WHAT IS A ‘GOOD PRACTICE’?

UNDP
cover

WHAT IS A ‘GOOD PRACTICE’?

A framework to analyse the Quality of Stakeholder Engagement in implementation and follow-up of the 2030 Agenda

United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs

The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat is a vital interface between global policies in the economic, social and environmental spheres and national action. The Department works in three main interlinked areas: (i) it compiles, generates and analyses a wide range of economic, social and environmental data and information on which States Members of the United Nations draw to review common problems and to take stock of policy options; (ii) it facilitates the negotiations of Member States in many intergovernmental bodies on joint courses of action to address ongoing or emerging global challenges; and (iii) it advises interested Governments on the ways and means of translating policy frameworks developed in United Nations conferences and summits into programmes at the country level and, through technical assistance, helps build national capacities.

For more information: https://sdgs.un.org/

United Nations

Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Division for Sustainable Development Goals

405 East 42nd Street, 26th Floor

New York, NY, 10017, USA

dsdg@un.org

@SustDev

logo UNDP

UNDP is the leading United Nations organization fighting to end the injustice of poverty, inequality and climate change. Working with our broad network of experts and partners in 170 countries, we help nations to build integrated, lasting solutions for people and planet. Learn more at undp.org or follow at @UNDP.

United Nations Development Programme

Oslo Governance Centre

Kongens gate 12

0153 Oslo NORWAY

www.undp.org

For more information: www.undp.org/oslocentre

© United Nations, November 2020. All rights reserved, worldwide.

i
logo United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs logo UNDP

WHAT IS A ‘GOOD PRACTICE’?

A framework to analyse the Quality of Stakeholder Engagement in implementation and follow-up of the 2030 Agenda

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This publication is the result of a collaboration between the United Nations Development Programme (Oslo Governance Centre) and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (Division for Sustainable Development Goals). The work was led by Julia Kercher (UNDP) and Naiara Costa (UNDESA).

The work was made possible through the European Commission grant to UNDESA: “SD:2015 Delivering on the Promises of the Sustainable Development Goals” and the support provided by the Government of Norway to UNDP’s Oslo Governance Centre.

We are grateful to the members of the initiative’s Expert Advisory Group who provided expertise and advice throughout the research process in their personal capacity, including Orsolya Bartha, Arelys Bellorini, Roberto Bissio, Birgitte Feiring, Andrew Griffiths, Martina Guarnaschelli, Saionara König-Reis, Elizabeth Lockwood, Thomas Nikolaj Hansen and Kathrine Sund-Henriksen; the consultants at Cooperation Canada, Ana de Oliveira (Researcher) and Shannon Kindornay (Director of Research, Policy and Practice), who reviewed and tested the framework; and Magdalena Howland (MA International Relations at the University of Leeds), who provided research support. Sincere thanks also go to representatives from Benin, Finland, Jamaica, Jordan and Timor-Leste, who gladly devoted their time to share knowledge around their countries’ practices. We would also like to thank Karen Brock from ChristianAid who kindly provided feedback on an early version of the framework and members of UNDP’s internal SDG 16 Task Team who shared insightful comments at various stages.

Graphic Design: Phoenix Design Aid

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ii
1. The Introduction – What is This Publication About? 1
2. The Gap – What is Missing? 4
3. The Methodology – How Was the Framework Developed? 6
4. The Analytical Framework 8
4.1 Analytical Framework – Quality of Stakeholder Engagement in SDG Implementation and Follow-up 12
4.2 Key Findings from Testing the Framework 14
5. The User Guide – How to Apply the Framework 18
5.1 General Guidance 20
5.2 Key Steps 21
Annex 1. Bibliography 26
Annex 2. Analysis Sheet for Stakeholder Engagement Practices 29
1

1. THE INTRODUCTION – WHAT IS THIS PUBLICATION ABOUT?

2
icons sustainable development goals

One of the most prominent aspects of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is the significant role it assigns to stakeholders in implementation, follow-up and review. While governments have the main responsibility for implementing the 2030 Agenda, stakeholders from different sectors and at all levels are called on to play different roles in contributing to the 2030 Agenda. The 2030 Agenda highlights two roles that stakeholders can play in particular: holding governments accountablefor their actions or lack thereof 1 (e.g., by tracking implementation or engaging in advocacy activities) and making their ‘own contributions’ 2 to implement the SDGs (e.g., by aligning their own actions or by providing services). The latter sometimes happens in close collaboration or even on behalf of governments. In practice, there are additional roles that stakeholders can play, such as providing inputs to policymaking. Some stakeholders will focus on one or the other role and some will play overlapping roles.

