Major Group: Children & Youth
Thursday, 3 July 2014
“The future of the HLPF – agenda setting”
• What modalities of participation build on the CSD modalities as well as other paras of Resolution 67/290?
• What structure could the HLPF have to ensure these modalities meet the UN intergovernmental process rules and procedures?
• What HLPF structure and body would ensure a role for Major Groups and other stakeholders in agenda setting?
Statement 1: Paulina Nybratt Sandin
Thank you excellencies, ladies and gentlemen-
I speak on the behalf of children and youth and I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to put forward the statements of our group.
While resolution 67/290 outlines the organizational elements of the HLPF, there are still many issues that must yet be resolved regarding the form, function and placement of the HLPF within the broader UN architecture. By this reason, MGCY first and foremost wants to highlight the importance of putting accountability, implementation and participation in its core of HLPF. We can not let the forum merely being a showcase. What is instead needed in this ambiguous situation, is not further agreements on modalities but looking further, into how best practice is achieved.
Here, HLPF needs to be equipped with clearly defined accountability and review mechanism.
As we all know, one of the shortcomings of the CSD was the lack of framework for follow up on implementation of sustainable development on all levels. Therefore the framework for tracking progress on the SDGs should be embedded within the HLPF and be the main focus of the agenda.
We therefore calls for a hybrid “AMR-UPR+” accountability mechanism that builds upon the successes of both the ECOSOC Annual Ministerial Review and the Universal Periodic Review process of the Human Rights Council. This new combined mechanism should require Member States to submit National Reports on Sustainable Development every two years.
We would also like to put forward our fear that the HLPF is still lacking a clear political vision. The HLPF runs the risk of becoming subsidiary to ECOSOC, which would place it in a similar position to the CSD. Therefore, The HLPF must have a mandate to follow up on the implementation of voluntary commitments and provide entry points for the Major Groups. We therefore call for an elected Steering Committee of the HLPF. Such a steering commitee could provide political guidance and leadership to the processes.
We likewise welcome the implementation of a High Commissioner for Future Generations which would add further legitimacy, trust and transparency that is mostly needed to the HLPF.
Finally, the youth are the one´s that will be affected by the political decisions taken, or not taken, today. It will be necessary to take a bold and innovative approach to ensure implementation. And i do believe that young people are the ones that can provide us with a creative perspective and will be a leading force forward.
thank you
“The future of the HLPF – agenda setting”
• What modalities of participation build on the CSD modalities as well as other paras of Resolution 67/290?
• What structure could the HLPF have to ensure these modalities meet the UN intergovernmental process rules and procedures?
• What HLPF structure and body would ensure a role for Major Groups and other stakeholders in agenda setting?
Statement 1: Paulina Nybratt Sandin
Thank you excellencies, ladies and gentlemen-
I speak on the behalf of children and youth and I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to put forward the statements of our group.
While resolution 67/290 outlines the organizational elements of the HLPF, there are still many issues that must yet be resolved regarding the form, function and placement of the HLPF within the broader UN architecture. By this reason, MGCY first and foremost wants to highlight the importance of putting accountability, implementation and participation in its core of HLPF. We can not let the forum merely being a showcase. What is instead needed in this ambiguous situation, is not further agreements on modalities but looking further, into how best practice is achieved.
Here, HLPF needs to be equipped with clearly defined accountability and review mechanism.
As we all know, one of the shortcomings of the CSD was the lack of framework for follow up on implementation of sustainable development on all levels. Therefore the framework for tracking progress on the SDGs should be embedded within the HLPF and be the main focus of the agenda.
We therefore calls for a hybrid “AMR-UPR+” accountability mechanism that builds upon the successes of both the ECOSOC Annual Ministerial Review and the Universal Periodic Review process of the Human Rights Council. This new combined mechanism should require Member States to submit National Reports on Sustainable Development every two years.
We would also like to put forward our fear that the HLPF is still lacking a clear political vision. The HLPF runs the risk of becoming subsidiary to ECOSOC, which would place it in a similar position to the CSD. Therefore, The HLPF must have a mandate to follow up on the implementation of voluntary commitments and provide entry points for the Major Groups. We therefore call for an elected Steering Committee of the HLPF. Such a steering commitee could provide political guidance and leadership to the processes.
We likewise welcome the implementation of a High Commissioner for Future Generations which would add further legitimacy, trust and transparency that is mostly needed to the HLPF.
Finally, the youth are the one´s that will be affected by the political decisions taken, or not taken, today. It will be necessary to take a bold and innovative approach to ensure implementation. And i do believe that young people are the ones that can provide us with a creative perspective and will be a leading force forward.
thank you