The ECOSOC dialogue discussed aligning the UN development system (UNDS) to support countries in implementing the post-2015 development agenda and Sustainable Development Goals. Member states debated optimizing the UNDS's functions, financing, partnerships, organization/capacity, impact, and governance. While some supported greater integration of the UN country presence, others stressed that no "one size fits all" and reforms should not be preemptive. Most called for more data and involvement of civil society but views diverged on their roles. All agreed a shared vision and governance reforms were critical for the UNDS to maximize its support of the development agenda.
http://sdg.earthsystemgovernance.org/sdg/publications/coherent-governance-un-and-sdgs
Key messages of Policy Brief #4:
1. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) require appropriate institutional support to integrate them effectively into institutions and practices, to coordinate activities, and to mobilize resources for implementation. The High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) can be a lead “orchestrator of orchestrators” towards these ends, but will require high-level participation, innovative modalities for North-South dialogue, and links with “intermediaries” within and outside of the UN.
2. Monitoring and review processes are crucial to ensure accountability, facilitate learning among countries and stakeholders, and incentivize implementation processes. Reviews should be systemic, science-based and multi-dimensional, and focus on commitments and actions of countries, international institutions, and non-state actors and networks. The quadrennial United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meetings of the HLPF could consider revisions or modifications of the SDGs over time as new knowledge becomes available.
3. State-led mutual review of national sustainable development progress mandated under the HLPF could be organized around common challenges – for example countries coping with megacities or running out of water. Such reviews would provide systemic evaluations rather than focus only on specific goals. International institutions should be reviewed on their progress in mainstreaming SDGs and targets into their work programs or adequately focusing on areas unaddressed by other stakeholders. These reviews should be considered nodes in a wider system of review and accountability.
4. The new Global Sustainable Development Report (a collection of assessments and reviews by UN and other actors), part of the HLPF’s mandate to improve the science-policy interface, should not simply collect other reviews, but also bring together knowledge required to fill implementation gaps and identify cause-effect relationships and transition pathways, possibly overseen by a meta-science panel.
5. Governance of the SDGs should be designed to mobilize action and resources at multiple levels and through diverse mixes of government and non-state actors, partnerships, and action networks. This diversity in means of implementation must be balanced by state-led mechanisms to ensure accountability, responsibility, coherence and capacity to incentivize long-term investments for sustainable development.
Creating a Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation 2 Introduction On December 1, 2011, the final day of the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4) in Busan, Korea, 160 nations, civil society and the private sector endorsed an 11-page statement calling for the creation of a “global partnership for effective development cooperation.”3 In addition, a series of “building blocks” related to specific development issues were agreed by coalitions of governments, civil society, parliamentarians, local officials and the private sector.4 What did it all mean? One pundit wrote: “It will take weeks, months and ultimately years before the impact of…the Busan forum on aid effectiveness will be known…” It may well take years to determine the full impact of the Busan forum, but few doubt that it represented an important turning point in the history of development cooperation. While important implementation issues remain, it seems clear now that the relationships among the many stakeholders—donors, developing countries, South-South cooperation providers , civil society and the private sector—will change dramatically in ways that are not completely predictable. Busan also definitively shifted the discussion from “aid” to “development,” a shift that has the potential to engage policymaking institutions that had previously considered development issues to be marginal. Perhaps most importantly, the Busan forum created a new model for international development summits, informed by evidence, deep engagement of non-governmental actors and the participation of some of the world’s leading personalities. While three previous DAC-sponsored forums on aid effectiveness5 had built a strong constituency, the global financial crisis of 2008-2012 transformed the debate. In this difficult period characterized by credit freezes, slowdowns in foreign direct investment and rising food prices, growing concerns for climate change, food shortages and security charged the atmosphere.
