Major Group: NGOs

HLPF
Morning
Meeting
of
the
President
of
ECOSOC
with
Major
Groups
and
other
Stakeholders
“The
Future
of
the
HLPF
–
Agenda
Setting”
Remarks
by
Jeffery
Huffines,
CIVICUS
&
NGO
Major
Group
Organizing
Partner
Thursday,
3
July
2014
Your
Honor,
Excellencies,
Ladies
and
Gentlemen:
Permit
me
to
state
at
the
outset
that
my
remarks
are
based
upon
an
analysis
of
Jan-­‐Gustav
Strandanaes’s
excellent
paper
commissioned
by
UN
DESA
entitled
“Participatory
democracy-­‐
HLPF
laying
the
basis
for
sustainable
development
governance
in
the
21st
Century.”
Other
useful
resources
commissioned
by
UN
DESA
include:
• The
Role
and
Place
of
the
High-­‐level
Political
Forum
in
Strengthening
the
Global
Institutional
Framework
for
Sustainable
Development
-­‐
by
Steven
Bernstein
• Strengthening
Public
Participation
at
the
United
Nations
for
Sustainable
Development:
Dialogue,
Debate,
Dissent,
Deliberation
(by
Barbara
Adams
&
Lou
Pingeot)
• The
Future
HLPF
Review
-­‐
Criteria
and
ideas
for
its
institutional
design
(by
Marianne
Beisheim,
German
Institute
for
International
and
Security
Affairs
of
the
Stiftung
Wissenschaft
und
Politik
(SWP)
)
My
remarks
will
center
around
three
key
points
agreed
upon
by
all
Major
Groups
and
most
other
stakeholders:
1) The
implementation
of
the
modalities
of
participation
for
Major
Groups
and
other
stakeholders
as
mandated
by
Resolution
67/290
is
key
to
ensuring
a
transformative,
inclusive
post-­‐2015
development
agenda.
2) While
respecting
the
intergovernmental
character
of
the
forum,
Member
States
should
support
the
active
participation
of
Major
Groups
and
other
stakeholders
in
the
agenda
setting
of
the
HLPF.
3) The
HLPF
will
require
a
bureau
and
strong
secretariat
support
if
the
forum
is
to
fulfil
its
extensive
mandate
and
agenda.
Modalities
of
Participation
When
Major
Groups
and
other
stakeholders
met
with
the
President
of
ECOSOC
last
month,
he
very
astutely
observed
that
if
there
is
one
thing
certain
about
Resolution
67/290
is
that
it
accords
major
groups
and
other
stakeholders
the
most
far
reaching
participatory
privileges
in
the
history
of
the
UN.
These
privileges
must
be
translated
into
operative
modalities
and
deciding
upon
possible
modalities
is
the
main
task
before
us.
HLPF
is
still
subject
to
many
different
interpretations
by
Member
States,
and
the
next
two
years
will
to
a
large
degree
decide
its
proper
organisational
configuration.
2
Major
groups
and
relevant
stakeholders
are
referred
to
in
8
paragraphs
in
the
HLPF
resolution.
These
paragraphs
are:
8c;
10;
13;
14;
15;
16;
22
and
24.
• In
paragraph
8,
major
groups
are
invited
to
actively
participate
in
reviews
of
implementation;
• Paragraph
13
is
on
regional
commissions
and
regional
meetings
involving
major
groups;
• Paragraph
15
is
the
key
paragraph
concerning
the
rights
of
major
groups
and
other
relevant
stakeholders,
that
includes:
(a)
To
attend
all
official
meetings
of
the
forum;
(b)
To
have
access
to
all
official
information
and
documents;
(c)
To
intervene
in
official
meetings;
(d)
To
submit
documents
and
present
written
and
oral
contributions;
(e)
To
make
recommendations;
(f)
To
organize
side
events
and
round
tables
• Paragraph
16
is
about
the
right
to
self-­‐organize
and
include
other
stakeholder
groups,
“such
as
private
philanthropic
organizations,
educational
and
academic
entities,
persons
with
disabilities,
volunteer
groups”
and
contains
a
challenge
to
the
major
groups
to
make
sure
the
process
is
accountable,
fair
and
transparent;
• Paragraph
20
states
that
funding
for
invited
members
of
the
major
group
constituency
can
be
given
from
the
UN
irrespective
of
the
geographical
origin
of
the
major
group
members.
