Australia
1
Global follow-up and review progress – PGA consultations
Australia’s considerations
6 April 2016
Thank you for the opportunity to reflect on these questions today.
Given the time constraints, I will respond directly to some of the questions
posed in the note circulated yesterday.
The HLPF as the key forum for discussion on the global follow-up and
review of the 2030 Agenda. It should provide member states an opportunity
to share their lessons, successes and challenges with measuring progress to
implement the 2030 Agenda at the national level.
The HLPF should review progress in implementing the 2030 Agenda in a
holistic and integrated way, capturing all inputs – including from member
states, the non-government sector, civil society, academia and the business
sector.
Starting with themes, Australia recommends one theme for the entire
ECOSOC cycle and that the HLPF be aligned with the ECOSOC theme.
2
This would support coherence between the HLPF and ECOSOC and
facilitate broader discussion to better reflect the integrated nature of the
SDGs, and help avoid siloed discussions.
This approach would recognise the integrated and indivisible nature of the
SDGs and the need for cross-cutting consideration of the significant interlinkages
between the Goals and targets.
Australia believes the thematic focus of the HLPF and the mandated
thematic reviews of the SDGs are the same in the context of HLPF.
To further support coherence, we would support merging the ECOSOC High
Level Segment with the Ministerial Segment of the HLPF.
Also on coherence, when considering the timing of the DCF, we would
encourage broader contemplation of the sequencing and relative proximity
of the DCF, the FFD Forum, and the HLPF, to ensure that each fora is able
to benefit from the discussion that proceeded it.
3
Turning to Voluntary National Reviews, we would hesitate to support the
introduction of common reporting guidelines as this could constrain
innovation and dynamism. We reiterate the country-led and voluntary nature
of these reviews and the benefits of maintaining a flexible and open
discussion on shared issues, challenges and successes.
We would encourage the HLPF to identify good practice and successful
innovative approaches in the presentation of National Voluntary Reviews, so
we can continually improve presentation. Of course, we could support
flexible common reporting guidelines if there is widespread agreement
amongst member states.
We would encourage innovative approaches to presentation of National
Voluntary Reviews, including join presentations. We consider that joint
presentations, either from countries within a shared region or by countries
with shared challenges could more meaningfully reflect on shared
challenges, vulnerabilities, gaps and lessons learnt, and more readily identify
shared best practices, emerging trends and innovations. Such an approach
would provide a ‘platform for partnership’ (SGs report, par 27) and could
also support more dynamic engagement with, and feedback from, the HLPF.
4
As for the frequency of reviews, the 2030 Agenda does not stipulate a
frequency for reviews, although acknowledges that more frequent reviews
could establish stronger national engagement. Australia considers there is
greater value in allowing individual countries to assess their suitability and
readiness to report on their progress. This approach would provide greater
value to the broader follow-up and review process, rather than a prescriptive
reporting frequency.
In terms of inputs to the HLPF, the processes for collecting inputs for
consideration at the HLPF should be open and accessible to a wide range of
stakeholders. As specified within the 2030 Agenda and the Secretary-
General’s report, the HLPF must take a holistic view of implementation in
order to provide the political impetus at the highest level to consider the
effectiveness of implementation, bridge gaps and improve joint outcomes.
Australia does not support the development of a template for inputs. Similar
to the common reporting guidelines for Voluntary National Reviews, this
restricts innovation and flexibility and assumes a shared baseline of input,
which may not be appropriate or relevant for all contributing stakeholders.
5
We support the suggested development of an SDG database (SG report, par
55) for consolidating the various contributions to the follow-up and review
process. To ensure the process is holistic and inclusive, this SDG database
must be open, transparent and accessible to a wide range of stakeholders,
including the non-government sector, civil society, academia and the
business sector.
It will be important to have some mechanism to annually synthesise input to
the database or we risk being unable to full appreciate and use the potentially
broad range of inputs.
Following the SDG process, we have a lot of experience on different ways to
capture and synthesis multiple inputs – we should learn from these efforts
when considering how best to summarise or synthesise inputs submitted to
the database. One option could be that contributions that are not intergovernmentally
agreed could only be submitted after the provision of a brief
summary that would also be posted on the website.
