Elements on the issue ‘Review, monitoring and accountability’ for the post-2015 agenda on sustainable development
In order for the new post-2015 agenda on sustainable development to have an effect, for the
world as a whole to develop sustainably, and for future generations to be able to live a life
without poverty and in human dignity, the global community must analyse and make visible
the progress towards achieving these goals. An effective and efficient monitoring and
accountability mechanism for the post-2015 agenda which is acceptable for all states is
therefore required to track commitments, enable sharing of experience and reciprocal
learning, and focus development and transformation efforts. The set of goals proposed in the
OWG report – which is supported by Germany as the main basis for integrating sustainable
development goals into the post-2015 agenda – defines a global level of ambition which
every member state has to contribute to. In doing so, it is necessary to take into account
different national realities, capacities and levels of development, respect national policies and
priorities. A review of implementation of national contributions to achieve the set of goals
could be a way to promote accountability of national authorities.
The following basic principles for an effective and efficient monitoring and
accountability mechanism could be considered:
• New quality: a review, monitoring and accountability mechanism for the post-2015
agenda should go beyond simply monitoring global progress but include an analytical
review element which provides information on the contributions of individual
countries to the goals, gaps of implementation and on progress by theme, and which is
the basis for constructive exchange and peer learning that encourages and helps
countries to reach targets.
• Three pillars: a review, monitoring and accountability mechanism could have the
following pillars:
1. indicators and monitoring as a prerequisite for (2) and (3);
2. a mutual review process based on country reports/national implementation
plans, regional peer learning and thematic reviews (each on an individual
theme);
3. the Global Sustainable Development Report using a comparable global
indicator system to provide central information on the status of global goal
achievement.
• Criteria: the review process should be designed to be transparent, inclusive, - and also
independent as far as feasible - and ensure a certain regularity in the
review.Participation in the review process should be connected with improved incentives
for countries to subject themselves to the review. To implement the principle of global
partnership, civil society, academia and the private sector should be part of the
accountability mechanism: they could commit to their own specific contributions as well
as help collect data.
• Efficiency: it is necessary to establish the review process as far as possible using
existing monitoring and review structures for other processes, to avoid overstraining
international and national capacity, or to utilise them and avoid establishing parallel
systems.
1. Indicators and monitoring
• A robust and efficient review, monitoring and accountability mechanism needs a
basis of current data and informative indicators for comparative purposes, to
measure success, changes and progress in goal achievement. The monitoring
system should build on established statistical standards and practices, avoid
duplication and parallel structures, and take into account the availability of data and
national statistical capacity.
• The statistical capacity to create a current and informative data basis (particularly
the availability of disaggregated data) accordingly needs to be strengthened if
necessary. For this, existing cooperation arrangements and partnerships should
be utilised (e.g. PARIS21) and statistical institutions should be strengthened if
appropriate.
• There could be both a needs assessment and an efficiency review in advance of
the monitoring system and indicator definition, to identify the challenges in data
collection and focus the monitoring on actual feasibility. An analysis of cross-linkages
between goals and targets is needed to adequately reflect these through indicators
and also to avoid duplications and to sharpen goals and targets.
• The set of goals and targets should be further elaborated through appropriate
indicators, both quantitative and qualitative. Tracking progress should be
manageable even for the least developed countries, without reducing the
transformative ambition of the agenda in the process. Gaps in measurability should
be closed by new instruments and innovative methods.
• Indicators should as far as possible be results-oriented, while taking into account the
central principles of effective cooperation.
• There must be a value added for national policy, and states should not be
overburdened by an international monitoring system (reporting burden).
2. Elements of a review process based on country reports
A regular review should be established within the framework of the annual HLPF under
the auspices of ECOSOC, which links the national, regional and international level (multilayered
process), giving states sovereign control over national contributions (ownership)
to the globally agreed post-2015 goals. The following elements merit further
consideration:
a. It seems advisable to give priority to the national level (nationaltargets), as a high
level of engagement and accountability can only be achieved at the national level.