For decades, global development discussions predominantly revolved around the volume of aid given and received. But the 2002 Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development broadened the focus of discussions to include the quality of the cooperation provided as a key determinant of progress. Both donors and recipients realized they needed to improve how aid was delivered to make it useful for beneficiaries. Oxfam has been actively involved in this debate, pushing for higher quality standards and aid that works for the people who need it most.1 In the years that followed, three High Level Fora on Aid Effectiveness were convened by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): in Rome (2003), in Paris (2005) and Accra (2008). Each forum marked a step forward. In Rome, donor and recipient countries were asked, for the first time, to focus their discussions exclusively on aid quality, with the result that they agreed to harmonize donor practices for improved performance.2 However, this approach left the essential contribution of recipient countries to aid effectiveness out of the equation and raised concerns that even harmonized approaches might undermine country ownership. The Paris forum acknowledged the need to include recipient governments in an ongoing dialogue on how to improve aid and shift the focus of the debate from effective donorship to effective partnership. Developing countries were invited to join the negotiating table on par with their cooperation providers.3 The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness4 committed signatories to respect and implement five basic principles: harmonization of donor policies and practices; alignment to national development strategies; mutual accountability; a focus on measuring and delivering results for people; and ownership of development cooperation. But, beyond making a list of good intentions, Paris also produced a clear scorecard to hold development partners accountable for what they were promising: a set of 12 indicators to measure progress in a number of crucial areas, such as the predictability of aid flows to developing country governments; the use of developing countries‟ financial and administrative systems; and the transfer of technical capacity to local staff. Each indicator included targets and a deadline to achieve them by 2010. Partners also agreed to monitor their own progress towards the governance commitments they made.
http://sdg.earthsystemgovernance.org/sdg/publications/coherent-governance-un-and-sdgs
Key messages of Policy Brief #4:
1. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) require appropriate institutional support to integrate them effectively into institutions and practices, to coordinate activities, and to mobilize resources for implementation. The High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) can be a lead “orchestrator of orchestrators” towards these ends, but will require high-level participation, innovative modalities for North-South dialogue, and links with “intermediaries” within and outside of the UN.
2. Monitoring and review processes are crucial to ensure accountability, facilitate learning among countries and stakeholders, and incentivize implementation processes. Reviews should be systemic, science-based and multi-dimensional, and focus on commitments and actions of countries, international institutions, and non-state actors and networks. The quadrennial United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meetings of the HLPF could consider revisions or modifications of the SDGs over time as new knowledge becomes available.
3. State-led mutual review of national sustainable development progress mandated under the HLPF could be organized around common challenges – for example countries coping with megacities or running out of water. Such reviews would provide systemic evaluations rather than focus only on specific goals. International institutions should be reviewed on their progress in mainstreaming SDGs and targets into their work programs or adequately focusing on areas unaddressed by other stakeholders. These reviews should be considered nodes in a wider system of review and accountability.
4. The new Global Sustainable Development Report (a collection of assessments and reviews by UN and other actors), part of the HLPF’s mandate to improve the science-policy interface, should not simply collect other reviews, but also bring together knowledge required to fill implementation gaps and identify cause-effect relationships and transition pathways, possibly overseen by a meta-science panel.
5. Governance of the SDGs should be designed to mobilize action and resources at multiple levels and through diverse mixes of government and non-state actors, partnerships, and action networks. This diversity in means of implementation must be balanced by state-led mechanisms to ensure accountability, responsibility, coherence and capacity to incentivize long-term investments for sustainable development.
Creating a Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation 2 Introduction On December 1, 2011, the final day of the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4) in Busan, Korea, 160 nations, civil society and the private sector endorsed an 11-page statement calling for the creation of a “global partnership for effective development cooperation.”3 In addition, a series of “building blocks” related to specific development issues were agreed by coalitions of governments, civil society, parliamentarians, local officials and the private sector.4 What did it all mean? One pundit wrote: “It will take weeks, months and ultimately years before the impact of…the Busan forum on aid effectiveness will be known…” It may well take years to determine the full impact of the Busan forum, but few doubt that it represented an important turning point in the history of development cooperation. While important implementation issues remain, it seems clear now that the relationships among the many stakeholders—donors, developing countries, South-South cooperation providers , civil society and the private sector—will change dramatically in ways that are not completely predictable. Busan also definitively shifted the discussion from “aid” to “development,” a shift that has the potential to engage policymaking institutions that had previously considered development issues to be marginal. Perhaps most importantly, the Busan forum created a new model for international development summits, informed by evidence, deep engagement of non-governmental actors and the participation of some of the world’s leading personalities. While three previous DAC-sponsored forums on aid effectiveness5 had built a strong constituency, the global financial crisis of 2008-2012 transformed the debate. In this difficult period characterized by credit freezes, slowdowns in foreign direct investment and rising food prices, growing concerns for climate change, food shortages and security charged the atmosphere.