6
Support for the database and any synthesising approach should be
considered as part of current broader discussions on how the UN system will
reprioritise its processes and structures to best support implementation of the
2030 Agenda.
Australia acknowledges both the GSDR and the SDG Progress Report will
be the primary inputs to inform attendees at the HLPF on developments to
progress the SDGs. The value of other inputs should be weighted against the
quality of the data and analysis they contain.
To maximise effectiveness, utility and cohesiveness of the GSDR and SDG
progress report, the two reports must have clear individual purposes.
Australia recommends the SDG Progress Report provides an annual update
snapshot of progress against the SDGs, based on the indicator data. We
expect it to also provide a high-level narrative on lessons learnt, successes
and challenges to support the data. This should take a similar format to the
MDG reports.
7
The GSDR should be a flagship publication, to provide detailed, evidencebased
reflections and recommendations to inform policy-makers and HLPF
attendees on the progress of activities to promote poverty eradication and
sustainable development.
How will the UN system support implementation of the 2030 Agenda
Regional commissions
Australia agrees that regional commissions should take a leadership role in
coordination regional inputs from member countries and relevant regional
organisations. This will better streamline the reporting process and better
ensure all relevant contributions are appropriately captured and provided to
the HLPF.
Functional commissions
As we are already seeing, functional commissions are reflecting the 2030
Agenda and the global follow-up and review process in their future work
schedules. Australia agrees with the SG’s report that no functional
commission, or single institution more broadly, can claim exclusive
ownership for the review of a specific goal. Australia would like to see the
functional commissions continue their current mandates, taking into account
8
Agenda 2030. They should provide their input to the HLPF through their
existing communication channels with ECOSOC.
I would like to thank the co-facilitators for this opportunity to further discuss
how the Agenda 2030 follow up and review system will work, and look
forward to continued engagement to find practical, and perhaps innovative
solutions to these questions.
Global follow-up and review progress – PGA consultations
Australia’s considerations
6 April 2016
Thank you for the opportunity to reflect on these questions today.
Given the time constraints, I will respond directly to some of the questions
posed in the note circulated yesterday.
The HLPF as the key forum for discussion on the global follow-up and
review of the 2030 Agenda. It should provide member states an opportunity
to share their lessons, successes and challenges with measuring progress to
implement the 2030 Agenda at the national level.
The HLPF should review progress in implementing the 2030 Agenda in a
holistic and integrated way, capturing all inputs – including from member
states, the non-government sector, civil society, academia and the business
sector.
Starting with themes, Australia recommends one theme for the entire
ECOSOC cycle and that the HLPF be aligned with the ECOSOC theme.
2
This would support coherence between the HLPF and ECOSOC and
facilitate broader discussion to better reflect the integrated nature of the
SDGs, and help avoid siloed discussions.
This approach would recognise the integrated and indivisible nature of the
SDGs and the need for cross-cutting consideration of the significant interlinkages
between the Goals and targets.
Australia believes the thematic focus of the HLPF and the mandated
thematic reviews of the SDGs are the same in the context of HLPF.
To further support coherence, we would support merging the ECOSOC High
Level Segment with the Ministerial Segment of the HLPF.
Also on coherence, when considering the timing of the DCF, we would
encourage broader contemplation of the sequencing and relative proximity
of the DCF, the FFD Forum, and the HLPF, to ensure that each fora is able
to benefit from the discussion that proceeded it.
3
Turning to Voluntary National Reviews, we would hesitate to support the
introduction of common reporting guidelines as this could constrain
innovation and dynamism. We reiterate the country-led and voluntary nature
of these reviews and the benefits of maintaining a flexible and open
discussion on shared issues, challenges and successes.
We would encourage the HLPF to identify good practice and successful
innovative approaches in the presentation of National Voluntary Reviews, so
we can continually improve presentation. Of course, we could support
flexible common reporting guidelines if there is widespread agreement
amongst member states.
