised and handed to the HLPF representatives in advance of the HLPF. In addition, CSO representatives who have produced shadow reports relevant to the annual theme should be invited to present their findings to the HLPF – potential discrepancies between the findings of civil society and the official data presented by UN Member States in their reviews should be discussed and analysed.

Platforms and processes outside the UN system, including by non-state actors and sector-specific global partnerships, should provide inputs to the HLPF via the SDG Progress Report, the Global Sustainable Development Report, written reports and statements at reviews. These entities should report on progress, challenges, emerging issues and recommendations related to their area of expertise.
At least once in a four-year cycle (or at least three times during the full 15 year period), assessing:
first the level of ambition of national strategies, goals and preparatory measures,
second the output and implementation of measures, and
third the outcome and impact of measures, including the follow-up of the recommendation of the first two rounds of reviews.

This timeline will allow the HLPF to periodically assess national progress and make recommendations to mobilize further action on implementation if countries’ policies, programs or interventions are not achieving their intended aims. Such touchpoints are critical to allow the HLPF to collectively ‘keep its finger on the pulse’ in overseeing the implementation of the SDGs and to be in a position to address new and emerging issues.

In addition to reporting on progress, challenges, emerging issues and recommendations, all countries should report on their actions taken to follow-up HLPF recommendations from previous reviews.
The review should be a solutions-based tool that aims to support evaluation of collective and individual progress in achieving the SDGs. Beyond that, local civil society and other stake­holders have to play a crucial role in this process to increase ownership, transparency and account­ability. This means that these processes for civil society consultation need to be inclusive, open, transparent and participatory and include civil society data and shadow reports to complement these “official” reports.

The HLPF discussions should be based on:
- A government report with information provided by the state under review;
- A report from the UN summarizing information submitted by non-state actors including civil society and children; and
- A report from the UN summarizing information and data from across the UN system, including from UN agencies, the Universal Periodic Review and UN treaty bodies.
There needs to be standards regarding minimally accepted levels of transparency, accountability and participation for reporting on and conducting the reviews.

The HLPF should systematically address the following:

- The situation of the poorest, most vulnerable and those furthest behind, per para. 74(e) of the agenda;

- The actions countries have taken to fulfil the pledges to leave no one behind, reach the furthest behind first, and meet goals and targets for all segments of society;

- The actions countries have taken to consult with civil society, parliaments, societal groups and the most marginalized and vulnerable at the national and sub-national level in implementing the goals and preparing their report;

- The extent to which they are setting national targets which will implement the whole agenda (social, environmental and economic) and not ‘cherry picking’; and

- Progress made to achieve the full disaggregation of data.
Countries should report on all goals. For flexibility one could use a “comply or explain” approach.

Guidelines should encourage countries to report on progress, challenges, emerging issues and recommendations for further implementation of all SDGs. Ensuring countries report on these key topics can provide for cross-country comparability. This includes:

· Actions taken to prioritize marginalized groups in order to leave no one behind and to meet all goals and targets for all segments of society;

· Actions taken to promote the participation of civil society in awareness-raising of the 2030 Agenda, and implementation and accountability processes including the production of national reports;

· Actions taken to produce high-quality, accessible, timely, reliable and disaggregated data that is publicly available and to consider citizen-led or third party data; and

· Actions taken to independently monitor progress on the SDGs at national levels.
Country reviews should be discussed via peer or partnership reviews at the HLPF and should be the core part of the HLPF, in order to generate evidence about successful strategies and policies, and emerging problems. Parallel or simultaneous partnership/peer reviews could be conducted by groups of countries representing a balance of high, middle and low-income countries, as well as geography.

Partnership/peer reviews should provide for the meaningful participation of non-state actors in the country under review, including the private sector and civil society. This would help to facilitate a dynamic platform for partnerships where countries, UN agencies, the private sector and civil society come together to address challenges, showcase good practices and share lessons learned.

The country reviews must be more than just an opportunity for the country under review to present a report or showcase its good practices and instead an opportunity for real engagement, dialogue and learning.
National reviews will need to pay careful attention to the means of implementation, as a cross-cutting issue relevant to all goals, as well as through dedicated attention to Goal 17. Reporting guidelines can help to ensure these issues are addressed, as well as the organization of reviews and presentations.

Countries (especially developed countries) should be encouraged to present based on a) domestic implementation including means of implementation b) direct contribution to implementation overseas via ODA/development cooperation and c) impacts on implementation overseas via other policies and actions – i.e. policy coherence with sustainable development objectives.

The HLPF can also provide informal spaces to facilitate interaction, matchmaking and networking among different stakeholders to further promote multi-stakeholder partnerships. Importantly, partnerships themselves must also be subject to review, monitoring and accountability, including through analysis at the HLPF.
There should be a written summary of recommendations from each national review that is made publicly available and accessible in a timely manner. These recommendations should contribute to a continuum of accountability at national, regional and global levels.

At national and sub-national levels, recommendations should be considered by government and non-state actors in the period between reviews, in order to make further progress in implementing the SDGs and to address any challenges, gaps or emerging issues.

At the regional level, key recommendations should be used to discuss shared regional challenges in implementation and possible solutions.

At the global level, countries should outline the steps they have taken to address recommendations arising from previous reviews. Country reports for subsequent reviews under the HLPF should outline: progress, challenges, emerging issues, follow-up on previous recommendations and any new recommendations that will further implementation.
As many SDGs have a transboundary dimension, issues such as resource use or production and supply chains, should be dealt with at the regional level, in additional to being addressed at the global level. Nuances will have to be found to allow for differ­entiated approaches at the regional level, building on those regional institutions that have the support of Member States. The HLPF under the auspices of the ECOSOC could dedicate a slot for reports from the regional level.The HLPF should support the participation of stakeholders including civil society by:

- Providing dedicated time for interactive dialogue with Member States;
- Establishing a trust fund to support stakeholders to participate in reviews;
- Using new technologies to facilitate the participation of stakeholders outside UN Headquarters including through video calls and other online platforms;
- Encouraging and facilitating an open platform for shadow reporting by all stakeholders.

Stakeholders should be able to contribute to reviews by:

· Providing written inputs for national reviews to a UN report that summarizes information submitted by non-state actors including civil society;
· Providing written inputs to the SDG Progress Report and the Global Sustainable Development Report; and
· Participating in multi-stakeholder thematic review and national partnership review sessions.
There should be a formal and agreed space for actors to participate in review. This would be stipulated in the minimum criteria for a review to be considered valid.

The major groups and other stakeholders (MG&OS) should be able to participate in national and thematic reviews at the HLPF, including by submitting independent reports. There must be an official channel for these reports to be submitted and considered to complement official reports from Member States. In these reports, MG&OS should be encouraged to report on their contribution to the implementation of the agenda, but also on implementation by the government and relevant partnerships, based on their experience working at the national, local and community levels.

Additionally, an independent “Global Accountability Report” could be created that summarizes non-state actors’ contributions to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, and through other independent civil society processes.
The focus of this review should be based on how well the UN system is doing in terms of contributing to the implementation of the SDGs, as well as how well it is doing in terms of overcoming siloes between different UN entities. A holistic approach is crucial.

The UN system can report on their contribution to the 2030 Agenda by:

· Participating in multi-stakeholder thematic reviews and national partnership/peer reviews as ‘One United Nations.’ The UN should adopt a ‘Delivering as One’ approach not just at a country level in delivering programs, but in relation to global national and thematic reviews under the HLPF;

· Providing individual agency written inputs to national and thematic reviews; and

· Contributing to an independent report that summarizes non-state actors’ contributions to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, such as an annual Global Accountability Report suggested in question 23.
The HLPF needs a solid, transparent and participatory preparatory process. Past experiences with international review mechanisms suggest that a robust mandate, sufficient time and secretariat support as well as the meaningful par­ticipation of local civil society are crucial for an effective review. The Secretariat can be a vehicle for awareness raising amongst civil society and ensuring that civil society plays an active role in HLPF – this includes civil society from developing countries with more limited opportunities to engage in discussions. The HLPF needs to have the right policy guidance as well as the resources (human, financial, technical, etc.) to execute it. The Secretariat must also help to integrate the outcomes and recommendations from reviews at the HLPF into the UN’s funds, policies and programmes; provide support to countries and civil society in following up on recommendations from reviews at the HLPF; and providing support to further implementation of SDGs. The review process, however it is implemented, must be underpinned by the principles of transparency, accountability and participation.

There should be space for the process to evolve over time, with stepwise refinement and substantiation. A collect­ive effort will be necessary to demonstrate the bene­fits of such a review mechanism as a “means of implementation”, to further work on the incentives for broad participation and to support countries conceptualising the process at the na­tional level. Countries’ capacities need to be strengthened at the national level in order to enable data collection and setting up a transparent and participatory review process, with governments as duty bearers and citizens as rights holders.

Follow-up and review for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda should be seen as a continuum of accountability from local to global levels. While the framework must ensure coordination and flow of information across all levels, particular focus must be placed on strengthening national accountability between states and citizens.

The HLPF should be the global platform for accountability for the 2030 Agenda acting as an umbrella to bring together different processes. Sufficient human and financial resources must be allocated to the HLPF in order for it to fulfil its mandate.

Accountability processes at all levels should be people-centred with meaningful opportunities for citizens to engage effectively in follow-up and review at all levels, including through providing written and oral independent supplementary information in formal review processes at all levels.

Data collection systems and processes should also provide space for data collection with citizens, including children, and other stakeholders. Engaging citizens in participatory monitoring and data collection will not only increase the availability of data but also ensure it accurately reflects the context and realities of local communities.
47
MatuschkeIraFemaleInstitute for Advanced Sustainability Studieswww.iass-potsdam.deira.matuschke@iass-potsdam.deGermanGermanyNon-Governmental OrganizationsThe General Assembly should provide guidelines that, for instance, require the review of the SDGs to take place in an integrated manner. This implies the collaboration of different functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies and forums to provide coordinated inputs. It should also ensure that the process to coordinate these inputs includes the voices and perspectives of civil society and other stakeholders. The HLPF thematic reviews should examine progress in all SDGs based on a transversal theme (Option ii). Reviewing SDGs in clusters or in groups of four could lead to overlooking potential trade-offs in the implementation of the SDGs, thereby rendering the 2030 Agenda ineffective. This is particularly important for cross-cutting themes that are transboundary, like the sustainable management of natural resources. Many of the SDGs are heavily reliant on natural resources, such as land, water, and biodiversity, for their achievement. This means that addressing their governance, management and tenure rights, in order to balance competing uses will be crucial. Decision-making on the transversal themes should be based on a participatory process. It should include all potential stakeholders, including Member States, UN organisations, civil society organisation, academia, and the private sector. Participatory decision-making on the theme will also allow for a greater buy-in. Functional commissions should collaborate to ensure that they support an integrated implementation and review of the SDGs. An example is the issue of thematic reviews, as mentioned in question 6 above, which requires the collaboration of all functional commissions and intergovernmental bodies working on the theme, in order to ensure that potential trade-offs between the SDGs are identified, quantified, and sufficiently addressed. The inputs of the various actors could be brought forward in a thematic Sustainable Development Report, to be presented at HLPF and discussed with all relevant stakeholders. An analysis of the inputs by functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies and forums should be carried out by civil society to allow for its knowledge to be included in the reviews. Critical assessments of existing bodies forums should ensure that interfaces between them exist that allow for collaborative exchanges required for effective implementation.We would like to make two suggestions for the first cycle of the HLPF meetings:

Thematic reviews, their organisation and appropriate mechanisms for their follow-up could be a good overarching theme for the HLPF. The Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, and its partners, propose thematic reviews on land, soil, and other natural resources, which are essential to achieve many of the SDGs. Reviewing these issues on a global, regional and national scale will be essential to an integrated implementation of the SDGs.