Stakeholders from different sectors and at all levels are called on to play different roles in contributing to the 2030 Agenda

This publication focuses on the first-mentioned role that stakeholders play: holding their governments to account. The ‘accountability role’ of stakeholders is not only explicit in the narrative of the 2030 Agenda, including its call to ‘Leave No One Behind’. It is also refined and supported by one entire goal: SDG 16, which promotes, inter alia, effective, accountable and transparent institutions (16.6), responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making (16.7) and access to information and fundamental freedoms (16.10) as well as targets on Peace, Justice and Inclusion across SDGs. 3 SDG 16+ can thus be seen as enabling stakeholders to play their accountability role.

Many stakeholder engagement practices are strong in some ways but weak in others

Five years into the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, countries’ strategies to engage stakeholders are still at an early stage and sometimes partial or superficial, as discussed further below. Also, many stakeholder engagement practices are strong in some ways but weak in others, with little guidance available to analyse this systematically. The

3

Covid-19 pandemic has added to the challenge: Governments may have fewer resources or dedicate less attention for engaging stakeholders while, at the same time, dialogue between authorities and people is more important than ever in order to guide government action and maintain social cohesion.

Against this background, the overall goal of this publication is to offer a tool for governments, stakeholders and development partners alike, and ideally jointly, to examine the quality of stakeholder engagement practices at different stages of the 2030 Agenda cycle against key principles. The tool can also be used by UN agencies in their own stakeholder engagement processes. It is hoped that this will help improve stakeholder engagement practices, foster dialogue between implementers of a practice and stakeholders, and support learning across countries.

The following chapters highlight what guidance is currently missing (2. The Gap), explain how the present analytical framework was developed (3. The Methodology), present the analytical framework and key findings from testing it with practices in five countries (4. The Analytical Framework) and offer guidance on how to use the framework in practice (5. The User Guide), including during a pandemic or similar crisis.

A tool for governments, stakeholders and development partners alike, and ideally jointly, to examine the quality of stakeholder engagement practices at different stages of the 2030 Agenda cycle against key principles

4

2. THE GAP – WHAT IS MISSING?

5

Although the majority of governments report on engaging stakeholders, many struggle to set up and maintain open, inclusive, participatory and transparent processes

Analyses of Voluntary National Reviews (VNR) since 2016 show that, although the majority of governments report on engaging stakeholders in processes related to the implementation and follow-up of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, many struggle to set up and maintain open, inclusive, participatory and transparent processes(UNDESA, 2020). 4 In many cases, engagement strategies are at an early stage, insufficient or superficial. This may be due to reluctance to engage stakeholders where this is less common. Governments have also indicated the need for support to address practical challenges, e.g., on identifying relevant and new stakeholders, the level and type of engagement at different stages, resources for engagement, cultural barriers, and technical and social constraints.

Little guidance is available to analyse the quality of stakeholder engagement systematically

There are various efforts to support national governments in strengthening stakeholder engagement in implementing the SDGs. So far, much of the guidance by the United Nations (UN), by Member States or by stakeholders themselves focuses on providing anecdotal evidence, usually from the perspective of just one actor and without qualitative analysis. Such an illustrative approach neglects the fact that, in practice, few efforts to engage stakeholders can be considered exclusively ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Many stakeholder engagement practices are strong in some ways but might be weak in others. What is missing, thus, is guidance on how to analyse different aspects of stakeholder engagement practices systematically. Ideally, such analysis is carried out by national actors themselves and jointly, so they can adapt their own practices and share learning directly with their peers. As we move into the Decade of Action for Delivery, 5 the need for such ‘how-to’ guidance on stakeholder engagement in SDG processes will increase.

Against this background, UNDP and UNDESA joined forces to develop the present framework. Its objective is to enable governments, stakeholders and development partners alike, and ideally jointly, to examine and strengthen the quality of their stakeholder engagement practices. UNDP and UNDESA stand ready to continue supporting national partners in using the framework and in documenting their experiences so that national actors across countries and regions can learn from each other.

6

3. THE METHODOLOGY – HOW WAS THE FRAMEWORK DEVELOPED?

7

The framework was developed by UNDP and UNDESA with the support of an Expert Advisory Group

The framework was developed by UNDP and UNDESA with the support of an Expert Advisory Group of experts from civil society, national human rights institutions and government representatives (see Box 1).