For decades, global development discussions predominantly revolved around the volume of aid given and received. But the 2002 Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development broadened the focus of discussions to include the quality of the cooperation provided as a key determinant of progress. Both donors and recipients realized they needed to improve how aid was delivered to make it useful for beneficiaries. Oxfam has been actively involved in this debate, pushing for higher quality standards and aid that works for the people who need it most.1 In the years that followed, three High Level Fora on Aid Effectiveness were convened by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): in Rome (2003), in Paris (2005) and Accra (2008). Each forum marked a step forward. In Rome, donor and recipient countries were asked, for the first time, to focus their discussions exclusively on aid quality, with the result that they agreed to harmonize donor practices for improved performance.2 However, this approach left the essential contribution of recipient countries to aid effectiveness out of the equation and raised concerns that even harmonized approaches might undermine country ownership. The Paris forum acknowledged the need to include recipient governments in an ongoing dialogue on how to improve aid and shift the focus of the debate from effective donorship to effective partnership. Developing countries were invited to join the negotiating table on par with their cooperation providers.3 The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness4 committed signatories to respect and implement five basic principles: harmonization of donor policies and practices; alignment to national development strategies; mutual accountability; a focus on measuring and delivering results for people; and ownership of development cooperation. But, beyond making a list of good intentions, Paris also produced a clear scorecard to hold development partners accountable for what they were promising: a set of 12 indicators to measure progress in a number of crucial areas, such as the predictability of aid flows to developing country governments; the use of developing countries‟ financial and administrative systems; and the transfer of technical capacity to local staff. Each indicator included targets and a deadline to achieve them by 2010. Partners also agreed to monitor their own progress towards the governance commitments they made.
Public Governance Seminar - What works: Towards Evidence Informed Policy MakingOECD Governance
The objective of this seminar is to examine emerging national models for evidence-informed policy and to explore opportunities for international co-operation in the increasingly global movement to synthesis evidence on What Works in a range of policy interventions.
There is growing international interest in the use of a What Works approach and in building a global evidence-base for policy interventions.
This seminar asks the question: what would be the benefits of international co-operation and what practically could the OECD do to support this international agenda?
For more information see www.oecd.org/gov
How global goals for sustainable development workDemocracy Club
This paper asks whether a set of global goals would be an effective tool for changing global behaviour towards meeting the requirements of sustainable development.
With the next round of planning for what follows the MDGs under way, this paper considers both sides of the argument. It concludes that the discursive, realm-of-possibility setting nature of global goals should not be underestimated.
SUSTAINABLE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: HIERARCHICAL CAUSAL SYSTEMSBongs Lainjo
Keywords: Pyramid, Causality, Systems, Sustainable, Program and Management.
Problem Statement:
Donors, Multi and Bi-lateral agencies charged with distribution of development funds to primarily low and medium income countries (LMICs) have been guided by universally accepted goals, agreements and conventions. In a significant number of cases, adherence remains inadequate. Effective sustainable program management systems remain inadequate. These limitations call for a need to design an inclusive and standardized program management framework.
Hierarchical Causal Systems:
Aim and Methodology:
To Strengthen and Standardize Program Management Protocols and mitigate nuances, duplication and redundancies.
Seven components that facilitate the achievement of sustainable management of development program are embodied in a conceptual framework the ‘CARROT-BUS’ model. CARROT is for Capacity, Accountability, Resources, Results, Ownership and Transparency – all driven by an enabling environment and BUS stands for ‘Bottom Up Strategy’. The holistic, inclusive pragmatic and causality model is conceptually synonymous with Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. In this framework, each step of the ladder has a well-defined description including a corresponding, comprehensive and relevant strategy and case study to facilitate user understanding.
Findings:
Many beneficiaries continue to live in squalid conditions; poverty remains ubiquitous despite reports to the contrary and improved quality of life in vulnerable populations remains a distant dream. Above all, Western countries have woefully failed to meet their own pledges of donating 0.7 % of their GDP to (LMICs). Only four countries have achieved this objective.
Conclusion:
Designing and implementing sustainable development programs remains complex. The systems presented in this abstract are a way of addressing these complexities. They serve as an option aimed at mitigating gaps and nuances that are an integral component of development aid. An urgent need for a streamlined and effective paradigm shift is required. CARROT-BUS is one attempt to fill these gaps.