Participatory follow-up and review mechanisms could be another annual theme of the HLPF. Discussions could focus on how to achieve an inclusive and participatory review mechanism at the national, regional, and global level. Which best-practices do exist at national level and could be scaled-up efficiently to regional or global level?
The themes of the HLPF should be known as long in advance as possible. Preferable would be a programme of work for the four years in between the two meetings of the HLPF (Option i). This would give all countries - including developing countries - a greater planning horizon and the possibility to prepare and report on the HLPF themes in a comprehensive way, involving a broad range of stakeholders. However, there should be certain flexibility to respond to urgent global themes, if needed. The multi-stakeholder forum on Science, Technology and Innovation aims to be the venue for facilitating interaction and the establishment of networks between relevant stakeholders and multi-stakeholder partnerships, within and beyond the United Nations. The forum should address the same theme as the HLPF in order to ensure that information and best-practices coming from networks and partnerships are used when reviewing progress on achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and planning the follow-up on identified challenges. This holds for country and thematic reviews. The United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) should work closely with the HLPF, as the indicators for the SDG targets will be an essential element in the monitoring and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Based on reviews presented at the HLPF, the UNSC should draw lessons learned on the currently used indicators (e.g. data collection process, data disaggregation, data reporting) and potentially refine global indicators to address their shortcomings. Drawing lessons learned from reviews at the HLPF could also lead to channelling the UNSCs capacity-building activities into areas where challenges are experienced when monitoring and reviewing the 2030 Agenda. Moreover, the UNSC could provide guidance to UN Member countries on innovative approaches in data collection that draw on the collaboration with relevant stakeholders. A multi-stakeholder platform would be required where new and emerging issues are discussed. This platform should promote an open and transparent discussion on these issues. This platform could work as an online platform, and a report on new and emerging issues could be prepared in advance of the HLPF and be presented at the meeting. Member States should then decide which issues require further examination. International and regional organisations as well as non-state actors should be actively involved in thematic reviews at all levels. At the global level, platforms and processes outside the UN should continue to contribute actively to the debates. What could be imagined is the organisation of partnerships and alliances of organizations actively working on the issues addressed by the SDGs and who would deal with certain aspects of the specific HLPF themes. Taking the example of natural resources, which the IASS proposes as a theme for a thematic review, an alliance or partnership of UN agencies, functional commissions and organizations from civil society and academia could discuss themes such as land tenure, desertification, gender etc. In this way, complex cross-cutting topics could be “unpacked” in a more comprehensive way, thereby facilitating the discussion of best-practices and remaining challenges in the thematic areas. At the national level, governments preparing thematic reviews should include all potential stakeholders, including civil society organisation, academia, and the private sector. Common reporting guidelines for State-led reviews should provide guidance on the systematic engagement of stakeholders when monitoring progress in achieving the goals set out in the 2030 Agenda. This should include recommendations for participatory data collection on the SDG indicators. To ensure that progress on some goals does not limit or challenge the achievement of others, an integrated and inclusive approach that considers and analyses the combined achievement of all SGDs is necessary. We see national governments taking the lead in establishing or strengthening national multi-stakeholder initiatives for follow-up and review that are inclusive and offer perspectives from different actors (i.e. government, civil society, academia, business), within the context of a renewed global partnership for development.We disagree with identifying a core set of targets on which all countries report, while reporting on the non-core indicators only if it is feasible. Such a strategy would lower the ambitions of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. All SDGs are relevant and interconnected. In addition, they are the result of a highly participatory negotiation process. Reporting on a core set of issues may lead to a situation where some goals and targets are considered as being less important, whereby shifting the attention of policy-makers away from these issues. One aspect that does need to be reviewed in addition to the 17 goals is how inclusive and participatory the process of implementation, review and follow up has been at the national level. A report developed by civil society and other stakeholders should always accompany the reports presented by the national governments. Major groups and other relevant stakeholders should be able to participate actively at the meetings of the HLPF. In addition, they should be encouraged to report on current challenges to SDG implementation and be involved in identifying possible solutions to these challenges. This should occur on a regular basis, for example via an online platform, as discussed above in Question 12. This could also occur by having one or two chapters in the Global Sustainable Development Report, which are written by the major groups and other relevant stakeholders. Interactive dialogues where major group representatives are able to give statements should continue to be a part of the programme of the HLPF. Reports on transversal issues across the SDGs or by country could be prepared by major groups and other stakeholders and a process/time would need to be designed to allow for the presentation of these reports. UN agencies stand ready to contribute their expertise but will need to adopt an approach that is more pragmatic. This will also require developing closer partnerships with NGOs and across the UN System to consolidate collaboration. There is a need to build upon the momentum of the adoption of the SDGs to jumpstart implementation of the 2030 Agenda in a new, innovative way. This requires a shift in mindset and drawing on integrated approaches, coalitions, alliances and networks. Integrated, inclusive and participatory approaches pose governance challenges and require significant efforts in particular by national governments and civil Society. Civil society organizations should be seen as allies and not obstacles to the implementation of SDGs as they can support implementation, provide knowledge and information and demand accountability from states.

In order to support integrated, participatory and inclusive implementation of the 2030 Agenda, national reviews need to be linked to the global level. This is crucial to stay true to the interrelated and universal character of the agenda, as actions in one country have consequences in another and vice versa. Here again, alliances and partnerships for exchange and mutual learning will play a crucial role. As shown by the process to design the SDGs, working with many different actors (governments, civil society, academia, etc.) may make the process more difficult but also much more valuable and create a greater ownership of the 2030 Agenda.
48
HOSSAINMosharrafMaleADD Internationalwww.addinternational.orgmosharraf.hossain@add.org.ukBANGLADESHUNITED KINGDOMPersons with Disability The best option will be to examine progress in all SDGs based on transversal theme gender, inequality, education etc. One of the theme must be on disability - an issue of one billion people of the world within 15 years.

The HLPF meeting 2016 will decide the list of themes to be reviewed in 15 years in cyclic order.
The overarching theme of HLPF will be consistent with the overarching goal of SDGs - leave no one behind. The annual theme will be on social issues - gender, disability, inequality, inclusive education. 17 Goals and 169 targets so it is a comprehensive to review the 2030 agenda producing data disaggregated by sex,age, disability, geographical location and other marginalised group, and ensuring participation of stakeholders. The countries should have regular annual review mechanism to conduct state-led reviews in HLPF - every 5 years so minimum 3 reviews within 15 years. HLPF will document the discussion, prepare report and provide recommendations with implementation guideline to improve the outcome.

Capacity building of countries to prepare
As each countries submit the report, the regional bodies will submit report against regional goal and targets. HLPF will review the regional progress. The HLPF should should ensure participation of marginalised people - people with disabilities in the review process conducted at the global level both in the thematic and country review.

At least one thematic review should be done on "persons with disabilities" within 15 years.
The major groups and others group will be invited to summit the report of their contribution. HLPF will compile the reports and review along side the reports of the member states to review the progress of the countries and regions. A Review Committee of Major groups and other Stakeholders will be formed to engage them in the review process. This committee will review the their contribution to implement of 2030. UN Agencies should submit the report of their contribution along with member states to implement 2030 agenda. As the report of member states will be reviewed, the report of UN Agencies will also be reviewed. As UN System were engaged in the implementation of 2030 agenda, they will be engaged in the review process.
49
ZainoeddinFrancesFemaleStakeholder Group on Ageing and NGO Committee on Ageingngo-coa-ny.org and helpage.orgfzainoeddin@msn.comAustralianUSAOther Stakeholder, Stakeholder Group on AgeingThe annual HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC, should act as the driver of implementation of the 2030 Agenda, providing policy guidance and recommendations for action on the basis of national, regional and global reviews, with respect to each goal and target.

The HLPF, under the auspices of the General Assembly, should provide an overview of review and follow-up of the 2030 Agenda as a whole, in terms of progress made, problems encountered, necessary corrective actions in order to maintain on track till 2030. Procedures should be in place for reviewing reporting by organizations of the whole United Nations system.
ECOSOC, being the recipient of reports from its subsidiary bodies, should instruct those subsidiary bodies to have an additional permanent item on their agendas on follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda. ECOSOC should also request those bodies to address specific issues that could feed into the HLPF discussions. This would necessarily imply that the secretariats of those subsidiary bodies would need sufficient resources and time to collect data and information for analysis in order to prepare relevant reports to those bodies for deliberation and decision-making.UN secretariats having mandates to address those follow-up arrangements should be requested to submit biennial or triennial reports on linkages. Linkages are crucial for providing an overall picture of progress made towards implementation of the 2030 Agenda for all countries, including an understanding of what is working or not working well among those specific groups countries.As far as ECOSOC is concerned, it is not necessary for the General Assembly to provide guidance since ECOSOC has the authority to guide and direct the work of its functional commissions. With other intergovernmental bodies and forums that fall under the aegis of the General Assembly, yes. Such guidance should be consistent with that provided by ECOSOC. At the same time, the General Assembly, with its larger membership, should ensure overall consistency, uniformity in approach and sufficient standardization in order to measure progress and gaps in implementation in order to strive for comparable data for determining the extent to which targets have or have not been met.The key to the success of the 2030 Agenda is not only to have plans, programmes, goals and targets, but resources and the wherewithal for implementation and follow-up. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) contains many commitments to ensuring implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Such commitments must be routinely monitored to ensure compliance. Whenever the HLPF reviews implementation of goals and targets, the AAAA commitments must be assessed, particularly when countries are falling short of their goals and targets.

The summary by the Co-Chairs of the multi-stakeholder forum on Science, Technology and Innovation must be action-oriented. It is not sufficient to give a progress report and understand problems associated with implementation of the 2030 Agenda, but HLPF needs guidance for taking decisions to help the process move forward.

The HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC should address both options (i) and (iii). It is essential that it reviews implementation of all SDGs and targets, to determine the level of achievement for each. It should also review targets that refer to other goals (e.g. health is addressed by goal 3 and also explicitly referred to in targets under goals 5 and 12).

The HLPF under the auspices of the General Assembly, should address a transversal theme (option (iii)) such as gender, health or education, since a four-year span would be more amenable for analysis of such overarching cross-cutting themes. Such themes should be decided upon at least two years prior to the meeting in order to ensure adequate time for the relevant organizations of the UN system to gather data and provide an analysis.

All progress reviews should pay particular attention to how the principle of ‘leave no one behind’ is being put into practice, and this could be integrated into all reviews as a standing item.
Functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies must continue to monitor implementation of existing international instruments and at the same time, ensure that implementation of the SDGs are fully taken into account. These are separate but parallel courses of action and require the secretariats of those bodies to ensure complementarity and harmonization. The proposed inclusion of a permanent agenda item on review and follow-up of the 2030 Agenda would require the Secretariat to provide that linkage when preparing the report for deliberation by those bodies. The Secretariat for the HLPF would then have to synthesize recommendations of those bodies in order to present findings and appropriate recommendations to the HLPF. It is imperative that the secretariats of all those bodies have sufficient resources to undertake these additional activities in order to ensure adequate support to the HLPF and to facilitate its decision-making and leadership role.
(a) Interlinkages among goals and their targets and ways to ensure consistency, including quality and level of data disaggregation.
(b) Complementarity and harmonization between implementation of existing instruments and the SDGs.
(c) Implementation of ‘leave no one behind’ – how efforts to implement the SDGs are addressing the rights and needs of the most vulnerable and marginalized groups.
Whatever decision is made must take into account the lead-time needed to prepare related reports. Some themes are likely to require more than one year of preparation, including input from functional commissions etc. Decisions would depend on the capacity of the HLPF secretariat to undertake the necessary coordination to address cross-cutting issues to be addressed by all relevant entities of the UN system. It may be useful but not necessary. Having the Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation as well as the online platform, address different themes may, given time constraints, would allow for broader coverage of themes not being addressed by the HLPF. The involvement of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development in the whole process will also contribute to the overall understanding of science, technology and innovation for the SDGs. Whatever is addressed, the recommendations must be practical and action-oriented to move the process forward.

The Statistical Commission should provide an annual report to the HLPF on the progress of measurement of the targets, particularly with respect to the technical aspects: availability of data that are consistent and comparable; level of disaggregation of data; difficulties encountered by national statistical offices; recommendations for addressing those difficulties in order to ensure countries remain on track to implement targets. Reports submitted to the HLPF should not only address progress made towards meeting the targets but also new and emerging issues. All relevant Main Committees of the General Assembly, as well as organizations of the whole UN system, should also be instructed to pay attention to new and emerging issues that would require attention by the HLPF.

Adequate time and provisions for input must also be made for non-Governmental stakeholders to contribute to the identification and analysis of new and emerging issues.
Those organizations should be in constant touch with relevant UN organizations that address issues of mutual concern, and vice versa, to ensure that their findings, monitoring, research and analysis of national implementation of the 2030 Agenda are taken into account. Space must be found at relevant intergovernmental bodies of the UN system to allow for views to be presented.

Working on the principle of open data, a knowledge-sharing portal or web-based platform could be established in which non-UN stakeholders can make visible evidence and research relevant to answering the questions being posed in the thematic reviews.

During the 15 years, countries should be expected to provide feedback to the HLPF at three times.
The HLPF must address:
(a) Level and quality of disaggregation of data – this is absolutely essential if we are to leave no one behind.
(b) Indicator measurement must demonstrate a change in existing condition. Status before intervention/application of indicators and status at time of reporting.
(c) Problems/difficulties encountered and whether actions have been or can be taken to address them. What is preventing countries from reaching targets? How can they be helped?
(d) Actions taken by governments to address cross-cutting issues among different goals.
(e) Level of involvement of multi-stakeholders in national reviews.