The development of the framework included the following steps:

8

4. THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

9

Conceptually, the framework is based on three key principles of quality stakeholder engagement, including two dimensions each, that are highlighted across the 2030 Agenda and specifically reflected in SDG 16

Conceptually, the framework is based on three key principles of quality stakeholder engagement, including two dimensions each, that are highlighted across the 2030 Agenda and specifically reflected in SDG 16, while building on existing literature on quality stakeholder engagement by UN agencies, civil society actors and others (see Bibliography):

  1. Inclusion, 8 covering non-discrimination and accessibility;
  2. Participation, 9 covering access to information in relation to the substance on which the engagement takes place and influence in decision-making; and
  3. Accountability, 10 covering transparency about the engagement process and responsiveness.

Diagram 1: Principles and Dimensions of the Analytical Framework

Quality of stakeholder engagement are Inclusion: (1) Non-discrimination (2) Accessibility; Participation (3) Access to information (4) Influence in decision-making; Accountability (5) Transparency (6) Responsiveness

For each dimension, four levels are identified on a continuum to represent increasing levels of quality stakeholder engagement

For each dimension of the framework, four levels are identified on a continuum to represent increasing levels of quality stakeholder engagement. The first level (0) points to very limited efforts with respect to quality stakeholder engagement. Each level that follows (1-2) shows an increasing step of effort, culminating in the highest level (3), which includes a set of criteria that demonstrates inclusive and collaborative stakeholder engagement. The levels have been deliberately structured as mutually exclusive to facilitate analysis of engagement practices in a simple yet robust manner. Below is a list of the key definitions of the principles and aspects included in the framework.

To fully realize these key principles and dimensions, an enabling environment for stakeholder engagement is important and structural constraints in this regard should be noted (see User Guide).

A printable version of the framework can be found in Annex 2.

10 11 12

4.1 Analytical Framework – Quality of Stakeholder Engagement in SDG Implementation and Follow-up

INCREASING INTENSITY

CRITERIA Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Inclusion 1. Non- Discrimination Implementer of the practice makes no effort to engage a diverse range of sectors and actors, especially groups that are traditionally left out of decision- making in SDG processes. Implementer of the practice occasionally invites some– often the same – groups. Others that are affected by the issue are missing and resources have not been allocated to support inclusion. Implementer carries out occasional mapping/s to identify sectors and actors most left behind that should be engaged, includes stakeholders that have selected their own representation and allocates resources to facilitate inclusion. No evidence of inclusion of diverse actors in designing the process.

Implementer of the practice does all of the following:

2. Accessibility Implementer of the practice does not address accessibility issues such as access to buildings; distance to venues; language awareness; knowledge, time or digital barriers; safety and security of vulnerable groups. Accessibility has been identified as a requirement and implementer of the practice allocates resources to address accessibility requirements upon request or on an ad hoc basis. Implementer of the practice identifies accessibility concerns early on and uses this information to design the engagement process with resources allocated as necessary.

Implementer of the practice does all of the following:

Participation 3. Access to Information (information about substance) Implementer of the practice does not provide official information. No data or information is publicly available. Implementer of the practice provides information upon request. It may be hard to know whom to contact, or data is exclusive (e.g., mailing list). Implementer of the practice provides occasional information, via a dedicated public channel (e.g., media, website).

Implementer of the practice does all of the following:

13

4.1 Analytical Framework – Quality of Stakeholder Engagement in SDG Implementation and Follow-up, cont.

INCREASING INTENSITY

CRITERIA Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Participation 4. Influence in decision-making Implementer of the practice does not involve stakeholders at any point of decision-making processes. Implementer of the practice asks stakeholders for comments occasionally and ad hoc. Implementer of the practice consults stakeholders regularly. Some elements of co-creation exist; however, stakeholders do not actively participate in all or most decision-making processes and it is unclear how inputs influence overall decision-making.

Implementer of the practice does all of the following:

Accountability 5. Transparency (information about process) Implementer of the practice does not share any public information on process, including timelines, stakeholders involved and institutions responsible. Implementer of the practice provides only some information on the process publicly or upon request, but it is difficult to know whom to contact; only some stakeholders are provided full information. Information on the process is provided publicly and is being followed.