Building a Participative Growth Foundation: Make a European Sense of an Econo...Siripong Treetasanatavorn
This article puts forward an argumentation that a successful growth transformation requires people to work together for a mutual benefit, that is, growth often makes sense with partnership at the foundation. The EU leadership should lead changes on a strength position that emphasizes the necessity of a coming-together that creates a winning inside-out growth reform that resonates across social, economic and political dimensions and gains broadest possible public acceptance to achieve a strongest possible mandate that moves the public beyond one’s causes.
Key principle of this contribution presupposes that every meaningful policy must aim at serving people. In political terms, growth should mean cooperation based on fairness and a leadership demonstration thereof. Growth transformation
requires an orchestration platform that engages people towards actions. However, forward-looking, far-reaching and holistic growth policy shall never be exhaustive without a long-term sense-making outlook from a global perspective – indeed as
meaningful and practical as its legitimacy and ownership by the people.
In implementation terms, the policy transformation should aim at sustainable growth dynamics, resonating and orchestrating across multiple levels, policy disciplines and country members with a goal-oriented, comprehensive yet people-near management organ. Win-win partnership lies at heart of the transformation.
On Development and Innovation: How Ecosystem Approach Differentiates Innovati...Siripong Treetasanatavorn
Development of the 21st century needs more science and innovation. On two grounds this argument self-reinforces its legitimacy. An increasingly complex world undoubtedly requires stronger logical fundamentals to understand how global challenges come to forces and more importantly how they affect the world around us. Indeed, depth and rigor of the understanding that comes with science only allows us to grasp complexity as well as implications across perspectives with rationality. On a deeper level, scientific methods give us powerful principles and practices to deal with probability, uncertainty even biases in a systematic manner. One can never emphasize such significance enough, provided an ever greater scale and scope of system-level challenges in today’s global development world.
Examples in case of water scarcity, energy sector in transition and food security manifest themselves how much the current world lacks not only fundamental awareness but also a required level of understanding of why and how system thinking on a basis of scientific rigor could make a profound difference to the developmental bottomline. Indeed, how much neglected long-term consequences could distort sense of meaningfulness of one’s short-run developmental policy choices is no match to compound psychological effects that alter behavioral perception of rationality of the people on the ground who are both actors and victims of repeated policy failure. Still, does the world deserve a second chance?
This sense of urgency gives three argumentative substances of this discussion. First, on rational choice-making premises, how could scientific knowledge help us better understand developmental challenges toward behavioral shifts? Second, toward a long-run sustainable impact, how should we better leverage science-driven policy to orchestrate collective efforts especially when coping with diverse local caveats and practices on the ground? And third in meaningfulness terms, how would global innovation advance scale of changes with people on the ground?
DESA News is an insider's look at the United Nations in the area of economic and social development policy. The newsletter is produced by the Communications and Information Management Service of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs in collaboration with DESA Divisions. DESA News is issued every month.
For more information: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/newsletter/desanews/index.html
Public Governance Seminar - What works: Towards Evidence Informed Policy MakingOECD Governance
The objective of this seminar is to examine emerging national models for evidence-informed policy and to explore opportunities for international co-operation in the increasingly global movement to synthesis evidence on What Works in a range of policy interventions.
There is growing international interest in the use of a What Works approach and in building a global evidence-base for policy interventions.
This seminar asks the question: what would be the benefits of international co-operation and what practically could the OECD do to support this international agenda?
For more information see www.oecd.org/gov
How global goals for sustainable development workDemocracy Club
This paper asks whether a set of global goals would be an effective tool for changing global behaviour towards meeting the requirements of sustainable development.
With the next round of planning for what follows the MDGs under way, this paper considers both sides of the argument. It concludes that the discursive, realm-of-possibility setting nature of global goals should not be underestimated.
SUSTAINABLE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: HIERARCHICAL CAUSAL SYSTEMSBongs Lainjo
Keywords: Pyramid, Causality, Systems, Sustainable, Program and Management.
Problem Statement:
Donors, Multi and Bi-lateral agencies charged with distribution of development funds to primarily low and medium income countries (LMICs) have been guided by universally accepted goals, agreements and conventions. In a significant number of cases, adherence remains inadequate. Effective sustainable program management systems remain inadequate. These limitations call for a need to design an inclusive and standardized program management framework.