Guidelines should:
(a) Remind Member states of their responsibility to implement and report on existing international instruments, while at the same time taking into account the 2030 Agenda.
(b) Solicit information that would facilitate decision making by the HLPF on broad issues that can be addressed at the global level for the benefit of all Member states
(i) integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development in a holistic and cross-sectoral manner;
(ii) strategy employed for implementing the 2030 Agenda, and anticipated outcomes, as well as highlighting corrective actions taken;
(iii) level of inclusion of multi-stakeholders in the implementation process.
(iv) successes, challenges and lessons learned.
(c) Call for information on what has changed for the betterment of all people, paying particular attention to the principle of ‘leave no one behind’.
See also responses to questions 8 and 16.
Country reviews should provide the HLPF with an understanding of the issues raised in our responses to questions 8, 16 and 17, and should be used to make recommendations for actions to be taken. The HLPF Secretariat should synthesize those country reviews in order to present common findings so as to facilitate decision-making by the HLPF. All specialized intergovernmental bodies and their subsidiary bodies should from henceforth till 2030 provide guidance for national action, on the basis of the work of the relevant secretariats throughout the whole UN system, especially those with country offices and programmes. See response to question 18. If national reviews are required to be submitted three times during the 15 year period, the HLPF should track actions taken by Member States over that period to determine what follow-up action is necessary, not only at the national level but at regional and global levels. Functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies should be required not only to provide data and information to the HLPF but also to undertake follow-up action based on findings of the HLPF and its recommendations. The agenda of the HLPF should always include items related to national, regional and global actions taken to implement the 2030 Agenda, in order for the HLPF to provide feedback. Regional reviews should also be considered, for example, by the functional commissions (where regional commissions would usually submit their regional reports) which would then take decisions for forwarding to the HLPF. See also response to question 7. HLPF can support participation of Major groups and other stakeholders by requesting Member states to provide information on their involvement in the implementation and review of the 2030 Agenda as a standing item in their national reviews. The HLPF should also call upon those groups to provide reports on their participation. See also response to question 13.The HLPF should make provision for a multi-stakeholder session each year in order to review reports to be submitted by the Major groups and other stakeholders on their implementation of the 2030 Agenda – successes, challenges and lessons learned, including recommendations for further action. Reports of the HLPF should include references to those reports as part of the documentation for consideration by Member states. See also response to question 13.The UN Secretariat, funds and programmes whose work fall under the purview of ECOSOC, would provide their reports to the HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC. Specialized agencies, on the other hand, should provide reports to the HLPF under the auspices of the General Assembly. The Secretariat of the HLPF should synthesize those findings and submit recommendations for HLPF review and decision-making on the way forward.The UN system should ensure that their respective governing bodies at global and regional levels should be fully apprised on the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda and should require recommendations for next steps to be transmitted to the HLPF. This requires a permanent item on the agenda of those bodies for deliberations on the 2030 Agenda. The interagency coordination mechanism, headed by the Secretary-General, should also have a permanent item on its agenda to address implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Decisions taken should be duly transmitted to the HLPF by the HLPF Secretariat.It is clear that the HLPF secretariat, as well as the secretariats of all intergovernmental bodies and their subsidiary bodies will have heavy responsibilities. As can be seen from the questions asked, there is much work connected with monitoring, research and analysis at the regional and global level in order to facilitate decision-making by Member States. Recommendations emanating from the HLPF must be evidence-based, reflecting findings from all stakeholders to ensure no one is left behind. Efforts to provide reliable and sound evidence by the UN system must be fully supported. Member States should ensure that adequate resources are provided to the United Nations system for carrying out their mandates effectively and efficiently in support of the 2030 Agenda.

Cross-fertilization of findings from all areas – functional commissions, regional commissions,
other intergovernmental bodies and their subsidiaries, multi-stakeholders including NGOs and civil society, and people – need to be taken into account in the follow-up, review and assessment by the HLPF. Individuals at grass roots levels, the vulnerable, the marginalized should also be involved, if we are to leave no one behind. Their first hand experience and knowledge on the ground cannot be overlooked.

It should also be borne in mind that during the next 15 years, other conferences will be convened and new and emerging issues will need to be addressed. There will be changes in our world. New challenges as well as persistent problems will need to be addressed, new findings will become available, new or updated recommendations will be decided – all these need to be harmonized with the 2030 Agenda. Adjustments along the way will be necessary in order to always move forward effectively.
50
MessiasRodrigoMalenrg4SD - Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Developmentwww.nrg4sd.orgrmessias@nrg4sd.orgBrazilianBrazilLocal AuthoritiesThe Major Groups and other Stakeholders (MGoS) should remain instrumental in the successful implementation of SDGs and the overall follow-up and review process at all levels. MGoS must be considered essential for a coherent, transparent and inclusive process of follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda. Without the involvement of all parts of society, it will be impossible to cause the necessary paradigm shift for a more sustainable future. As a result, the need to strengthen the engagement of MGoS in the GA, the ECOSOC and the HPLF is more critical than ever in order to ensure a powerful stakeholder presence in the monitoring of Agenda 2030 implementation, which is crucial for holding governments accountable to their commitments.
Particularly, it should be considered the specific nature of local and subnational governments and provide them the appropriate channels for direct representation at those fora.
The role and contribution from non-state actors should be duly recognized and enhanced within the modalities of participation of ECOSOC. Particularly it should facilitate and expand the process for accreditation of varied relevant organizations, through greater dissemination, also encouraging other groups to become familiar with the discussions and engage. An easier and more accessible process would certainly increase the participation and diversity of actors involved.
Reviews at the national, regional and global levels should take into account the progress at the subnational level, for a true and efficient picture of the situation and actions on the ground. Therefore, ECOSOC on the sake of the agenda’s coherence, should ensure that organizations and actors involved at that level are consulted.
It is fundamental to improve the institutional integration and coordination between different agendas, agencies and intergovernmental processes of the UN system. The HLPF could provide the opportunity for those to report and share experiences, contributing for a holistic view of the Agenda 2030, also avoiding duplications and the lack of coherence.
Besides, it should then dedicate special attention to those identified on the most vulnerable situation. For example, debates on the specific gaps and barriers of those locations, with particular evidence to the subnational diverse realities, could enable the exchange of best practices and contribute for better results everywhere.
The standardization of the Agenda 2030 process of existing institutions and actions, especially within the ECOSOC will improve the efficiency, coordination and results of united efforts. The HLPF could establish and provide a common format and methodologies for those to submit contributions, and provide opportunity for systematic and participatory reportsThe HPLF thematic reviews of the progress on the SDGs could combine options (i) and (ii).
SDGs clusters would facilitate to work on interlinkages among SDGs and to ensure coherence of actions and instruments. However, SDG clusters should go beyond the “classical” aggregation that creates silos among the 3 dimensions of sustainable development and look for a more holistic approach, based on the transversal theme.
The transversal theme analysis of SDGs would ensure that issues like gender, health, education are adequately addressed and considered in each SDG and not only in a specific one. Additionally, we believe that a territorial and localized approach could become another transversal theme, focusing on the subnational efforts and actions on the ground with the involvement of multistakeholder.
Accordingly, the theme must be defined based upon the consultation of different constituencies and in advance of the HLPF meeting, also exploring regional consultations and preparatory meetings.
The holistic approach required by the SDGs should entail the integration of different intergovernmental processes. With that in mind, the HLPF could bring together multiple UN Conventions and international discussions for a broad review of the development strategies in the world.

HPLF should encourage the mobilization of MGoS to work collaboratively with commissions and other intergovernmental bodies and forums. It would be interesting to establish a HLPF bureau or advisory body, that includes MGoS, and will give the opportunity to highlight own challenges, experiences and practices on the implementation of this agenda.
Financing; indicators; methodologies for implementation; multi-stakeholder participation; subnational diversity; Major Groups and other Stakeholders effort; partnerships, international and decentralized cooperation; governance; raising-awareness; themes of other intergovernmental processes: Climate Change, Biodiversity, UNEA…
On top of all that, the Habitat III and the urban agenda should be presented as an immediate theme and opportunity for integration of efforts with concrete actions on the subnational levels.
One year in advance should enough for the different groups and preparatory discussions to be held on the themes proposed.
Particularly, HLPF should strengthen and contribute to the review at the subnational level.
Indicator progress reports of the UN Statistical Commission would best contribute to the work of the HPLF. Of special attention are the aspects of progress of disaggregated data that would help HPLF to know the truly progress of the agenda or to verify that “no one is left behind”.
In this regard, the HLPF should work to contribute to ensure the linkages of global monitoring with the data produced at regional, national and subnational levels. The forum may establish common guidelines and platform for sharing data to ensure a integrate and coordinated follow-up.
It would be interesting to establish a HLPF bureau or advisory body, that includes MGoS, and will give the opportunity to highlight own challenges, experiences and practices on the implementation of this agenda.

As an example, local and subnational governments, with a key role to play in implementation, the follow-up, and review of Agenda 2030, are particularly well-positioned, due to their proximity to citizens, to know the specificities of local communities and their emerging issues.
Therefore, permanent mechanisms to improve consultation and participation on the agenda will ensure the constant review and identification of emerging issues.
The HLPF could create a certification process, through a participatory and extensive call, for multiple international initiatives and actions to be recognized as contributers to the implementation, follow-up and review of the Agenda 2030.
Based on that, during meetings, those should be invited to share progress and expert reports on their outcomes, which should be aligned and integrated through common metrics and methodologies.
For example the Global Taskforce of Cities and Regions, the Communitas Coalition, and other like-minded multistakeholder initiatives can provide great compiled inputs and ease the burden of the UN system on consultations.
It is important to understand that although it is an urgent universal agenda, the nature and history of member-states compels it to be a voluntary commitment, and thus different calls could be opened, encouraging countries to contribute and provide feedback based on an agreed model of report. Based on that, a minimum number of reviews should be installed.
Regardless, this point emphasize the importance of mobilizing public opinion, multistakeholders, and particularly civil society, to engage and pursue increased accountability of this process.
This ownership by non-state actors, and common meetings with Member-States will be a strong alternative to ensure high-levels of participation and reliability of experiences presented.
The use of digital media, well-structured platforms, previously agreed methodologies and process, are some of the elements that could support the reviews.
Institutional framework. multilevel governance mechanisms, discrepancies within countries, with particular attention to the efforts at the subnational level.
Additionally, margin to respect specificities and particularities of different societies and territories will be fundamental.
Countries should be instructed to attend and report at the appropriate level, particularly taking into consideration the need for an holistic vision of the Agenda 2030 and thus with the involvement of different ministries. On that, it could be connected to the respective interministerial or similar mechanism for thematic and institutional integration.National reviews should be based upon an extensive process of consultation at the subnational level. Additionally, the Major Groups and other Stakeholders (MGoS) should remain instrumental in the successful implementation of SDGs and the overall follow-up and review process at all levels. MGoS must be considered essential for a coherent, transparent and inclusive process of follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda. Without the involvement of all parts of society, it will be impossible to cause the necessary paradigm shift for a more sustainable future. As a result, the need to strengthen the engagement of MGoS in the GA, the ECOSOC and the HPLF is more critical than ever in order to ensure a powerful stakeholder presence in the monitoring of Agenda 2030 implementation, which is crucial for holding governments accountable to their commitments.The reviews should follow a common format and foreseeing of a long-term process. With that in mind, a progressive review should be established based on similar areas to be addressed in order to enable continuing processof progress review. Without the involvement of all parts of society, it will be impossible to cause the necessary paradigm shift for a more sustainable future. As a result, the need to strengthen the engagement of MGoS in the GA, the ECOSOC and the HPLF is more critical than ever in order to ensure a powerful stakeholder presence in the monitoring of Agenda 2030 implementation, which is crucial for holding governments accountable to their commitments.
Particularly, it should be considered the specific nature of local and subnational governments and provide them the appropriate channels for direct representation at those fora.
The HLPF institutional body should include the necessary sections to ensure the engagement and participation of Major Groups and other Stakeholders.
Local Authorities Major Group (LAMG) represents governmental stakeholders and therefore has a unique and key role to play in implementation, the follow-up, and review of Agenda 2030, specially to ensure multi-level, cooperation and coherence and multi-actor collaboration. Subnational governments, with a direct mandate from citizens, have competencies in policy planning, provision of basic services, and other critical issues. These governments are particularly well-positioned to address the specificities of local communities due to their proximity to citizens.
With that in mind, it should also be highlighted the particularities of the wide-array of constituencies involved in that process.
Assess existing structure, commissions and bodies and allocate them on the best agreed format these will contribute and take responsibility for the delivery and achievement of the Agenda 2030.
For example, the existing structure of the Major Groups and other Stakeholders should be explored with a long-track record and experience on modalities of engagement of different constituencies.
51
FeiringBirgitteFemaleDanish Institute for Human Rightswww.humanrights.dkbife@humanrights.dkDanishDenmarkNational Human RIghts InstitutionHuman rights is a main pillar of the UN and the 2030 Agenda. Integration of human rights in FUR is key to coherence. Most SDG targets are linked to international human rights instruments with institutionalised monitoring mechanisms (humanrights.dk/sdg-guide) which constitute an invaluable resource for FUR. The GA has strong links to the human rights system, while ECOSOC has weaker. For coherence, HLPF (whether under GA or ECOSOC) must ensure strong and direct links to the human rights system. The HLPF could make use of reports and recommendations from the treaty bodies, Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) under the Human Rights Council. Already, compilation reports for individual countries are produced in the UPR process, which could be submitted directly to the HLPF for country reviews. In addition, similar ‘thematic compilation reports’ related to HLPF goal-specific or thematic reviews could be produced ohchr.org/EN/Issues/MDG/Pages/MDGPost2015Agenda.aspx• In order to provide substantive leadership to the UN system, ECOSOC needs to build on and integrate work of UN human rights bodies (UPR, treaty bodies, Human Rights Council), possibly through the GA 3rd committee.
• The thematic focus of the HLPF should be reflected in the work programmes of ECOSOC functional commissions, and their input submitted to HLPF
• To ensure an effective review and follow-up mechanism in line with the principles agreed in the 2030 Agenda, in particular para 74d, ECOSOC needs to review the efficiency and independence of its Committee on NGOs.
The GA should clearly distinguish between the two very different roles in which UN entities and stakeholders will be involved in the global FUR:

• Holding governments accountable for progress on the 2030 Agenda by providing complementary information
• Being themselves accountable for progress on the 2030 Agenda by reporting on their own contributions

Information should be compiled in a ´UN and a Stakeholder Report, drawing on experiences from the Human Rights Council´s Universal Periodic Review in this regard.
Further, functional commissions should incorporate the annual theme of the HLPF thematic review into their annual agenda in order to prepare contributions to HLPF that assess progress and identify major trends in the issue area from their perspective.
The thematic review of progress should be based on a cluster of SDGs that reflect the three dimensions of sustainable development, as well as SDG 17 on the Means of Implementation. Additionally, a transversal theme such as “inequality” or “accountable institutions” should guide the debate, which should be decided upon through a participatory and inclusive process and be announced in due time to allow for adequate preparation. It is important that the debate on the Means of Implementation create a space for private sector partners to present and reflect their contribution to the implementation of the Agenda. At the same time, the debate should address the accountability of private actors in light of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.Functional commissions should contribute with an analysis of available data from the SDG monitoring system with a view to the annual theme, and based on their mandate and expertise. Furthermore, the Human Rights system can make significant contributions to the HLPF both with regard to the thematic debate and country reporting. To that end, the HLPF needs to be open for contributions of relevant treaty bodies, special procedures, and ILO supervisory bodies to the annual thematic debate. OHCHR can prepare compilation reports summarizing information and analysis from the human rights system regarding the annual theme of the HLPF. Furthermore, country reviews can be complemented through “compilation reports” that are readily available from the UPR.A human rights-based approach to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda presupposes that human rights principles such as equality and non-discrimination, as reflected in Goal 10, as well as inclusive and accountable institutions, as reflected in Goal 16, inform the debate of the High-Level Political Forum at all times. In addition, the HLPF should consider human rights-relevant annual themes such as:
• Good practices for an inclusive and human rights-based approach to eradicating poverty and promoting sustainable growth
• Promoting and measuring progress in non-discrimination across the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including for women and other rights-holders.
• Governance and human rights as drivers of sustainable development
• The role of and requirements to private sector in the 2030 Agenda
To allow time for preparation by all involved actors, option (i) is preferable. It is recommended to decide on annual themes in advance and for a four-year timeframe (see Question 6).
A four-year programme of work between the meetings of the HLPF under the auspices of the General Assembly should be established to allow for adequate preparation and meaningful contribution of all actors. The programme of work should be decided upon through a transparent and participatory process.
The UN Statistical Commission should make country level data accessible online, building on existing practice with MDG data. The Commission should analyse available and identify progress, trends and gaps related to the annual theme. It should report on the status of indicator development and reflect upon experiences from their application and on the capacity of all countries to deliver timely and fully disaggregated data, which is a crucial component to ensure non-discriminatory progress in SDG implementation. Efforts to build capacity (target 17.18), need to be regularly evaluated by HLPF based on information from the Commission and stakeholders. The Commission can further guide and support states on methodological, technical and ethical/human rights considerations in relation to data disaggregation, as needed in collaboration with UN agencies, funds and programmes which can support in-country capacity developmentIt is recommended that the process to identify new and emerging issues involve non-governmental stakeholders, including academia and civil society, e.g. though consultation with (but not restricted to) Major Groups. This requires a permanent secretariat that is adequately equipped to receive and actively seek input from stakeholders within and beyond the UN system. Furthermore, the HLPF needs to be open and equipped to process information from the UN system, including human rights institutions such as the treaty bodies and special procedures. Finally, a review of the HLPF’s work should take place on a regular basis in order to identify and address gaps and weaknesses in its working procedure. The HLPF must live up to the commitments to be inclusive and participatory and strengthen the consultative role and participation of Major Groups and other relevant stakeholders, as stipulated in GA Resolution 67/290 para. 14 and 15. National Human Rights Institutions are among the stakeholders that can systematically contribute to the FUR. Further it is recommended to:
• Provide a common format to submit information
• Compile Stakeholder Information
• Identify one or more UN entities responsible for compilation. The task of compilation could be given to one or several entities,
• Make the Compilation of Stakeholder Information available online well in advance of the HLPF so it can be used by all actors for preparation.
The basis for a meaningful follow-up and review process lies in participatory and inclusive national planning processes with broad stakeholder participation, including by National Human Rights Institutions. Such processes should serve to formulate national goals, strategies and benchmarks, where necessary measured against additional national indicators, and evaluate and align existing national policy frameworks for implementation. Based on this, the aspiration for the voluntary country review at the global level should be to establish a culture of universal participation similar to the Universal Periodic Review. In line with the 4½-year cycle of the UPR, a 5-year cycle for country reviews at the HLPF would ensure that countries participate in three reviews until 2030. HLPF need a systematised information flow from the national level. Reporting at the national level should reflect the multi-stakeholder and participatory character of the Agenda. Regular and inclusive country reviews should lead to submission of country reports to the HLPF by States and other stakeholders, including indigenous peoples, civil society, the private sector and national institutions such as National Human Rights Institutions (A/70/L1, para 79). In addition, the UN-system should report on its contribution to national implementation. Building on the successful UPR modality under the Human Rights Council, country-level reporting could comprise 3 distinct reports: 1) a report by the State, 2) a report prepared by the concerned UN Country Team or regional Commission, which would include information from the UPR review, 3) a condensed stakeholder report, compiled by the concerned UNCT or Regional Commission, following the modality adopted under the UPR. Given the high degree of convergence between SDG targets and human rights instruments, human rights need to be prominently addressed in the reporting format. Drawing on existing mechanisms, the information for the HLPF should incorporate recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review and Treaty Bodies. To live up to the pledge of “leaving no one behind”, review of country reports should address the situation of particular rights-holders (women, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, migrant workers), including through disaggregated data based on prohibited grounds of discrimination. Reporting should address crosscutting human rights principles of accountability, non-discrimination and participation. States should report on implementation outcomes, and also on country review processes, plans and structures to overcome gaps. State reports should be complemented by additional reports from the UN-system and stakeholders, including National Human Rights Institutions. It is recommended that all countries
• Make specific commitments on implementation and identify responsibilities of specific state entities for implementation actions.
• Report on all goals or explain if they do not report
• Report on progress for different rights-holders and population groups based on disaggregated data and sharing the reasons for focusing on these groups as well as methods for data disaggregation and for focusing implementation on marginalised groups.
• Report both on successes and on challenges and lessons learned with regard to both.
Based on reports by states and the UN system, and a stakeholder summary report, the review should take the form of a constructive and interactive dialogue that includes Member States, rights-holder and other stakeholders in accordance with GA Resolution 67/290. To ensure transparency, these review dialogues need to be publicly accessible through webcasts and all information to be available online well in advance. A support fund should be set up to ensure broad stakeholder participation. It is recommended
• For the first review, for each country to focus on: commitments and adaptation efforts, including identification of responsibilities of different state entities, adaptation of targets and indicators, establishment of a national review mechanism etc.
• For subsequent reviews, for countries to report on adopted recommendations and to highlight one main success and one main challenge experienced during implementation.
The participation of the private sector as a Major Group at the HLPF will be an important contribution to mobilize new partnerships and support. At the same time, country reviews should address the accountability of all actors in Development finance, including the private sector. States should therefore report on the process of aligning relevant national regulations with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to secure the safeguarding of human rights in development partnerships domestically and abroad.Through an interactive dialogue, the national reviews should generate a catalogue of publicly available recommendations to countries under review. Furthermore, the country under review should produce a statement as to which recommendation it adopts and commits to report on in future reviews. Regional FuR processes should aim to exchange experiences, good practice, analysis of regional trends based on information from regional bodies and considerations on the annual theme with a special view to challenges unique to the region. These review processes should involve regional human rights mechanisms as well as Major Groups and stakeholders, including regional networks of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. It should be avoided under all circumstances that regional reviews serve as a ´filter´ for information from the national level, i.e. country reports, UN compilations and stakeholder compilations should not be summarized or condensed at the regional level but should remain the basis for country reviews at the global level.National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) constitute an important element of the accountability/human rights architecture in 106 countries. The International Coordinating Committee (ICC) undertakes accreditation of NHRIs under auspices of the OHCHR according to the Paris Principles. Under the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies, NHRIs enjoy direct participation opportunities including to provide information to the UPR. The GA encourages NHRIs to participate in relevant UN mechanisms and processes, including the post-2015 agenda (A/RES/68/171). The UN Secretary General (A/70/347) recommends that NHRI participation “in the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies and working groups, as well as in the Economic and Social Council and its subsidiary bodies and working groups, including [..] the processes related to the post-2015 sustainable development goals, should be considered, on the basis of the modalities for national institutions’ participation in the Human Rights Council”In order to live up to the vision of a participatory and inclusive FUR process, the HLPF needs to establish procedures that allow for meaningful input of stakeholders, including Major Groups, rights-holders, discriminated groups, and others. Stakeholders need to be granted the opportunity to present their contributions to the implementation of the Agenda as well as their challenges and recommendations. This presupposes a formal right to deliver written and oral statements to the thematic debate of the HLPF. Furthermore, stakeholders should be able to highlight their contributions at the national level by submitting complementary reports in the framework of the country review process. Likewise, the HLPF should commit to make all relevant data and information publicly available in a timely manner. Besides questions regarding access and procedures, a support fund is required to ensure participation of all stakeholders in practice
52
RICHARDSONCLIVEMALESCOTIAAGHELEK1306www.scotiaaghelek1306.comckwr@scotiaaghelek1306.comUKUKBusiness & Industry, Indigenous Peoples, Local Authorities, Science & Technological Community, Women, Other Stakeholder, COMMUNITY COMMONS KALIMANTAN AND sUMBA ISLANDS INDONESIA.Establish a continual audit for all STG's all nations.
General assembly needs to adopt a Chancery role that incorporates all partners and the Global Citizen.
Our suggestion is to establish layers of Fiduciaries from Grass roots up project by project.

We have insufficient date to ensure a high quality response while would suggest that all measures of complimentary collaborations need the fleet of foot from almost zero top heavy grassroots projects so ensuring that the internal drives to deliver are never laden or clad with heavy procedural detail of scant interest, generally annoyance of cost on time to the least skilled in this sector of work.
ECOSOC must recognise that the value return is to the credit of the global citizen. To secure this with exactitude we suggest a credited currency construct that becomes the reserve of the sustainable bio economy for all charity, volunteering and public services globally. This means that volunteering time, energy, work or value submission of any kind, including donations are raised to a CAT value statement, available for value optimisations. Many values, including a return to FIAT are possible, all will have optimised Citizen Value returns.

Hence, we view the HLPF and complimentary collaborations as a complete banking function for sustainability goals and results improvement guided directly by an integrated Chancery.
1. Least developed must be mobile platforms designed for purpose as a simple to use app and banking protocol.
2. All small island development states need improved access to online platforms and speeds of connectivity. This will enter sustainability planning for island tourism and general economic developments. Sumba Island is our target for island wide sustainability.
3. Land locked developing regions again require enhanced sustainable connectivity's. Each will identify priority opportunity to assess least cost potentials.

We would consider that linkage of communications, high level internet providers and preference based technology developers will be of most benefit to all in the ECOSOC-HLPF and SDG's network. The SDG's are a way to reshape primary values. Ergo: Such services can be delivered at cost and credited to CAT optimisations for a return of future abundant value.
Tourism is a massive integrator of all industry sectors. The UNWTO is best placed to access the industry skills and platforms that operate globally already, a modicum of collaboration adds untold values for the SDG's and the entire Tourism industry at every level.

Tourisms ability to constantly market a GSEF is without parallel, it is a unique platform of global connectivity, transactional expertise, fully subscribed to ensuring the quality of our planets multitudes of environments for business and pleasure.

The UN General assembly needs to recognise that UNECOSOC requires to integrate from unique, novel points of view and must be in constant reflex mode. .
In depth association with the Association of Scientific Experts on Tourism. www.aiest.org Engineer the capacities to be able to seek a continual auditing that stresses cluster relations, plots progress along transversal themes without loosing sight of those emerging priorities within a 12 month cycle.Prime input is to raise complimentary statements of credited values to all inputs, donors of any type for induction into the Currency Afforded Time CAT fund. always with a promise to return abundant future value from optimisation of resource optimisations. Establishing a national range of priority eradication of poverty indicators.