We would encourage innovative approaches to presentation of National
Voluntary Reviews, including join presentations. We consider that joint
presentations, either from countries within a shared region or by countries
with shared challenges could more meaningfully reflect on shared
challenges, vulnerabilities, gaps and lessons learnt, and more readily identify
shared best practices, emerging trends and innovations. Such an approach
would provide a ‘platform for partnership’ (SGs report, par 27) and could
also support more dynamic engagement with, and feedback from, the HLPF.
4
As for the frequency of reviews, the 2030 Agenda does not stipulate a
frequency for reviews, although acknowledges that more frequent reviews
could establish stronger national engagement. Australia considers there is
greater value in allowing individual countries to assess their suitability and
readiness to report on their progress. This approach would provide greater
value to the broader follow-up and review process, rather than a prescriptive
reporting frequency.
In terms of inputs to the HLPF, the processes for collecting inputs for
consideration at the HLPF should be open and accessible to a wide range of
stakeholders. As specified within the 2030 Agenda and the Secretary-
General’s report, the HLPF must take a holistic view of implementation in
order to provide the political impetus at the highest level to consider the
effectiveness of implementation, bridge gaps and improve joint outcomes.
Australia does not support the development of a template for inputs. Similar
to the common reporting guidelines for Voluntary National Reviews, this
restricts innovation and flexibility and assumes a shared baseline of input,
which may not be appropriate or relevant for all contributing stakeholders.
5
We support the suggested development of an SDG database (SG report, par
55) for consolidating the various contributions to the follow-up and review
process. To ensure the process is holistic and inclusive, this SDG database
must be open, transparent and accessible to a wide range of stakeholders,
including the non-government sector, civil society, academia and the
business sector.
It will be important to have some mechanism to annually synthesise input to
the database or we risk being unable to full appreciate and use the potentially
broad range of inputs.
Following the SDG process, we have a lot of experience on different ways to
capture and synthesis multiple inputs – we should learn from these efforts
when considering how best to summarise or synthesise inputs submitted to
the database. One option could be that contributions that are not intergovernmentally
agreed could only be submitted after the provision of a brief
summary that would also be posted on the website.
6
Support for the database and any synthesising approach should be
considered as part of current broader discussions on how the UN system will
reprioritise its processes and structures to best support implementation of the
2030 Agenda.
Australia acknowledges both the GSDR and the SDG Progress Report will
be the primary inputs to inform attendees at the HLPF on developments to
progress the SDGs. The value of other inputs should be weighted against the
quality of the data and analysis they contain.
To maximise effectiveness, utility and cohesiveness of the GSDR and SDG
progress report, the two reports must have clear individual purposes.
Australia recommends the SDG Progress Report provides an annual update
snapshot of progress against the SDGs, based on the indicator data. We
expect it to also provide a high-level narrative on lessons learnt, successes
and challenges to support the data. This should take a similar format to the
MDG reports.
7
The GSDR should be a flagship publication, to provide detailed, evidencebased
reflections and recommendations to inform policy-makers and HLPF
attendees on the progress of activities to promote poverty eradication and
sustainable development.
How will the UN system support implementation of the 2030 Agenda
Regional commissions
Australia agrees that regional commissions should take a leadership role in
coordination regional inputs from member countries and relevant regional
organisations. This will better streamline the reporting process and better
ensure all relevant contributions are appropriately captured and provided to
the HLPF.
Functional commissions
As we are already seeing, functional commissions are reflecting the 2030
Agenda and the global follow-up and review process in their future work
schedules. Australia agrees with the SG’s report that no functional
commission, or single institution more broadly, can claim exclusive
ownership for the review of a specific goal. Australia would like to see the
functional commissions continue their current mandates, taking into account
8
Agenda 2030. They should provide their input to the HLPF through their
existing communication channels with ECOSOC.
I would like to thank the co-facilitators for this opportunity to further discuss
how the Agenda 2030 follow up and review system will work, and look
forward to continued engagement to find practical, and perhaps innovative
solutions to these questions.
Stakeholders