Hierarchical Causal Systems:
Aim and Methodology:
To Strengthen and Standardize Program Management Protocols and mitigate nuances, duplication and redundancies.
Seven components that facilitate the achievement of sustainable management of development program are embodied in a conceptual framework the ‘CARROT-BUS’ model. CARROT is for Capacity, Accountability, Resources, Results, Ownership and Transparency – all driven by an enabling environment and BUS stands for ‘Bottom Up Strategy’. The holistic, inclusive pragmatic and causality model is conceptually synonymous with Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. In this framework, each step of the ladder has a well-defined description including a corresponding, comprehensive and relevant strategy and case study to facilitate user understanding.
Findings:
Many beneficiaries continue to live in squalid conditions; poverty remains ubiquitous despite reports to the contrary and improved quality of life in vulnerable populations remains a distant dream. Above all, Western countries have woefully failed to meet their own pledges of donating 0.7 % of their GDP to (LMICs). Only four countries have achieved this objective.
Conclusion:
Designing and implementing sustainable development programs remains complex. The systems presented in this abstract are a way of addressing these complexities. They serve as an option aimed at mitigating gaps and nuances that are an integral component of development aid. An urgent need for a streamlined and effective paradigm shift is required. CARROT-BUS is one attempt to fill these gaps.
Building a Participative Growth Foundation: Make a European Sense of an Econo...Siripong Treetasanatavorn
This article puts forward an argumentation that a successful growth transformation requires people to work together for a mutual benefit, that is, growth often makes sense with partnership at the foundation. The EU leadership should lead changes on a strength position that emphasizes the necessity of a coming-together that creates a winning inside-out growth reform that resonates across social, economic and political dimensions and gains broadest possible public acceptance to achieve a strongest possible mandate that moves the public beyond one’s causes.
Key principle of this contribution presupposes that every meaningful policy must aim at serving people. In political terms, growth should mean cooperation based on fairness and a leadership demonstration thereof. Growth transformation
requires an orchestration platform that engages people towards actions. However, forward-looking, far-reaching and holistic growth policy shall never be exhaustive without a long-term sense-making outlook from a global perspective – indeed as
meaningful and practical as its legitimacy and ownership by the people.
In implementation terms, the policy transformation should aim at sustainable growth dynamics, resonating and orchestrating across multiple levels, policy disciplines and country members with a goal-oriented, comprehensive yet people-near management organ. Win-win partnership lies at heart of the transformation.
On Development and Innovation: How Ecosystem Approach Differentiates Innovati...Siripong Treetasanatavorn
Development of the 21st century needs more science and innovation. On two grounds this argument self-reinforces its legitimacy. An increasingly complex world undoubtedly requires stronger logical fundamentals to understand how global challenges come to forces and more importantly how they affect the world around us. Indeed, depth and rigor of the understanding that comes with science only allows us to grasp complexity as well as implications across perspectives with rationality. On a deeper level, scientific methods give us powerful principles and practices to deal with probability, uncertainty even biases in a systematic manner. One can never emphasize such significance enough, provided an ever greater scale and scope of system-level challenges in today’s global development world.
Examples in case of water scarcity, energy sector in transition and food security manifest themselves how much the current world lacks not only fundamental awareness but also a required level of understanding of why and how system thinking on a basis of scientific rigor could make a profound difference to the developmental bottomline. Indeed, how much neglected long-term consequences could distort sense of meaningfulness of one’s short-run developmental policy choices is no match to compound psychological effects that alter behavioral perception of rationality of the people on the ground who are both actors and victims of repeated policy failure. Still, does the world deserve a second chance?
This sense of urgency gives three argumentative substances of this discussion. First, on rational choice-making premises, how could scientific knowledge help us better understand developmental challenges toward behavioral shifts? Second, toward a long-run sustainable impact, how should we better leverage science-driven policy to orchestrate collective efforts especially when coping with diverse local caveats and practices on the ground? And third in meaningfulness terms, how would global innovation advance scale of changes with people on the ground?
DESA News is an insider's look at the United Nations in the area of economic and social development policy. The newsletter is produced by the Communications and Information Management Service of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs in collaboration with DESA Divisions. DESA News is issued every month.