Standardising digital inputs by introducing a currency of exact measurement gives all STG activities as credited currency and a credited currency clearing reserve. This is an automated record of poverty decline as it ensures the Global Citizen is the primary investor in the STG's. Hence the return of measurable planetary values, social values and of course commercial performance values.

.
A banking protocol establishes a constant integration of all projects and secure value points. Enhancing the same with a STG's news and exchange platform that has interactive linkage is a "sticky" way to gain all functionaries at any level the ability to make recorded and valued feedbacks. Big traffic needs auto sorting for routine and the capacity to be random access for information exchange. Establishing a priority for transparency is as much a way of addressing development goals for change as shifting currency values to accommodate obvious credited activities correctly. If not, all charity is a form of articulated theft, no matter any goodness intent.

We should observe the annual themes emerging on a day to day basis hence it may be most correct to consider constant alignments that simply come to summary driven by the interactions with the Global Citizen.
Part of the essential part of establishing a banking platform and transactions activity at each national location is to ensure that there is local funding support directly from international goal driving supports. No not aid, a transparent and establishing partnership of all nation states with the Global Citizen, all nation citizens yet outside of national political dialogues so that all know such inclusion is automatic for all.

his means the program of work is quite naturally organic. The most appropriate structure will emerge proactively not be stricture.
Totally integrated. Yes.Delivery of the most appropriate platforms with which to establish the complexities of a global value trading platform driven by SDG drives and Credited currency optimisations. Direct linkage to rural and hinterland communities using the most efficient local means from grass roots to national. Retain Sentinel Volunteers in all nation states. The can be rewarded at UN rate conversions to CAT currency and hence have a return of abundant value at a later time. The process of establishing a complete bank, not just a fund, ensures that their is vested "credited" interest throughout every industry sector. Thematic reviews and constant industry activity driving will cause the CAT optimisations of value. We are trying to balance the books so from a sluggish start the prediction is that CAT will transact at volumes and velocities that may demand quantum computing power on tap 24/7 CAT has huge costs to address that have hitherto been inappropriate profit extractions. Still, this credited balance assist to end the constipation of FIAT in order to establish improved management of planetary resources and reach that major goal the eradication of poverty.Every single opportunity provided. When partnering the tourism industry there are no barriers to the SDG program. The levels of integration and collaborations could effectively mean that there are information and news flows from around the globe daily. Certainly interactive news flows daily. Possibly the most interesting news delivery system yet conceived working across all media platforms. The industry that lifts the internet to it's next level. We should all like to be an unbridled Global Citizen. Personal SDG of Tzuru "no more isms" Total Civility within all Humanity. Volunteers have to be accredited at direct UN income and benefit conversion rates and hav a CAT statement of value banked. Volunteering is fine, charity is fine, yet there must be a record of the values of all contributions. Too frequently a nation like the UK forgets that the value of our nation is supported by totally undervalued volunteering. There must be a future return on this value. Yes, poverty eradication is the big goal. 15 years, yup, we can do this. We find the perfect global HQ and build a platform unique in compilation. Guttenberg constructed his printing press this way. .In Summary of achievements.Constant currency transactions of credited values that have 1:1 value exchanging exactitude. Declining global poverty metre. Global Citizen demand drives will pull the direction and intensity of every SDG program.AS the very best of all efforts that could have been made given the progresses integrated with all others. Sounds a bit computer tec based. Not a bit of it funding direct credited in the way described promotes all bio renewable industry to prominence. Keeping fossil in the ground shifting values of nations to bio renewable, care, conservation, valuing the environment is an interactive hands on physical engagement that will certainly improve global health happiness and wellness. We step towards a new age if it pleases humanity to do so. Represent to the Global Reserve Banking Group the advantages to their established mono currency the introduction of a credited created currency is. This way the existing banking industry simply adopts the new currency protocols. A statement of value backed by the Global Citizens promise to the Global Citizen that requires not a single scrap of new legislation, regulation or manipulation to simply flow throughout all and any banking platform.From establishing a credited currency platform for any SDG activity that stimulates the growth of a sustainable global economy. Eradicates poverty. This is no threat to FIAT, it is what the global economy must have in order to push poverty to a memory. For Value.Constant engagementTOURISM IS THE INTEGRATION INDUSTRY OF ALL INDUSTRIES. WITH A REACH THAT IS BEYOND ANY OTHER SINGLE INDUSTRY SECTOR AS IT EMBRACES ALL AT FUNDAMENTAL AND EXECUTIVE LEVELS. UNWTO MAY BE THE FINEST INTEGRATOR FOR THE SDG'S AND THE POSITIVE DRIVER TO ERADICATE POVERTY.

53
CARLINGJOANFEMALEASIA INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PACTwww.aippnet.orgjoan@aippnet.orgFILIPINOPHILIPPINESIndigenous PeoplesThe GA, ECOSOC and HLPF shall ensure coherence and consistency in the follow up and review of the implementation of the 2030 agenda with the human rights obligations and commitments of states. In this context, the GA through its 3rd committee shall ensure linkages to human rights treaty bodies i.e. ICERD, ESCR etc, special procedures and the UPR under the Human Rights Council in relation to their reports recommendations that are very relevant to the SDGs. At the same time, the ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies such the UN Permanent Forum on indigenous issues can be channels and fora to submit reports for the follow-up and review. Thus, the HLPF should take cognisance of the work of these bodies and integrate such reports were relevant. Thematic reviews by relevant clusters of goals and or targets shall be considered, including cross-cutting human rights issues. There should also be dedicated sessions to particular group such as indigenous peoples such as the cluster discussion on poverty, health, education.The summary of discussions, analysis and recommendations of intergovernmental bodies and forum shall be submitted and presented to the HLPF during its meetings. These shall include the reports and recommendations of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Committee on the status on Women among others. The HLPF should also provide the mechanism for the effective participation on these relevant bodies in the sessions/meetings of the HLPFThe UNSC can facilitate the formulation of and guidance to indicators that can be adapted at the national level. In this context, the UNSC should encourage flexibility and innovation in developing relevant indicators such as for example those more relevant to indigenous peoples, and gathering of data that are more qualitative ( i.e. security of land and resources) than quantitative in measuring the achievements/ outcomes of the SDGs. An Agenda item on new and emerging issues relevant to the development Agenda 2030 should be included in the meetings of the HLPF and discussions as well as recommendations can be agreed upon on how these nee or emerging issues can be integrated or addresses without losing the focus on achieving the SDGs.The conduct of national reviews shall be preceded by the effective participation of stakeholders including indigenous peoples ( referred to in different names at the national level) in the national planning processes and in relevant mechanism and bodies in relation to the implementation of the SDGs which should include the formulation of national goals, strategies and benchmarks, appropriate indicators that should be inclusive in measuring outcomes for indigenous peoples and marginalised groups, means of implementation and appropriate and inclusive mechanisms for effective implementation. With this, it then becomes necessary and imperative that the review process ensure the effective participation of stakeholders including indigenous peoples and national human rights institutions. The cycle for country reviews at the HLPF should at least be three reviews until 2030 or every 4-5 years. The HLPF shall ensure that national reports are based on inclusive and participatory process, and thus reflecting the views of stakeholders-- civil society, national human rights institutions, and indigenous peoples. For the global level, the HLPF should also provide the means for stakeholders to have meaningful participation. implementation of state's human rights obligations and its linkages to the SDG goals, targets and indicators, data dis-aggregation including on ethnicity and inclusion of indigenous -identifier where relevantnational reviews shall also look into budget allocations to achieve priority goals and targets, level of ODA provided and the use and management of funds and other resources. It shall also look into policies on transparency and accountability and the implementation and to consider the good governance index.The HLPF shall provide for mechanisms that allows the effective participation of major groups and other relevant stockholders, particularly the national human rights institutions. In particular, indigenous peoples' representatives should not just be considered as vulnerable or marginalised group but will have its own distinct identity as rights-holders and shall be able to participate more effectively in the HLPF and in the conduct of national reviews. Thus, there should also be sufficient time and resources allocated for the meaningful discussion and interaction with these stakeholders In addition to this, reports and recommendations of indigenous peoples, major groups and national human rights institutions shall be given due consideration.The HLPF shall provide guidance for the submission of reports by stakeholders including by indigenous peoples, national human rights institutions and relevant actors, including their participation in the preparation of reports by states. The HLPF should thereby encourage states to establish inclusive mechanisms in the preparation of national reports, as well as the submission of independent reports of indigenous peoples, national human rights institutions, civil society organisations and other stakeholders.
54
GennariniStefanoMaleCenter for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam)www.c-fam.orgstefano@c-fam.orgUSAUSANoneThe GA should schedule the thematic focus of HLPF for both the sessions under ECOSOC and the GA. It will ensure the highest political guidance from the GA is based on a coherent multi-year plan for the follow-up and review that is not duplicative and fragmented.

The work of GA committees must be limited to elements of the 2030 agenda that are not already covered in other UN bodies or processes.

For example, it would be duplicative and wasteful to measure progress on Targets 3.7 and 5.6 in the the GA or HLPF. Both have ample coverage in functional commissions in ECOSOC, UNFPA, UNAIDS, UN Women, WHO, and other UN processes.
In order for ECOSOC to ensure a coherent follow-up and review it should track closely the to the guidance it receives from the GA with regards to specific mandates, and should also bear in mind at all times the normative guidance of the GA through the QCPR.ECOSOC functional commissions have no specific mandate yet with regards to the 2030 agenda. The GA should require a quadrennial report from these commissions on their work in relation to the 2030 agenda based on discussions by ECOSOC functional commissions on the interlinkages between the work of the commissions and specific goals and targets related to their work. Annual reporting to ECOSOC on the 2030 agenda is not an option in light of the time constraints at the HLPF and the need for the HLPF to concentrate on elements in the Agenda that do not already have follow-up and review mechanisms.HLPF thematic reviews must help reflect and take action on the goals and targets that receive the least attention in other UN review processes and the General Assembly, and on which implementation is most urgently needed, chief among them should be poverty eradication. These reviews will complement the other reviews carried out in other UN bodies and culminate together in reports to the GA sessions of the HLPF. The GA should request a quadrennial report from functional commissions on a general discussion of the theme "interlinkages with the 2030 agenda." Negotiated outcomes should not be contemplated here, since the only negotiated outcomes on the 2030 agenda should be in the context of the GA and the HLPF. Summary of discussions may only be useful if they accompany a full record of the discussions, which should not be to difficult to compile for DESA thanks to the technology that is currently facilitating the work of functional commissions.

It is not what other "platforms" entails here. If this refers to the human rights system, or other UN processes and bodies, they should not be integrated in the HLPF as they already report annually to the GA. Their input is already taken into consideration in this manner, and further reporting in the context of HLPF would be duplicative and wasteful.
Good overarching themes should be based on the consensus of the General Assembly. This will ensure coherence in the political guidance from the GA, and avoid fragmentation of the agenda by the GA and ECOSOC.

The theme should be broad enough to include reflection on several targets and goals, but specific enough to exclude consideration of elements that are already receiving ample attention in functional commissions and other UN processes and entities. One good example is: "The contribution of the Family, as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, to sustainable development."

ECOSOC should align its theme, as much as possible, with the political guidance emanating from the GA HLPF and QCPR. This will ensure that the annual themes of the HLPF will seamlessly align with the ECOSOC annual theme.
(i) Yes. a 4 year program of work is necessary. The General Assembly should determine the annual themes of the HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC and the theme of the HLPF for the joint GA session in advance. Only in this way will coherence be ensured and the political balance of the agenda be preserved.

(ii) No. Other intergovernmental platforms should not be involved in this decision, and should not contribute to this review. Other UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council and other human rights mechanism already report to the GA. Their input is already taken into consideration.
The Statistical Commission could continue to be the initial workshop where countries review the indicator framework. But it cannot replace ECOSOC and the GA in the finalization of the indicators since the post-2015 summit outcome requires that ECOSOC and the GA approve the global indicators before they are deployed.The General Assembly controls the agenda of the HLPF. Therefore if an emerging issue requires attention the GA should request the next possible session of the HLPF to discuss that emerging issue. If there is urgency, the GA should consider the possibility of an extraordinary session of the HLPF. Non-UN bodies and processes should only particpate in the follow-up and review on an ad hoc basis if the GA, in light of a 4 year review agenda, invites such non-UN bodies to participate and report. This should only be done where their input could be relevant and helpful.

This is essential to preserve the political balance of the agenda. Only the GA can ultimately ensures the political and even democratic legitimacy of the follow-up and review. Other non-un bodies that are not subject to GA oversight would inevitably inject outside political pressures, and project the power of countries and regions, as well as other private interests into the follow-up and review.
No minimum number of reviews should be required. this would contradict the principle of "voluntary" reviews. Nor should there be a suggested timeframe for reporting in this regard.The state-led review, should be presumed to refer to voluntary reports from governments, whether written or oral, not to a peer-review like mechanisms, similar to the UPR in Geneva. Such a peer review option is presumptively rejected in the post-2015 outcome because it only refers to "peer review" in the regional context, and not in the context of the HLPF, thereby implicitly excluding this option.