Country reports/national implementation strategies should be drawn up in a
transparent and inclusive process (‘whole government approach’), and if possible
build on existing strategies (e.g. sustainability, development, poverty reduction
strategies), update these and make them coherent. Management processes and
mechanisms ensuring feedback loops between recommendations resulting from the
review and implementation strategies (to be modified as necessary) are a central
feature.
b. At regional level a peer review/learning mechanism drawing on existing structures
and institutions may be beneficial, as states tend to compare themselves with their
immediate neighbours, conditions, instruments and goals are most likely to be
comparable, and peer learning is possible. The regional level can also help prepare
countries to take part in the global review. Use of suitable ‘eminent persons’ as
reviewers can enhance the legitimacy and acceptance of the review mechanism.
c. At international level it may be helpful for governments to present their country
targets and lessons learnt within the framework of a mutual review process, and
report on the efforts and concrete measures taken to achieve the goals, and what
their result was. They would accordingly be reviewed based on their own targets
and goals. This approach offers opportunities to encourage ownership of
implementation and participation in reporting and review. The focus of the review
should be on evaluating the level of ambition (scoping) in the context of the global
partnership, challenges in implementation, and recommendations and ongoing
feedback for national policy-making.
• This comprehensive review process could offer states an incentive to subject
themselves to the review as on the one hand it could lead to improved access to
the necessary funds for implementation and on the other hand could offer a forum
for new partnerships and constructive dialogue and peer learning.
• There could also be a parallel thematic review as a contribution to the annual
thematic focus of the HLPF, to provide information on selected progress by theme.
• The HLPF is the primary forum for the review process. However, it should also be
ensured that all processes from other bodies with respective mandates (e.g. UN
DCF), culminate in the HLPF, giving it political weight. To establish an efficient and
robust review, monitoring and accountability mechanism, strong secretariat
structures are also needed, together with clear decision-making and participation
structures.
3. Global Sustainable Development (GSD) Report
• The Global Sustainable Development Report could report every 4 years on progress
of global goal achievement, complementing the comprehensive review process. It
could focus on particular issues requiring the more immediate attention of the heads
of state and government so that they can address them during the HLPF under the
auspices of the GA.
• The report could analyse progress and and gaps of implementation as a whole
(aggregating the results from the country review process), with the emphasis on a
specific theme (not goal!). A central feature of the report should be policy lessons and
recommendations providing highlights for HLPF agenda setting .
• In addition, every year there could be a report giving more basic statistical information
on goal achievement, analysed e.g. by region or by topic, not by country in order to
avoid finger-pointing.
• The reports could be commissioned by the UN Secretary-General, with the
assistance of a consortium of relevant UN organisations. Academia should also be
included in the development of the report. As with the periodic IPCC report, crossborder
academic partnerships could be supported, so that research findings are
directly incorporated in the review, monitoring and accountability process. An
advisory or expert panel should have a quality assuring role.
world as a whole to develop sustainably, and for future generations to be able to live a life
without poverty and in human dignity, the global community must analyse and make visible
the progress towards achieving these goals. An effective and efficient monitoring and
accountability mechanism for the post-2015 agenda which is acceptable for all states is
therefore required to track commitments, enable sharing of experience and reciprocal
learning, and focus development and transformation efforts. The set of goals proposed in the
OWG report – which is supported by Germany as the main basis for integrating sustainable
development goals into the post-2015 agenda – defines a global level of ambition which
every member state has to contribute to. In doing so, it is necessary to take into account
different national realities, capacities and levels of development, respect national policies and
priorities. A review of implementation of national contributions to achieve the set of goals
could be a way to promote accountability of national authorities.
The following basic principles for an effective and efficient monitoring and
accountability mechanism could be considered:
• New quality: a review, monitoring and accountability mechanism for the post-2015
agenda should go beyond simply monitoring global progress but include an analytical
review element which provides information on the contributions of individual
countries to the goals, gaps of implementation and on progress by theme, and which is
the basis for constructive exchange and peer learning that encourages and helps
countries to reach targets.
• Three pillars: a review, monitoring and accountability mechanism could have the
following pillars:
1. indicators and monitoring as a prerequisite for (2) and (3);
2. a mutual review process based on country reports/national implementation
plans, regional peer learning and thematic reviews (each on an individual
theme);
3. the Global Sustainable Development Report using a comparable global
indicator system to provide central information on the status of global goal
achievement.
• Criteria: the review process should be designed to be transparent, inclusive, - and also
independent as far as feasible - and ensure a certain regularity in the
review.Participation in the review process should be connected with improved incentives
for countries to subject themselves to the review. To implement the principle of global
partnership, civil society, academia and the private sector should be part of the
accountability mechanism: they could commit to their own specific contributions as well
as help collect data.
• Efficiency: it is necessary to establish the review process as far as possible using
existing monitoring and review structures for other processes, to avoid overstraining
international and national capacity, or to utilise them and avoid establishing parallel
systems.