For more information: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/newsletter/desanews/index.html
Our G20 Australia 2014 Summit publication in partnership with Intrinsic Communication.
Foreword to the G20 Australia 2014 Summit, Outreach Dialogue a Chance to Build a Better World by Victor Philippenko, Chairman of the Executive Board, G20 Foundation
Read about our view on G20 endeavors, next to Tony Abbott, Prime Minister of Australia, Enrique Peña Nieto, President of Mexico, Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary-General and many others.
How can the Global Goals for Sustainable Development be effectively delivered...vmalondres
Supporting PowerPoint Presentation of an international development seminar delivered at the Open University on 16 September 2015
http://www.open.ac.uk/about/international-development/news/delivering-global-goals
1. 1
M i s s i o n R e p o r t
Subject: ECOSOC dialogue on the longer term
positioning of the UN development system
From: Tian Wen Juang
Team/Unit: International IDEA
Date of the Report:
Mission to: ECOSOC, UNDS
Mission Dates: 15/12/2014
IDEA Participants: N/A
Country/Organization Participants: United Nations
IDEA Publications Distributed: None
Attachments: N/A
Executive Summary
An ECOSOC dialogue on the longer-term positioning of the UN development system
(UNDS) took place on December 15th
2014 in the ECOSOC Chamber at the UN. The
purpose of this dialogue (5th
and 6th
meeting) was to discuss the alignments needed to
optimize the UNDS to support countries in the implementation of the post-2015
development agenda, in particular the links between the adaptations of functions,
practices for financing, government structures, capacity and repercussion of the
system for development, associations and institution rules. The debate was to be
carried out with human rights and the eradication of poverty as key issues of the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the agenda.
Background/Purpose of Mission
The meeting’s point of reference was the draft discussion paper by independent
experts Bruce Jenks and Bisrat Aklilu and the adoption by the General Assembly in
2012 of resolution 67/226 on the quadrennial comprehensive policy review (QCPR) of
the UN operational activities for development. ECOSOC has the duty to monitor the
implementation of the QCPR, which is fundamentally the mechanism through which
the GA assesses the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and impact of UN
operational activities and establishes policy orientations for development cooperation
between countries of the UN system in response to the evolving international
development environment.
Report
The discussion between Member States was built on past work and was focused on
maximizing the potential and impact of the UNDS. This is to be achieved by ensuring
the system’s Fit for Purpose, in other words targeting the essential topics of policy
2. 2
coherence, flexibility (no “one size fits all”) and complete effectiveness, efficiency and
transparency on all levels.
The authors of the paper illustrated the four parameters which were inserted in their
analysis:
the role of the UN in the changing development landscape
the new development agenda
the long-term positioning of the UNDS
the interlinkages between the alignment of functions, finance, partnerships,
organization/capacity, impact and governance.
It was requested that the Member States provide an analysis on the relationship
between the four parameters and provide useful elements for such dialogue.
The authors summarized the paper through a brief explanation of each parameter. The
changed development landscape is a consequence of the increasing global size of the
economy and the matter of differentiation which derives from it, namely the fact that
not all countries are benefiting from this. Therefore the role of Official Development
Assistance (ODA) has radically changed with globalization. Another important element
to be considered in the changing landscape are the new development challenges
represented by climate change, the outbreak of the Ebola virus disease and the
concept of global public goods.
It was also reminded that the whole agenda is the result of the work in the Open
Working Group and the commitment of Member States to the normative framework
around the SDGs. Both of the first two parameters, the two authors pointed out, have
impact on the positioning of the UNDS.
Representatives of United Nations Development Group and of the High Level
Committee on Programs clarified the fourth parameter, i.e. the interlinkages between
the factors that are at the heart of the drivers of change:
Functions: the universality of the new agenda must prevail, for the principle that “no
one size fits all”. This is motivated by the reasoning that an integrated nature needs an
integrated intervention. Moreover, it was stressed that all parties involved must work
harder on the development and humanitarian approach to build peace and security, in
order to support the agenda in boosting coherence and collaboration in the world.
Furthermore, a critical function is the capacity to identify opportunities to leverage
solutions, because of an economy characterized by highly volatile resource flows.
Supporting policy coherence and defeating traditional silos are consequently essential
functions as well.