Political leadership, guidance and recommendations are only presumed in the post-2015 summit outcome in reference to the negotiated outcome of the HLPF sessions, not in reference to national voluntary reporting on progress on the SDGs.
There are no SDGs that countries should focus on to the detriment of others. But it would be helpful, in the transition from MDGs to SDGs to continue to review progress on the MDGs and their relation to the new agenda. This will be especially important for MDG5 on maternal health on which least progress has been made. There should be no "core" set of issues. This has the potential to seriously undermine the political compromise reached in the SDGs. But as stated above, it will be important, especially in the initial session of the HLPF to highlight the continued relevance of the MDGs in the SDG framework in order to ensure a seamless transition, to maximize the synergies between the two frameworks, and to not waste the implementation infrastructure already in place at the end of the MDG period.Oral voluntary presentations, as in the context of the functional commissions, should be presumed as the standard method for reviewing progress at the national level in the context of the HLPF. Written reports may be helpful also, as they allow consideration of information on all the SDGs in a complete and coherent way, and opportunities for this to be possible should be created.The only outcomes contemplated in the post-2015 summit outcome and the HLPF GA resolutions are the negotiated outcomes of the HLPF.

The follow-up to the national reviews will be other national reviews. This is the only way to read a "voluntary" review in the summit outcome. It should not be presumed that once a report on progress on the agenda is made a the HLPF the HLPF will take control of the national review. The national review must continue to be state-led and carried out by national governments.
In light of the time constraints at each session of the HLPF, regional reviews should be accounted for through written reports and accompanying oral presentations during a single am or pm interactive session of the HLPF.The involvement of civil society at the HLPF should incentivize organizations to work directly with capitals. It is in capital that the expertise and the skills of advocates and policy experts are most needed. It is also the place where all non-governmental organizations may have their views taken into consideration without regard to their ability to financially sustain involvement in international activities. Involvement by nongovernmental organizations in UN policy discussions should be channeled through governments in order to give any recommendations from such organization maximum legitimacy. It would be helpful allow non-governmental organizations to participate with oral interventions only after all UN member and observer states have been offered an opportunity to speak. Their statements should be limited to 2-3 minutes. Written reports should also be possible, but they should not be state-specific reports. While they may refer to specific countries' progress on the SDGs they should not be part of a targeted effort to get a country to adopt certain policies.UN system contribution to the agenda should be directly reviewed by member states through the oversight of the GA and ECOSOC, chiefly the QCPR, reports to the GA, and the meetings of the executive boards of the UN agencies. The HLPF should only consider the work of the UN system in light of the specific mandate of each entity within the UN.The secretariat and UN system more broadly should be invited to follow with interest the work of the HLPF and contribute its expertise for specific tasks when called upon by the GA or ECOSOC, especially for thematic reports in relation to the HLPF thematic themes. Member states should ensure that the Review and Follow-up to the post-2015 development agenda is a state driven voluntary process where national governments are empowered to design and implement their own path to development, without undue influence and pressure from the international framework. In this regard, a Peer Review mechanism is not well suited for this purpose, as opposed to an interactive session of voluntary presentations on national progress in the context of the High Level Political Forum.

International assistance and the UN follow-up and review framework should not be used to impose a “one size fits all” approach to development that does not take into account the regional and national differences of countries. Member states should continue to exercise oversight over the work of the United Nations System through the General Assembly’s Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review.

The human rights system and the United Nations agencies and funds must not receive an institutional role in defining the legal obligations of member states in the post-2015 development agenda. The legal advice produced within the secretariat, treaty bodies, special mandate holders, as well as United Nations agencies and funds, is unsound in areas involving social policy. Any such role would be interpreted as a validation of the many instances in which these entites abuse their limited mandates by asserting unfounded obligations on member states. Only state parties to a treaty have the authority to define their obligations under such treaty.
55
WheelerRobMaleGlobal Ecovillage Network and Commons Clusterwww.ecovillage.orgrobwheeler22@gmail.comUSAUSANon-Governmental Organizations, While I participate in the NGO MGp, we also include within GEN farmers, local authorities, indigenous people, women, children and youth, etc. We just do not have enough delegates to participate in all of these MGpsNo CommentNo CommentThis is incredibly important and these processes should definitely be integrated into the HLPF review processes; but I will leave it up to others with more expertise in such matters to determine how. No CommentFully integrate them into the process particularly during the sessions that focus on cluster or goal areas that most closely depend upon the outcomes of these processes. The HLPF should focus on clusters of closely related SDGs. this is the only way that adequate attention will be paid to the interlinkages that exist between various sectors; but at the same time as each cluster is examined an attempt should be made to look at the interlinkages that exist with all relevant Goal areas. Also, ESD, SCP, and Goal 17 should all be included in all sessions of the HLPF as cross cutting themes upon which the implementation of the different Goals and Targets must be based. Some goals should be examined both as primary themes that must specifically be addressed, along with during different sessions an inter-related goal upon which other primary themes depend - at least in part.
So for example protection and restoration of the natural environment should be a primary theme in and of itself, but given its interlinkages with access to energy, water, and agriculture it should also be included in a cluster that focuses on access to those public goods and services.
No Comment
Each of the targets under Goals 10 and 17 should be addressed with those other Clusters with which they are most closely aligned and inter-linked.

Primary clusters and themes could include:

▪ Energy and climate, food and agriculture, access to water and sanitation, and the natural environment thus focusing on access to public goods and services.
▪ Natural environment and oceans and watersheds
▪ Eradicating poverty, creating jobs and a healthy economy, gender equality, SCP, technology transfer and education
▪ Infrastructure, human settlements, finance, partnerships, and planning processes should all be addressed as essential means for implementation
▪ Healthcare, population and education
▪ Peaceful and just societies, conflict mediation, peace building, and strengthening our system of global governance
The themes of the HLPF should be determined for all 15 years if possible but at least for two cycles of say 6 clusters of themes. So, for example the first time around a cluster on access to public goods and services could focus primarily on energy with interlinkages to agriculture, water and sanitation, and the natural environment; but six years later the focus of the cluster would primarily be on either food and agriculture or water and sanitation with the others as sub-themes upon which they are dependent. Thus all 17 Goals would be examined as primary topics sometime within the next 15 years but also as supporting or interlinked themes at other times. Everyone should know well in advance what themes will be addressed in upcoming years so they can prepare accordingly; but the whole implementation and review process should focus on all 17 goals throughout the 15 years with an ongoing review process undertaken by all governments and reports delivered based on these less often. Yes, but it should also have its own programs and orientations which are at times much more narrowly focused and at other times and ways just as broad as the SDGs. The forum on STI should be based upon an attempt to transition to a zero waste, cradle to cradle circular economy which provides humanity with the ability to live within the carrying capacity of the earth, respects natural boundaries, and ensures that we do not deplete our natural resource base. Creating this type of economy should thus be a central focus and determine to some extent the themes upon which the STI forum focuses. Provide global analysis of the extent to which the global community and regional blocks of states are or are not achieving the targets and indicators set for each of the Clusters and themes being examined by that session of the HLPF. And suggest what might need to be done to ensure that further actions are taken that are sufficient to achieve the indicators, targets and goals.Allow flexibility in the determination of what topics and themes will be addressed under each Cluster and focus area, thus if a new emerging issue is identified it can be added to the cluster under which it best fits. One of if not the most important function and purposes of the HLPF should be to raise global awareness about what is and needs to be done on each cluster or issue/goal area. As such the HLPF should include Theme Implementation Days that focus specifically on the best that is being done, any and everywhere in the world, in regards to that theme or cluster area. Thus regional conferences and gatherings should be held simultaneously that focus on the same cluster or theme as that session of the HLPF; they should be interlinked with video conferencing so that at times we show in New York and in a global broadcast what is being featured from and in different regions around the world and at other times what is going on at UN Headquarters in New York. We could thus bring special initiatives to New York to highlight what they are doing back at home; while also going to the different regions to get reports and short succinct presentations on the best that is being done in each region. There should be both ongoing and also periodic reviews focusing on the particular cluster or themes being addressed each year. Each would focus on a different sector of society and government so not too difficult for any government to achieve. However developing countries will likely need additional and adequate resources to carry out the ongoing review processes and put together periodic reports. A trust fund should be established to ensure sufficient funds are provided to developing countries to establish and assist with these ongoing review processes. Developed countries could also pair up with a regional grouping of developing and middle income countries to ensure all have the skills and resources needed to carry out both planning and review processes. Eg. the United States could pair up with Carribean and Central American countries, Mexico and perhaps Spain (a Spanish speaking country) creating a strong block for effective planning, implementation and review processes. See 25.See 13 & 14 above. Also, an effort should be made and an early review undertaken to ensure that all countries and regions of the world are developing plans to implement and achieve the SDGs both internally and externally and that these processes are integrated both vertically and horizontally - thus across all levels of government from the local to global and across all sectors of the economy and society. A strong system of peer reviews should be established in all regions around the world both internally and between countries. These review processes should fully include and involve all stakeholders and guidelines and processes should be developed which lay out how to best do so. Support should be provided by governments to enable civil society to participate fully in such review processes at both a domestic and at the international level. The implementation plans and thus also review processes should be based in part on the extent to which the Rio Declaration and Principles are being honored and lived up to. Guidelines should be developed based in part on a report from the UN Secretary General for how best to ensure that the Rio Declaration is being carried out and fulfilled. The OECD DAC Guidelines for developing National Sustainability Strategies could provide a good basis for what to include in the SDG implementation and review processes as well. The review processes ought to examine the extent to which each of the Goals and Targets are being fully addressed at both a regional and national level; the implementation processes are integrated both vertically and horizontally; and efforts to achieve the Targets and Goals are integrated with efforts to achieve all other related intergovernmental sustainable development goals and agreements at the same time - particularly those mentioned in the 2030 Agenda. The guidelines should definitely identify and focus on a core set of issues, in addition to the status of all SDGs and Targets, which all countries would be encouraged to address in their reviews and, in addition, include a number of other issues which countries might consider addressing if feasible . In addition they should ensure sufficient comparability between HLPF reviews to facilitate cross-country comparisons and to help track global progress The country reviews should be grouped and taken up by region and/or similar characteristics according to each countries preferences - i.e. Land Locked Countries, LDCs, Mountain States, SIDs, JUZCANs, etc. These groupings could also provide a good basis for carrying out Peer Reviews - though peer reviews should also be undertaken between developed and developing states within specific regions around the world.
An analysis should be undertaken by the UN Secretary General and secretariat to determine to what extent countries and regions are taking sufficient action to be able to achieve the Goals, Targets and Indicators set.
Awards and mentions could be made of the countries and regions in a special media friendly awards ceremony that are doing the most to implement and achieve the goals being focused on during that particular session and cluster area. See 25 below.
See 13 and 14 above. Special events could be held during the cluster session to feature existing and new partnerships and to encourage governments and other stakeholders at all levels to support the development of and civil society and developing country participation in such partnerships. Stakeholder Forum held a very interesting and well developed Partnership Implementation Conference in Johannesburg just before the start of WSSD in 2002, but unfortunately there was not enough time to fully prepare for it. But it was a good model that could be replicated. Talk to Felix Dodds or myself (Rob Wheeler) for more on what was done and how this Implementation Conference was organized and worked. Much more needs to be done by governments to welcome and support the role and leadership of civil society in developing multi-stakeholder partnership initiatives and they need to display much more willingness to support and participate in them than has been apparent to date. The primary outcome of the HLPF national reviews should focus on how we can best scale up the means of implementation, ensure that all such efforts are fully financed, ensure that all levels of government are fully engaged in the implementation process, and ensure that civil society efforts are fully included and supported at the same time. In addition, an attempt and analysis should be made to determine the extent to which we are on track for meeting the indicators and achieving the targets and goals that have been set, along with the related international agreements that have been made that focus on the same theme or cluster area. See my answers above for how they address this. I mention regional processes in several of my answers. From 13: In addition, each of the regional gatherings and conferences should look at what is and isn’t being done in their region related to that particular theme or cluster/focus area. Thus those that are most active on any particular topic area will be brought together in their region of the world to learn from each other, create regional partnerships, etc. and they will then be linked up with what is being done at the global level at the same time. Instead of being treated like second class citizens in these review processes as we’ve often been in recent years with only a minute or two to speak and our input not included until the end of the session, we should be included as full partners in the deliberations and given the same consideration and privileges as the blocks or of individual governments - other than as voting/determining members. In addition, along with the formal sessions the review processes should include informal sessions that address specific questions and concerns in an open and fully participatory manner such as was done during the February intercessionals during CSD and earlier preparatory processes and sessions for WSSD in 2001 and 2002. Special task forces and groupings from within the Major Groups could draft reports coming from civil society that are considered as primary inputs to the review processes, drawing upon the best expertise from civil society dealing with any particular cluster or topic area.We would be happy to conduct and provide such reviews if and only if the governments and UN agencies fully support our efforts and contributions towards implementation and if sufficient funds are provided to assist us with such processes. For more than 20 years now the Global Ecovillage Network, which I represent at the UN has developed programs, curricula, training programs, initiatives and generally undertaken to create some of the most successfully sustainable communities on earth. We have done this with very little support from governments, though we have organized and held countless presentations and side events at the UN and elsewhere around the world. If more support is forthcoming for what we are doing from governments then we would be most happy to engage in such review processes and document the success of our network and villages. And we welcome the efforts of any government or UN agency etc that wants to come and take a look at and document what we provide and are doing. Please see my suggestions above. However the UNSG with the support of the various UN agencies and Secretariat should do an analysis for each session of the HLPF focusing on a particular cluster of goal and target areas looking at whether the actions being undertaken as reported on in the national and regional reports are sufficient for achieving the goals, targets and indicators that have been set and should then give recommendations for what is needed to scale up the level of implementation and to achieve the goals. Civil society inputs should be welcomed as a part of and to inform the SG and Secretariat as it prepares the report. Guidelines should first be suggested by the SG both for implementing the SDGs in a cohesive and effective manner, for achieving and living up to the Rio Declaration and Principles, as well as for carrying out effective national and regional review processes - with a particular focus on each cluster of goal and target areas. From 14 above: There should thus be a review of all 17 goal areas sometime in the next 15 years with multiple reviews being conducted for those that are examined during multiple cluster sessions. The primary focus on the reviews should be on what needs to be done to scale up the level of ambition and ensure that sufficient actions are taken to be able to fully achieve the targets and goals that have been agreed to.