Agenda
Setting
On
agenda
setting,
Paragraph
22
is
another
important
paragraph,
which
also
allows
major
groups
to
become
part
of
the
agenda
setting
process
of
the
HLPF.
To
quote:
“Requests
the
President
of
the
General
Assembly
and
the
President
of
the
Economic
and
Social
Council
to
coordinate
with
the
Bureau
of
the
Council
and
with
the
bureaux
of
the
relevant
committees
of
the
General
Assembly
to
organize
the
activities
of
the
forum
so
as
to
benefit
from
the
inputs
and
advice
of
the
United
Nations
system,
the
major
groups
and
other
relevant
stakeholders,
as
appropriate;”
This
can
and
should
be
interpreted
in
such
a
way
that
this
is
a
strong
invitation
for
Major
Groups
and
other
stakeholders
to
contribute
to
agenda-­‐setting
of
the
forum.
This
can
be
organized
in
a
systematic
way,
by
inviting
the
nine
major
groups
to
analyze
on
a
year
by
year
basis
the
situation
of
sustainable
development
in
the
world,
and
through
a
well
argued
document,
propose
items
to
be
on
the
HLPF
agenda.
These
documents
must
of
course
be
handed
in
to
the
HLPF
secretariat
according
to
a
set
deadline.
Again,
such
a
process
was
in
place
through
the
background
documents
written
by
major
groups
for
the
Review
Years
of
CSD,
so
in
that
sense,
an
agenda-­‐setting
process
as
suggested
here
may
not
be
seen
as
something
new.
The
interpretation
will
in
the
final
stages
rest
on
the
shoulders
of
the
deciding
elements
of
the
HLPF
when
it
comes
to
agreeing
on
the
final
agenda.
The
question
then
remains
–
which
3
are
the
deciding
elements
of
the
HLPF
when
there
is
no
Bureau:
the
Presidency
of
ECOSOC
for
three
years
and
the
office
of
the
PGA
every
fourth
year?
And
if
so
–
how
does
such
an
interpretation
harmonies
with
the
crucially
important
words
“under
the
auspices
of”
referred
to
in
paragraphs
3,
6
and
7
of
the
HLPF
resolution?
The
HLPF
as
a
hybrid
body
The
HLPF
has
been
created
as
a
unique
hybrid
under
the
auspices
of
ECOSOC
and
the
UNGA
to
create
and
develop,
coordinate,
and
review
policies
on
sustainable
development
and
the
SDGs
for
the
UN
for
the
next
two
decades
–
at
least.
The
key
words
in
making
HLPF
into
this
hybrid
are
“under
the
auspices
of”.
Paragraph
3
states:
“Also
decides
that
the
meetings
of
the
forum
will
be
convened
under
the
auspices
of
the
General
Assembly
and
of
the
Economic
and
Social
Council;”
Paragraph
8
goes
on
to
state
that
certain
parts
of
the
HLPF
are
“under
the
auspices
of
ECOSOC”
with
other
formal
elements
“under
the
auspices
of
UNGA”
(Paragraph
9).
This
phrase
is
interpreted
to
mean
that
the
HLPF
will
function
partly
as
a
subsidiary
of
ECOSOC,
partly
as
a
subsidiary
of
the
General
Assembly.
As
HLPF
operates
under
the
rules
of
procedure
of
the
functional
commissions
of
ECOSOC
and
not
ECOSOC
itself
it
allows
for
both
universal
membership
and
universal
participation.
The
hybrid
structure
also
contributed
to
establishing
the
HLPF
as
a
“high
level
meeting”,
allowing
for
Heads
of
State
level
and
Ministerial
level
meetings
to
be
organized.
As
the
HLPF
exists
somewhere
between
the
General
Assembly
and
ECOSOC
and
has
‘subsidiarity
to
both’
it
will
probably
be
reporting
directly
to
both.
It
would
thus
not
make
the
HLPF
into
an
ordinary
‘subsidiary
body’
of
ECOSOC
on
par
with
the
other
ECOSOC
fora,
but
its
hybrid
format
has
created
a
form
of
‘light
subsidiarity’
to
ECOSOC.
But
what
does
this
mean
in
practice?
While
ECOSOC
has
now
been
given
the
role
as
the
supreme
coordinator
of
sustainable
development
at
the
UN,
HLPF
has
been
given
a
role
as
a
policy
executor
of
the
same.