Implementer of the practice does all of the following:

6. Responsiveness Implementer of the practice does not offer stakeholders the possibility to provide feedback on how the process reflects the principles of inclusion, participation and accountability. No mechanism exists to redress weaknesses. Implementer of the practice receives feedback on the process. Implementer of the practice receives feedback on the process from stakeholders and promises to redress weaknesses.

Implementer of the practice does all of the following:

14

4.2 Key Findings from Testing the Framework

The analytical framework was tested 13 by selecting 14 and reviewing a small sample of seven practices from five countries (see Table 1).

It is important to note that the purpose of the testing was not to comprehensively analyse these practices, but rather to illustrate how the framework can be applied, for instance

The exercise to test the framework yielded insights on the usability of the framework and on the kind of information that it can help produce.

Table 1: Country Practices that the framework was tested with

Practice Country Description
Co-development of consultation framework Benin Benin established a framework for consultation with civil society organizations to create a dialogue on the implementation and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda.
Local coordination mechanism Benin set up a technical SDG commission within the National Association of Municipalities of Benin to involve mayors and officials in the national coordination of the SDGs.
Multi-stakeholder operational tool Finland Finland developed an operational tool – Society’s Commitment to Sustainable Development – in order to promote multi-stakeholder engagement towards the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
Stakeholder engagement strategy Jordan Jordan’s Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation prepared a stakeholder engagement strategy to ensure wide participation from stakeholders in the drafting of the 2017 VNR.
Coordination Jordan’s Higher National Committee for Sustainable Development was formed to provide guidance and is responsible for following up on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda
Accountability Jamaica Jamaica’s Auditor General’s Department audited the government’s preparedness to implement the 2030 Agenda.
Consultation Timor- Leste Timor-Leste established several multi-stakeholder engagement mechanisms and a community consultation process to ensure representation and inclusion of stakeholders at risk of being left behind.
15

Key results of the testing included the following:

Non-discrimination: The practices scoring high (level 3) demonstrated all aspects of this level in the framework. For example, one country’s multi-stakeholder operational tool engaged a wide variety of non-state members, including representatives of groups generally left behind. On the other hand, one practice scored low (level 0) as there was no evidence of efforts to engage a diverse range of sectors and actors.

Accessibility: Most practices failed to properly address all accessibility issues. For example, in one case, although the responsible authority’s website included the ability to listen to what was written on a webpage through a general audio option, it was unclear what steps were taken to ensure that engagement activities were accessible for relevant stakeholders.

Access to information: In one practice, occasional information was provided on the substance, but it was not clear whether such information was made publicly available ahead of decisions and with enough time for reactions. There were also no explanations on how differing views were dealt with. In another practice, information was usually exclusive to people and organizations who already had contacts in the government, which, in turn, undermines transparency and accessibility.

Influence in decision-making: In one case, there were regular consultations with different stakeholders (e.g., mayors from all of the country’s municipalities or representatives from civil society organizations and other non-state actors), but it was unclear to what extent the inputs were actually able to influence outcomes.

Transparency: No practice scored extremely low (level 0), indicating that some information around the process (e.g., on the stakeholders involved or on institutions responsible) was publicly shared. However, several practices scored level 1, showing that the information shared is insufficient for stakeholders to know whether the envisaged process is being followed.

16

Responsiveness: Several practices scored lowest (level 0), suggesting that the practices’ implementers may not provide appropriate feedback to stakeholders and that there were no mechanisms for ongoing monitoring and/or to flag grievances. The two practices scoring high (level 3) had very clear ways for stakeholders to provide feedback such as surveys or open channels, including dedicated website spaces, social media and staff contacts.

Overall,

For practitioners interested in using the framework, the testing also illustrated what the framework can offer and what users need to ensure when using it:

What the Framework Can Do:

17

What Users Need to Do:

The above findings have informed the User Guide provided in the next section.

18

5. THE USER GUIDE – HOW TO APPLY THE FRAMEWORK

19

The purpose of the present analytical framework is to enable governments, stakeholders, development partners and other stakeholders to examine and strengthen the quality of their stakeholder engagement practices – ideally jointly

The purpose of the present analytical framework is to enable governments, stakeholders, development partners and other stakeholders to examine and strengthen the quality of their stakeholder engagement practices – ideally jointly. The framework uses a matrix format that allows one to analyse and score a practice against different aspects that determine the quality of stakeholder engagement. This simple matrix format allows one to visualize which aspects of a practice are stronger and which are weaker so that the latter can be properly addressed. This section offers guidance on how to use the framework, including who should use it, when, and on the basis of what and how.