18: UN Ambassadors and other illuminaries could join with the Secretary General and head of DESA and of particular UN agencies and processes focusing on a particular cluster area to present the awards. During the awards ceremonies short video clips could be shown to the world community showing what is being done in those countries and regions that are receiving the awards. Special teams of judges could be set up for each cluster area to ensure that a fair system is developed to judge country and regional progress and achievements.
56
BlomstromEleanorfemaleWomen's Major Groupwww.womenmajorgroup.orgeleanor@wedo.orgUSAUnited StatesWomen The Women’s Major Group believes that there should be a systematic dialogue between the GA, ECOSOC and the HLPF. The GA should ensure coherence among the actors, but at the same time promote innovative actions and the updated use of knowledge, so that the follow-up and review of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda is dynamic across time. We believe that the adjustment needed on working methods and agenda of UN entities should have a time-frame to reflect on best practices and the possible new correlations. This process should include workshops, open consultations, and other specific activities that are participatory and inclusive.Overall, it has to be stated that all ECOSOC functional commissions should maintain the integrity of their mandates and platforms whilst at the same time promoting the highest possible implementation of the SDG’s. The GA would have to make sure of that balance annually. The implementation of human rights instruments in full is crucial for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda, and therefore now, more than ever, they have to be promoted to the highest possible range.ECOSOC Forum on FfD: its agreed conclusions and recommendations referred to Means of Implementation of the 2030 Agenda to be received by HLPF and, also, this process should promote dialogue between the two Forums. Promote the highest ambition in correlating between the AAAA & the 2030 Agenda, for MoI language and implementation. Maintaining the integrity of the AAAA, which goes beyond MoI for 2030, is a pre-condition to the fulfilment of the SDG’s and human rights instruments. Continuing the Forum on FfD beyond 2030 is important to comprehensive institutional architecture that supports sustainability of outcomes.
Forum should follow FfD modalities & set the basis for an accountability process, including IFIs, private sector and other relevant bodies. Accountability on all commitments is crucial, including of developed countries, so review is not only on national implementation. Mainstream effective/ meaningful civil society participation to ensure transparent governance mechanism.
For the WMG, regardless of the chosen dynamic, gender is a transversal element, and as such should be considered in each of the thematic reviews. Women are half of the population and therefore cannot be only attended once every other year. It is also relevant to highlight the notion of intersectionality as well the diversity of human conditions, and therefore this should always be present in the analysis of the advancement of the 2030 Agenda as a whole.Negotiated outcomes should be prioritized as the main inputs for the HLPF by the functional commissions under ECOSOC, although for other intergovernmental bodies and forums, summary of discussions and other type of document should also be allowed. In any case, the negotiated outcome by the ECOSOC commissions should not only address the minimal elements of the 2030 Agenda, but the way in which the integrity of their mandates do promote the highest and the most comprehensive implementation of the SDG’s. The HLPF should ensure policy coherence, not just across the UN and its agencies, but also with international financial and trade institutions (this coherence must be in addition and in a complementary way in regard to the FfD mandate).For WMG, national reviews (cornerstone of accountability) should report annually on progress in implementing national action plans and the Post-2015 Agenda overall. National action plan for implementation would take into account particular circumstances, provide ambitious benchmarks to reflect human rights obligations & provide mechanisms for civil society participation, transparency, and accountability. States can develop national-level targets and indicators, in line with the global-level, tailored to circumstances. For follow up, establish a new body or appoint an existing body/bodies at the national level dedicated to conduct monitoring and review of implementation of the 2030 Agenda. It’s crucial to consistently consult with and include the views of a range of civil society organizations involved in implementing/monitoring the Agenda. Review of every State 3 times between 2016 & 2030 allows States to report on implementation and make adjustments from lessons learned.Compliance with the human rights framework, gender equality, the full guarantee of women of all ages’ human rights and their empowerment, as well as sustainability criteria. The principles of inclusiveness, transparency, accountability should also be mainstreamed.

The HLPF should establish clear guidelines for acceptable public-private partnerships. Private finance is short-term, profit-oriented driven and tends to invest with short-term horizons, which is generally incompatible with equitable provision of public goods, such as social services. Further, modalities for private financing such as blended financing increase public debt burdens and can shift risks to the public sector while privatising profits. Private finance must be conditioned on ex ante assessments of its alignment with human rights and sustainable development objectives, and with binding accountability frameworks
National reports should include the gender perspective in financial & non-financial MoI; the HLPF can serve as important space to highlight key development challenges that directly affect women’s rights, e.g. debt sustainability & tax cooperation. Reporting on MoI should be guided by principles of equality & equity, respect & protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including sexual & reproductive health & rights, right to development, gender equality, transparency, accountability & rule of law. Should include financing for women’s rights organisations & support mechanisms for full financing of national gender equality plans of action & strategies, including those mandated under Beijing Platform.
Can support unique role of all women of all ages as beneficiaries, designers, implementers & recipients of CB efforts. Should address transfer of environmentally safe, socially appropriate, gender-sensitive & economically equitable technologies to developing countries.
States should prepare reports at least once a year on progress implementing national action plans & 2030 Agenda overall; communicate success and obstacles, sharing statistics collected for such review with interested MGs and other constituencies. During preparation, states must consult with and include the views of a wide range of CSOs involved in implementing or monitoring the 2030 Agenda, with a particular emphasis on women’s rights organizations and those representing marginalized groups. Reports should be delivered to the national-level monitoring and review mechanism(s) in time to become part of the final report(s) submitted at regional and global levels.

CSO should be able to participate at all levels, including as experts on expert review panels, with particular emphasis on including diversity, women of all ages and girls, adolescents and youth, and marginalized groups. Mechanism should be in close dialogue with HLPF to implement recommendations & report on the advancement.
Should be periodic revision of regional review processes, highlighting the specific efforts to promote advancement of each region & eradication of regional challenges. Include a report of the global challenges in region, so that the HLPF can address them in this level. HLPF should:
- Transform regional preparatory meetings into periodic reviews at the regional level through Regional Commissions meetings
- Share experiences, best practices and lessons learned in implementation among countries with similar development backgrounds and histories
- Identify regional-level trends and challenges, as well as strategies to address them, including through cross-border approaches;
- Facilitate south-south and triangular cooperation to accelerate implementation, as well as other means of implementation; and
- Identify regional-level priorities for the HLPF
- Ensure mechanism for institutionalized participation of civil society organizations, other constituencies and major groups.
Resolution 67/290 reference major groups& other stakeholders. It further encourages groups to organize autonomously. The term “stakeholders” promotes a depoliticized model of governance that negates the different interests & power structures inherent in the global economic system. It obscures the sharp power imbalances between various sectors and groups and may encompass both rightsholders and duty bearers, and, as such, obscures the vast differences between their objectives. WMG proposes to enhance participation in the HLPF for “Major Groups and other self-organized civil society constituencies” rather than use of the more generic term “stakeholders.”
In order to participate as “constituencies” at the HLPF, groups should have governance and accountability measures that are public, transparent and understandable. Requirements for official participation is an effort to ensure that a balance of power, influence, and interest is maintained among the MG and OS
Reports should consist of:
○ Member State reports, in which States monitor progress and analyze challenges, and which also are informed by the national-level review processes and stakeholder consultations, particularly with civil society organizations, and are based on disaggregated, updated data.
○ Major Groups and civil society constituencies reports, compiled by the HLPF Secretariat from civil society and others’ submissions into official, detailed documents for the review.
○ United Nations reports, summarizing the assessments of UN agencies as well as the outcomes of other relevant reviews, particularly those from the human rights treaty monitoring bodies and the UPR process. Information should be shared systematically between these different review bodies.
It is fundamental to promote a firm process of de-corporatization of the UN, and, at the same time, to open the “fit-for-purpose” process to Member States and civil society, so that it is transparent and inclusive.
57
GreerGillianFpost 2015volunteering working groupforum-ids.org/ggreer@vsa.org.nzNew ZealandNew ZealandOther Stakeholder, Volunteering
The three arms of the UN decision making have distinct but interrelated roles to play. To maximize the realisation of the value of the review and reporting to the implementation processes it is essential that the distinct roles of each are identifies and enhance. Join sessions of the leadership of the three arms is essential in building coherence. This could take the form of joint informal sessions on annual basis.
Secondly, coherence could be realised through shared resources such as the DESA secretariat.
























































Ensure the involvement of civil society, as in the preparatory processes for the SDGs
It would be good for HLPF, in its sessions to receive inputs from the various other reveiew processes such as ensure follow-up and review arrangements of UN conferences and processes such as the annual Commission on the Status of Women, reporting on CEDAW etc. There needs to be clarity on how these feed into and shape HLPF thinking.
Utilise existing processes and gatherings that will provide annual or bi-annual data and thematic expert interpretations of progress.
The guidance should have some core principles for review that are at the heart of the SDGs,ie that review is participatory, inclusive, open, transparent for all people and supports the reporting by all stakeholders (para 74d of the Agenda 2030 outcome document). Review is people-centred, gender sensitive, respects human rights and has a particular focus on poorest, most vulnerable and those furthest behind (para 74e)
They will benefit from the active support of the UN system and other multilateral institutions.
The guidance should specify that these functional commissions and other intergovernmental bodies should seek CSO/ other stakeholder/ range of stakeholder inputs within their analysis. For example within Asia Pacific there is already in existence a civil society segment of the ECOSOC functional commission – the Asia Pacific Regional Engagement Mechanism that interacts with ESCAP.
Options i and ii are preferred as option iii would make it difficult to feature the interlinked nature of the goals.
Leave no one behind should be a theme
The role and contributions of civil society and volunteering to the achievement of the SDGs would be an excellent theme, particularly since they are called on to participate in the implementation of all of the SDGs. Disaggregation of data in respect to how it is shaping our review and analysis of progress. Progress on partnerships and the theme of a new global partnership and how these are working.
The UNSC should:
· help to identify how the existing statistical systems (including, but not limited to, the System of National Accounts) can be tapped to generate information documenting progress in achieving the goals;
· encourage and support efforts to build the capacity of national statistics offices;
· encourage statistical office-civil society partnerships in the planning, development, analyzing, and dissemination of data.
· support the development of new methodologies, guidelines, and recommendations for the generation of information on key national aspects of importance not yet covered, or covered well, by existing procedures.
Update on grey indicators development for sure or refinement of indicators?
Update on data disaggregation
Update on capacity building initiatives and challenges
Civil society is discussing its own platforms and processes and some of these should be regularly contributing in the work of HLPF. As in the SDG formation discussions, civil society should have a clear process to engage in their full diversity in all HLPF meetings and have a process of making statements – thematic or goal by goal . Major Groups and Other stakeholder system could be extended but it is important that the diversity of stakeholders is given the opportunity especially as the HLPF’s purpose is to assess / measure progress.
Engagement of civil society partners in the planning, implementation, follow up and review processes at the national level.
By featuring the main types of partners they are working with, and identifying specific cases where further support is needed and inviting help from local partners.
Space/people at the table- Volunteer groups should have a structured mechanism or engaging with the process. Provide space for structured in puts similar to the OWG and the Post 2015 IGN where co-chairs provided sessions for CSOs with presence and reactions from member states. The CEDAW example where CSOs are permitted to officially table shadow reports is worth emulating.
Invest in CSO engagement in articulating what is happening behind the data in the corners – tell the stories behind the gaps
Shadow report- support the volunteer groups to develop reports
Resourcing for shadow reporting and self organising- To cover travel to NY
Strengthen and increase funding to DESA & UNGLS support-
Develop measures/indicators to capture volunteering across the development sector and in all –
Capture cost of time gifted against what it is worth
Map where volunteers work in the system- in policy, people
Quantify contribution in hours and value
Outcome- what is the contribution towards outcomes
Support self-organisation in the sector to be able to take care of this extra collective work
Capture data from the programs, including different types of effective partnerships eg Private sector and civil society
58
WFOhttp://www.wfo-oma.com/FarmersMost important is to get the member states to produce on their national action plans. Now that the SDGs have become official, it is important too to start communicating about the new SDGs and to invite private parties and citizens to become active.