Finally, the UNDS must strengthen its capacities to be a champion of evidence-based
policy, thus providing leadership in the collection and use of data and financing and
analysing the optimal configuration of the multiple databases.
Finance: changes in the development landscape suggest that the use of ODAs, the
main source of financing for UN operational activities, should be optimized. Core-
resources are essential for LDCs, especially because they strongly rely on both core
and non-core ODAs. The volume of these forms of aid are significant in the lowest
income countries, so the rationalization of the multiple funding channels (pool funding)
is critical. Another pursuable option for the UNDS is to find new sources of private
finance, for example fees.
Partnerships: dialogue and partnership is essential for finding a way to better engage
with the UN and the agenda. Deepening partnerships can bring new resources,
contribute to innovation and broaden capacities for SDGs, but it is important that full
3. 3
clarity is obtained for an accountability framework (governance and integrity measures
are pending issues that must be resolved).
All speakers also recognized that a more systemic and broader dialogue with civil
society is to be achieved.
Organization: first of all, the “no one size fits all” concept was reiterated. Secondly, it
was noted that the Delivering as One (DaO) initiative has been largely implemented in
the last decade, allowing substantial decreases in transaction costs by benefiting from
comparative advantages and increasing the effectiveness of the system through more
coherent programs. A question to be answered is whether countries support the DaO
model and want to further integrate the UN country presence.
Impact: an ongoing issue concerns the methodology for measuring impact. In the post-
2015 framework, this will relate to the effectiveness of the UNDS support to countries
in the formulation of SDG-focused policies. Moreover, all shareholders were
encouraged to be bold in accepting partners, but then publicly spousing their norms
and values.
Governance: the quality of governance of specific organizations, of Funds and
Programs and of the entire UNDS is a fundamental matter. The principle by which “an
integrated agenda needs an integrated coherent approach” applies. Governance
related to evidence based policy making must always be accompanied by rigorous
documentation and expert representation, while all types of governance have to be
transparent and coherent. In pursuing more robust UNDS wide governance
mechanisms, the present dialogue between countries and all stakeholders must
continue to be transparent and inclusive, in particular boards must communicate
frequently with management and there must be continuity and vigilance within these
boards. Finally, the adoption of a principle that matters requiring intergovernmental
decisions should only be discussed in one intergovernmental forum.
Member States had the possibility to express their opinion on the report and a fair
amount of divergences surfaced.
Most nations feel that the report fails to adequately address the problem of the existent
structural gap between developed and developing countries. Notwithstanding the fact
that the report has indeed remarked the topic of the changing landscape, it misses to
sufficiently discuss about poverty and inequality in middle-low income countries. A
more balanced paper would have acknowledged more the challenges faced by these
countries in their path to sustainable development. Moreover, the impact that these
structural gaps have on the UN, especially for what concerns the strategies for
development in LDCs, is unclear.
Frequent comments were made about the lack of clarity of some definitions and
measures, including the definition of global public good (GPG). There is no multilateral
agreed concept of it, therefore it is seen by some as a misleading concept. For
example, climate change can be seen as a GPG, but it is actually a goal;
environmentally clean and sound technology fits the definition, but it is a mean of
implementation.
Member States hope for a data revolution in the near future. More information is
needed and data statistics have to be strengthened, especially in regard to poverty
eradication (where is aid needed the most and in which sectors must we intervene?).
A large portion of countries believe that a more systematic and broader general
partnership with civil society is required. However, others noted that the mandates for
4. 4
the agenda is part of a process of intergovernmental negotiation, thus to be Member
State driven.
The DaO approach received large consensus and this was motivated by the belief that,
despite no one size fits all, there are certain things that fit every country and are
common to everyone. However, a preemptive approach should not prevail: reforms
should be the result of negotiations and the evolution of a process. No policies should
therefore be preemptive in either direction.
Overall, experts and Member States agreed that it is crucial that all parties have a
common shared vision. Only then it will be possible to have shared accountability.
For what concerns the governance parameter, the core of all processes is governance
reform: the lack of legitimacy of governance will hinder the entire agenda.
Finally, as stated by the Secretary General in the Synthesis Report, negotiations must
be carried out in function of the fundamental issues of human rights and poverty
eradication, while keeping the dialogue between countries and parties involved
inclusive and transparent.