20

5.1 General Guidance

The framework can be used to develop a new practice (ex ante) or to review an existing practice (ex post)

The framework can be used by different actors, collectively or unilaterally. The most common modalities to use the framework may be collective analysis, self-assessment and external analysis

  1. WHAT: To reduce the risk of bias in the analysis, it is essential to draw on a broad spectrum of sources when gathering information on a given practice. Interviews are an excellent source of information that might either corroborate or challenge what can be found in written materials. Moreover, interviews are useful to fill gaps found in the documentation, thereby elucidating points that cannot be clarified only by desk-based research. Information should be as up-to-date as possible.
  2. WHEN: Analysing a stakeholder engagement practice, especially when carried out collectively (see below), can take place at different times, e.g., to develop a new practice (ex ante) or to review an existing practice in order to learn from and improve on it (ex post). It is also important to note that stakeholder engagement practices are not static and that, when they evolve, their quality can increase or decrease. It is thus recommended to use the framework regularly or at least at key points in time, e.g., when major changes to a practice occur or when the situation changes significantly, such as with the Covid-19 pandemic.
  3. WHO: The framework can be used by different actors, collectively or unilaterally. The most common modalities to use the framework may be collective analysis, self- assessment and external analysis:
21

5.2 Key Steps

The following steps are recommended, depending on whether the analytical framework is used for Collective Analysis or Unilateral Analysis. Please, check Annex 2 for a user-friendly version of the analytical framework, which is also available here for download.

COLLECTIVE ANALYSIS

As a pre-step, those who propose the joint exercise, whether implementer or interested stakeholders, need to assign a person or team to coordinate and lead on the following steps:

  1. Collect INFORMATION about the engagement practice

    a. Collect background information on each element in the framework, using diverse sources that can be referenced, e.g., official government documents (VNRs, government websites, etc.), information from civil society actors and National Human Rights Institutions, Terms of Reference, media reports, reports prepared by United Nations entities, the human rights mechanisms and regional commissions.

    22

    b. Consider whether the collected information is inclusive of all groups and people affected by the practice. If there are gaps and no reports exist, explore alternative avenues for understanding these actors’ perceptions, e.g., via storytelling, visual data, interviews.

    c. Prepare a short description of the practice for the first section in the country/ context analysis sheet (see Annex 2). At this stage, provide information but do not include any analysis yet.

  2. ORGANIZE the collective review

    a. Identify stakeholders: If the exercise takes place ex ante, conduct a stakeholder mapping. If the exercise happens ex post, identify a diverse range of stakeholders that have been involved in the practice.

    b. Invite stakeholders, propose the objective of the exercise (e.g., design a new practice, improve an existing practice, mutual learning on a concluded practice) and agree on one or more objectives.

    c. Explain the steps and share key documents with those participating in the analysis (the analytical framework, the country analysis sheet and the list of definitions).

    d. Discuss ways to deal with diverging views about the practice.

    e. Ask participants to use a practice analysis sheet each to score the practice against the six different aspects and levels of the framework based on their experience with the practice (section 2 of the practice analysis sheet). In the column “evidence confirming the chosen level”, participants provide their rationale for the level selected. Where structural constraints to an enabling environment for stakeholder engagement are identified, this should also be noted.

    f. Ask participants to share how they feel they have impacted outcomes as a result of engaging in the practice (section 4 of the analysis sheet).

    g. Ask participants to highlight lessons learned and recommendations from their experience (section 5 of the practice analysis sheet).

  3. ANALYSE inputs and identify NEXT STEPS

    a. Aggregate information from the analysis sheets and present it to participants involved in the practices for validation.

    b. Decide how to address diverging views (e.g., by clarifying and reconciling or by retaining different views).

    c. Discuss results with participants and/or other interested stakeholders (e.g., UN entities) and identify next steps, including timeline for implementation and responsible partners.

    d. Debrief with participants on how they experienced the collective analysis (document it in section 4 of the practice analysis sheet).

    e. Finalize results (in one analysis sheet). If useful, highlight for each dimension the square of the framework that represents the rating in the relevant colour. For example, if non-discrimination has mostly been rated 3, highlight that square green. Agree with participants on whether the results of the analysis should be published. If so, include a short description of the practice that provides the reader with enough information on scope and scale of the practice (section 1 of the analysis sheet) without precluding the analysis.