The High-level Political Forum must provides political leadership, guidance and recommendations and make a follows up and reviews the implementation of sustainable development commitments and should addresses new and emerging challenges; promotes the science-policy interface and enhances the integration of economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

The General assembly should encourage This Partnership to work in a spirit of global solidarity, in particular solidarity with the poorest and with people in vulnerable situations. to facilitate an intensive global engagement in support of implementation of all the Goals and targets, bringing together Governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations system and other actors and mobilizing all available resources.

It is striking that the European refugee crisis is not being linked to the SDGs. Even where the year 2015 is the European Year of Development. But it is not too late to start communicating about the role of DGSs in resolving the refugee crisis.
It is important that farmers and other rural enterpreneurs are invited to think about solutions. ECOSOC should help to facilitate bottom-up thinking.
ECOSOC can support countries in three different ways, through the MAPS approach: mainstreaming, acceleration and policy support.
• Providing support to governments to reflect the new global agenda in national development plans and policies.
• Supporting countries to accelerate progress on SDG targets. make use of extensive experience over the past five years with the MDG Acceleration Framework; and
• Making the UN’s policy expertise on sustainable development and governance available to governments at all stages of implementation.
Collectively, all partners can support communication of the new agenda, strengthening partnerships for implementation, and filling in the gaps in available data for monitoring and review.
The main concept of the 2030 Agenda is ‘leaving no one behind’. The WFO could play a role in identifying farmers’ organisations and co-operatives in such countries and get them linked up with the SDG process. Farmers’ organisations in these countries should be empowered to work with their farmers to propose practical solutions. This sounds like a question about internal co-ordination. As an outsider, this question is difficult to answer.
The main thing, since the SDGs have been fixed, is to get organisations and people active. The UN member states should be active and they should be sharing best experiences. WFO should make sure that farmers are represented and make meaningful proposals.

Anyway the UN GA should provide further guidance in order to strengthen the mandate and provide direction to ECOSOC, HLPF and other bodies that will play a role in reviewing the SDGs. As the review process still remains somewhat undefined, and certainly will look far different from what was used with the MDGs, further guidance is necessary. It would be a shame if the review process were held up due to any uncertainties in the process for member-states.
HLPF should provide political leadership, guidance and recommendations for sustainable development, follow-up and review progress in the implementation of sustainable development commitments; held annually, promotes the balanced integration of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development both within the United Nations system and beyond.
• seeks to strengthen the coordination of the United Nations’ humanitarian efforts.
• held annually, provides overall coordination and guidance for United Nations funds and program on a system-wide basis.
held throughout the year, review the reports of its subsidiary and expert bodies; promote system-wide coordination and review of development issues; and consider special country situation or regional issues

The main point should be to get the private sector active. For that to happen, the UN Member States should actively invite the private sector to play a meaningful role. Private – Public co-operation is the key to success. It is important to open the doors of the UN system to private sector initiatives.
This starts with sector organisations that should be assisted to communicate about the SDGs, and ‘translate’ these into the language of the enterpreneurs so that they can comprehend what the SDGs are really about and how they may contribute to finding solutions.
The HLPF thematic reviews should follow option i).
While each proposed option has merit, due to the vast overlap between many of the SDGs, option i) is the most preferable option in order to provide clarity to all stakeholders. The clusters of SDGs should be designated early on in the process so that all member-states and other stakeholders are aware of the upcoming review schedule with plenty of time to prepare.
This question seems directed at the public sector.
Again, what works best is to get people working together, based on practical, concrete proposals. Farmers are usually very practical people. The HLPF should encourage the involvement of such people. The WFO could play a role in the mobilisation of human resources through its members.
Public – private co-operation, getting enterpreneurs active. Providing best practices between people, companies, countriesBroad themes should be determined and made public according to option i). These should be broad enough to be receptive to changing global conditions and priorities. Having the options known in advance will enable more thorough review based upon more thorough data and analysis.
We need to avoid too many large time-consuming meetings. Based on the 17 goals / 169 sub targets, it should be possible to use a database to measure progress and to exchange best practices.
The STI should have the freedom to set its own themes, but encouraged to coordinate with the HLPF for consistency.
We cannot judge whether this would be wise. All we can say is: try to avoid unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy.
We cannot judge whether this would be wise. All we can say is: try to avoid unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy. A high-level review that addresses both areas that have seen huge progress in achieving SDGs and the challenges where there has been no progress or has been regressive should be submitted regularly to the HLPF. This review should focus only on some of the outliers in progress towards meeting the SDGs so that the HLPF can identify the most pertinent successes and challenges to allocate additional attention or resources to.
Well, what may work is getting the private sector and consumers to give presentations and to provide examples of what works and what does not. Exchanging best practices seems a good way forward. Best practices could be scaled up through the UN system.
The HLPF should encourage submission of reports and statements from such organizations and actors to the HLPF and actively solicit and support presentations and participation from these sectors outside the UN system.
The farming organisations united in WFO should be active providing examples of the work that is already been done. Innovation Groups could be formed across borders to share best practices, to formulate questions and to prioritize research questions.
The HLPF should allow and accept shadow reports to the national reports submitted by countries much as many United Nations instruments now do. This will represent a broad view of progress within each member-state while also encouraging diversity in sharing of experiences and leadership at the HLPF. Each country should also encourage an inclusive internal process that includes feedback and data from non-government organizations and sources within the development of their reviews. During the review process at the HLPF, there must remain a strong role for the MGoS organizations to contribute and critique the overall review process as well as specific reviews in order to generate the most robust review process and progress possible. The High-level Political Forum meets should deal with the issues of the science-policy interface and enhances the integration of economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. HLPF should provide political leadership, guidance and recommendations for sustainable development, follow-up and review progress in the implementation of sustainable development commitments; held annually, promotes the balanced integration of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development both within the United Nations system and beyond.

The role of the private sector, including farmers’ organisations, should be an important issue.
Statistical bureau’s should proposal a set of indicators for each SDGs.
E.g. the number of clients of a food bank can be measured quite easily since the food banks are recording client numbers. In developing nations, average yields or volumes trade through markets could be an indicator. Perhaps WFO could organize a small forum that produces a set of indicators for the farm related SDGS.
Perhaps the evaluators need to be experts. Some could pay field visits – meeting private and public organisations in one country / region - others could stay anonymous while judging reports and comparing country’s achievements.
In any case, statistical officers should work together in order to make sure indicators mean the same internationally and data gathering is done in the same way.
It is important to gather data about the participation (not just ‘involvement’!) of farmers, women, young people etc
The role of the private sector seems vital. Organisations like the WFO should be used by the UN system to mobilise national and regional farmers’ organisations and co-operativesPoints could be awarded by a panel of anonymous evaluators based on country reports. This could result in a country table, although this may be politically sensitive. Therefore, perhaps, this should be done by an independent organization outside of the UN system. From experience we know that tables certainly gets everybody’s attention. With support from its three overseas offices and in collaboration with other UN entities and UN country teams, therefore focuses on building capacity for integrated planning and policy design in different countries , linking to the national planning process key sectorial areas such as transport, agriculture, energy, water and sanitation, sustainable cities, waste management and disaster reduction, as appropriate. These activities in turn allow the Division to inform intergovernmental bodies on the relevance and impact of normative and analytical efforts at the country level
In Europe, the European Union could play a role, in co-operating with regional private sector organisations. But the latter must be made part of the process, and not just invited to meetings but not having any influence.
Again, for the farming sector the WFO should play an active role, perhaps in co-operation with IFOAM and other farmers’ organizations. This could be done by the creation of ‘innovation groups’ or international ‘focus groups’ making sure the farmers’ contribution to the UN process is timely and meaningful.Funding and support will need to be provided to most MGoS if they are expected to be able to allocate the time and resources to develop contributions to the implementation of the 2030 agenda. Well, it’s just an idea, but perhaps independent experts who ‘did it before’ (with the Millennium Goals) should be given such a task? Again, it is important to allow private sector and NGOs to be part of this. It is not about the paper work, but about facilitating a discussion about how to move forward.
The system should allow for the private sector to co-operate internationally. So when member states draw up action plans, they should allow for such cross-border co-operation, e.g. between groups of farmers (f/m), so they can share knowledge and draw up innovation agenda’s.
As an organization of farmers, we would like to propose consideration focus on agriculture as one key point of development
It is very important to have a communication plan and to get member states to start communicating about the SDGs. The best rule is: let farmers talk to farmers so they will understand best.
59
IPUhttp://www.ipu.org/english/home.htmParliamentariansAs currently formulated, IPU favours the first option in this selection (i.e., review by cluster of closely related goals) because it provides more focus and a higher likelihood of actionable recommendations.

With regard to the 3rd option (i.e., review of four SDGs in numerical order plus Goal 17), IPU sees no benefit in a recurrent discussion on Goal 17 given that much of the discussion on means of implementation will be taken up by the new annual Forum on Financing for Development that will precede the HLPF.

The IPU would prefer the 3rd option if it substituted Goal 17 with Goal 16. This goal (governance related) also constitutes a key enabler for the other goals and so can usefully inform the review of the entire SDGs framework at each session of the HLPF
the overarching theme for each session of the HLPF should strike at the core of the sustainable development agenda and transcend the usual categories (energy, health, education etc.) with titles such as:

- Decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation/exploitation
- Building economies and societies within planetary boundaries
- Securing sustainable livelihoods for all
- Ensuring inclusive, transparent and accountable decision-making for sustainable development
A four-year programme is more desirable to other stakeholders such as the IPU as it allows for more predictable planning. IPU will be better positioned to engage member parliaments and incorporate HLPF processes in its own five-year strategic planUN guidelines to governments should ask that reviews include an institutional link to the national parliament, i.e., parliaments must be involved in a significant manner as they bring to bear the views of all constituencies and political forces. This should include, at a minimum:

- ensuring parliamentary representation in national roundtables and other consultative processes for the national sustainable development plan;
- ensuring the government-led national sustainable development plan is duly tabled and discussed in parliament; and,
- annually provide a report to the parliament on the implementation of the national plan.

In line with OP 6 of res 68/272, UN guidelines should encourage national delegations to the HLPF to include relevant members of parliament. The parliamentary representation within each delegation should be provided with space, within the review process, to highlight how their parliament is involved in the design, assessment and implementation of the national sustainable development plan.
Consistent with the original intent that national reviews should consist of an extensive consultative, evidence-based process, the outcome of such reviews may best be presented through a multi-stakeholder roundtable or panel consisting of government, parliament, civil society and private sector representation from the country under review.

The review event at the HLPF should feature not only actions taken and progress achieved, but also feature some of the unresolved proposals that national stakeholders may have made to remedy institutional and policy gaps in the respective countries (i.e., report challenges and tensions as well as successes).
IPU is open to the possibility of sponsoring a regular roundtable discussion with parliamentarians attending the HLPF as part of the official programme and in cooperation with the UN. In addition to MPs attending each session of the HLPF members of the IPU Committees on United Nations Affairs and on Sustainable Development, Finance and Trade may be invited to participate.IPU will submit to the HLPF the outcome of relevant deliberations (i.e., resolutions, summary reports) of its Committee on UN Affairs as well as its Committee on Sustainable Development, Finance and Trade. To ensure visibility and political follow up, IPU would like to see all such contributions collated and circulated as an official document of the HLPF at each session.IPU is looking to institutionalize a regular parliamentary review of the SDGs within its own committee structure.

In particular, the IPU Committee on UN Affairs will provide a hub for parliaments:

- To report on their role in the design and review of national sustainable development plans;
- To assess how the SDGs are being mainstreamed in the legislative and budgetary process, identifying and addressing institutional gaps (the “fit for purpose” agenda); and,
- To engage the parliamentarians in the countries that volunteer to conduct a review for the HLPF.

A first discussion on the modalities of this review process within the UN Affairs Committee will take place at the 134th IPU Assembly in Lusaka, Zambia, on 22 March 2016.

At the programme level, IPU is working to update its next strategic vision and work plan (2017-2021) to integrate the SDGs as an overall framework as well as specific goals where the IPU has a comparative advantage.
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
 
 
 
Formatted Form Responses