1. Indicators and monitoring
• A robust and efficient review, monitoring and accountability mechanism needs a
basis of current data and informative indicators for comparative purposes, to
measure success, changes and progress in goal achievement. The monitoring
system should build on established statistical standards and practices, avoid
duplication and parallel structures, and take into account the availability of data and
national statistical capacity.
• The statistical capacity to create a current and informative data basis (particularly
the availability of disaggregated data) accordingly needs to be strengthened if
necessary. For this, existing cooperation arrangements and partnerships should
be utilised (e.g. PARIS21) and statistical institutions should be strengthened if
appropriate.
• There could be both a needs assessment and an efficiency review in advance of
the monitoring system and indicator definition, to identify the challenges in data
collection and focus the monitoring on actual feasibility. An analysis of cross-linkages
between goals and targets is needed to adequately reflect these through indicators
and also to avoid duplications and to sharpen goals and targets.
• The set of goals and targets should be further elaborated through appropriate
indicators, both quantitative and qualitative. Tracking progress should be
manageable even for the least developed countries, without reducing the
transformative ambition of the agenda in the process. Gaps in measurability should
be closed by new instruments and innovative methods.
• Indicators should as far as possible be results-oriented, while taking into account the
central principles of effective cooperation.
• There must be a value added for national policy, and states should not be
overburdened by an international monitoring system (reporting burden).
2. Elements of a review process based on country reports
A regular review should be established within the framework of the annual HLPF under
the auspices of ECOSOC, which links the national, regional and international level (multilayered
process), giving states sovereign control over national contributions (ownership)
to the globally agreed post-2015 goals. The following elements merit further
consideration:
a. It seems advisable to give priority to the national level (nationaltargets), as a high
level of engagement and accountability can only be achieved at the national level.
Country reports/national implementation strategies should be drawn up in a
transparent and inclusive process (‘whole government approach’), and if possible
build on existing strategies (e.g. sustainability, development, poverty reduction
strategies), update these and make them coherent. Management processes and
mechanisms ensuring feedback loops between recommendations resulting from the
review and implementation strategies (to be modified as necessary) are a central
feature.
b. At regional level a peer review/learning mechanism drawing on existing structures
and institutions may be beneficial, as states tend to compare themselves with their
immediate neighbours, conditions, instruments and goals are most likely to be
comparable, and peer learning is possible. The regional level can also help prepare
countries to take part in the global review. Use of suitable ‘eminent persons’ as
reviewers can enhance the legitimacy and acceptance of the review mechanism.
c. At international level it may be helpful for governments to present their country
targets and lessons learnt within the framework of a mutual review process, and
report on the efforts and concrete measures taken to achieve the goals, and what
their result was. They would accordingly be reviewed based on their own targets
and goals. This approach offers opportunities to encourage ownership of
implementation and participation in reporting and review. The focus of the review
should be on evaluating the level of ambition (scoping) in the context of the global
partnership, challenges in implementation, and recommendations and ongoing
feedback for national policy-making.
• This comprehensive review process could offer states an incentive to subject
themselves to the review as on the one hand it could lead to improved access to
the necessary funds for implementation and on the other hand could offer a forum
for new partnerships and constructive dialogue and peer learning.
• There could also be a parallel thematic review as a contribution to the annual
thematic focus of the HLPF, to provide information on selected progress by theme.
• The HLPF is the primary forum for the review process. However, it should also be
ensured that all processes from other bodies with respective mandates (e.g. UN
DCF), culminate in the HLPF, giving it political weight. To establish an efficient and
robust review, monitoring and accountability mechanism, strong secretariat
structures are also needed, together with clear decision-making and participation
structures.
3. Global Sustainable Development (GSD) Report
• The Global Sustainable Development Report could report every 4 years on progress
of global goal achievement, complementing the comprehensive review process. It
could focus on particular issues requiring the more immediate attention of the heads
of state and government so that they can address them during the HLPF under the
auspices of the GA.
• The report could analyse progress and and gaps of implementation as a whole
(aggregating the results from the country review process), with the emphasis on a
specific theme (not goal!). A central feature of the report should be policy lessons and
recommendations providing highlights for HLPF agenda setting .
• In addition, every year there could be a report giving more basic statistical information
on goal achievement, analysed e.g. by region or by topic, not by country in order to
avoid finger-pointing.
• The reports could be commissioned by the UN Secretary-General, with the
assistance of a consortium of relevant UN organisations. Academia should also be
included in the development of the report. As with the periodic IPCC report, crossborder
academic partnerships could be supported, so that research findings are
directly incorporated in the review, monitoring and accountability process. An
advisory or expert panel should have a quality assuring role.