23 24

UNILATERAL ANALYSIS (Self-Assessments or Exter nal Analyses)

1) Collect INFORMATION

a. Collect information on each element in the framework, using diverse sources that can be referenced, e.g., official government documents (VNRs, government websites, etc.), civil society reports, Terms of Reference, media reports, reports prepared by United Nations entities, the human rights mechanisms and regional commissions. Where structural constraints to an enabling environment for stakeholder engagement are identified, this should also be noted.

b. Identify information gaps. For example, consider whether the collected information is inclusive of all groups and people affected by the practice. If there are gaps and no reports exist, explore alternative avenues for understanding these actors’ perceptions, e.g., via storytelling, visual data, interviews.

c. Include the information collected in one practice analysis sheet.

4) ANALYSE inputs

a. Prepare a short description of the practice that provides the reader with enough information on scope and scale of the practice without precluding the analysis (section 1 of practice analysis sheet).

b. Scoring (section 2 of analysis sheet)

c. Describe the quality of the information collected. Note gaps, limitations and inconsistencies (section 3 of analysis sheet).

25

d. Provide an overview of how stakeholders feel they have impacted outcomes as a result of engaging in the practice (section 4 of analysis sheet). If no stakeholders have been interviewed, this section remains blank.

e. Highlight lessons learned and recommendations from those involved in the practice (section 5 of the analysis sheet). This includes information from written documentation as well as interviews.

f. Include the references of all written sources consulted (section 6 of analysis sheet).

g. Provide stakeholders consulted with an opportunity to validate the findings.

26

ANNEX 1. BIBLIOGRAPHY

27

The documents below were used as reference in the development of the analytical framework.

28 29

ANNEX 2. ANALYSIS SHEET FOR STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PRACTICES

30

An editable version of this Annex can be found here.

End Notes

1. For example, para 47 and 73 stress that review and follow-up processes will ensure “accountability to our citizens” and para 74d promises that reviews shall be “open, inclusive, participatory and transparent”. ↩︎

2. For example, para 89 calls on “[major groups and other relevant stakeholders] to report on their contribution to the implementation of the Agenda” and para 74d promises to “support the reporting by all stakeholders”. ↩︎

3. The existence of targets on Peace, Justice and Inclusion in SDGs other than SDG 16 is often referred to as ‘SDG 16+’. ↩︎

4. Multi-stakeholder engagement in 2030 Agenda implementation: A review of Voluntary National Review Reports (2016-2019) – https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26012VNRStakeholdersResearch.pdf ↩︎

5. A/RES/74/4, Political declaration of the high-level political forum on sustainable development convened under the auspices of the General Assembly ↩︎

6. The country practices were selected via the following criteria: region; country typology; presence of VNR reports; existence of institu- tionalized stakeholder engagement mechanisms; existence of formal, institutionalized SDG implementation body; availability of information; availability of contacts. ↩︎

7. For the purpose of the testing exercise, the framework was shared with the interviewees prior to the interviews. The interviewees then responded to questions on their country practices based on the framework and also shared their views on the framework itself. ↩︎

8. For example, reflected in para 3, 8, 17, 35, 74d, 77, 79 and SDG 16.3, 16.7, 16.9, 16.b of the 2030 Agenda. ↩︎

9. For example, reflected in para 72, 74d, 84, 89 and SDG 16.7, 16.8, 16.10 of the 2030 Agenda. ↩︎

10. For example, reflected in para 47, 73 and 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.10 of the 2030 Agenda. ↩︎

11. From the 2030 Agenda Preamble – “Partnership – We are determined to mobilize the means required to implement this Agenda through a revitalised Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, based on a spirit of strengthened global solidarity, focussed in particular on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable and with the participation of all countries, all stake- holders and all people.” ↩︎

12. These features are enumerated in the 2030 Agenda , paragraph 19. ↩︎

13. The testing was commissioned by UNDESA and undertaken by Cooperation Canada, with the support of a grant from the European Commission. ↩︎

14. See Section 3 for details on the selection process. ↩︎

logo United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs

United Nations

Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Division for Sustainable Development Goals

405 East 42nd Street, 26th Floor

New York, NY, 10017, USA

dsdg@un.org

@SustDev

logo UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

Oslo Governance Centre

Kongens Gate 12,

0153 Oslo, Norway

www.undp.org/oslocentre