Are
there
conflicts
of
interests
here?
And
if
so
–
how
may
these
issues
affect
the
involvement
of
NGOs
and
major
groups
in
sustainable
development
policy
work
at
the
UN?
Whereas
the
ECOSOC
Rules
of
Procedure
confines
activities
of
NGOs
and
major
groups,
HLPF
includes
and
expands
the
same.
At
the
same
time,
there
have
been
concerns
even
within
the
UN
about
the
lack
of
impact
of
ECOSOC
on
implementation,
about
its
lack
of
flexibility
at
times
to
respond
to
emerging
4
issues
and
about
its
over-­‐crowded
agenda,
which
has
defied
several
decades
of
attempted
reform.
The
recent
resolutions
on
ECOSOC
reform
and
the
HLPF
tie
these
two
UN
bodies
closely
together.
HLPF
has
not
been
given
a
clear-­‐cut
and
operative
mandate
with
a
number
of
clearly
defined
functions
as
the
CSD
was
given
in
1993
by
the
GA
resolution
establishing
it.
But
as
HLPF
has
granted
major
groups,
civil
society
and
relevant
stakeholders
more
privileges
at
the
UN
than
any
other
UN
body
has
ever
done,
it
is
necessary
to
discuss
the
possible
operative
systems
of
HLPF
and
make
an
effort
to
outline
and
delineate
its
functions
and
support
systems
within
the
formalities
of
the
UN.
Only
then
will
it
be
possible
to
understand
the
potential
modalities
that
may
be
envisaged
for
NGOs
and
major
groups
in
the
functions
of
the
HLPF,
further
develop
this
potential,
formulate
modalities
wisely
and
make
sure
they
stay
functional
and
operative
over
time.
This
may
also
strengthen
the
HLPF
as
the
major
groups
and
relevant
stakeholders
are
integrated
elements
in
the
governance
system
of
the
HLPF.
HLPF
is
a
hybrid
construct
but
its
real
working
profile
has
not
yet
been
launched.
The
ECOSOC
President
will
have
a
large
responsibility
in
preparing
and
convening
HLPF,
but
the
President
including
Member
States
may
well
find
that
institutional
instruments
need
to
be
added
to
the
existing
system
to
make
it
operational.
Several
independent
observers
and
even
member
states
have
pointed
to
the
lack
of
a
bureau
for
HLPF
as
a
major
institutional
weakness,
making
it
less
efficient
and
more
cumbersome
to
handle.
What
is
perceived
as
an
institutional
weakness
may
be
addressed
again
by
the
UNGA
in
a
few
years
as
provided
by
paragraph
29
of
the
HLPF
resolution:
“Decides
to
review
the
format
and
the
organizational
aspects
of
the
forum
at
its
seventy-­‐third
session,
unless
otherwise
decided;”
The
caption
‘unless
otherwise
decided’
may
allow
for
an
interim
solution
to
strengthen
HLPF
to
be
implemented
earlier.
For
example,
the
DCF
has
an
Advisory
Board
to
help
run
its
business.
Therefore,
perhaps
an
Advisory
Board
for
the
HLPF,
being
of
a
less
formal
character
than
a
Bureau,
could
be
established
already
during
2014?
Adding
an
Advisory
Board
to
the
HLPF
as
a
temporary
addition
would
not
necessarily
make
the
HLPF
into
a
‘body’.
Its
performance
could
then
be
reviewed
and
if
successful,
the
idea
to
establish
a
Bureau
for
the
HLPF
could
be
proposed
for
the
HLPF
revision
at
the
73rd
General
Assembly.
If
an
Advisory
Board
could
be
established,
would
it
be
inconceivable
to
have
representatives
as
observers
from
the
major
groups
on
that
Advisory
Board?
For
Major
Groups
and
other
stakeholders,
it
is
obvious
that
the
HLPF
needs
a
designated
and
well
resourced
secretariat
to
perform
its
tasks.
If
not
just
for
the
size
of
its
work,
then
for
the
simple
fact
that
sustainable
development
has
been
heralded
as
one
of
the
most
5
important
agendas
of
the
world.
No
SDG
and
no
policy
on
sustainable
development
will
be
implemented
unless
people
are
engaged.
Linking
the
grass
roots
of
the
world
to
the
UN
and
subsequently
engaging
them,
is
orchestrated
through
the
NGO
community.
As
the
193
Member
States
of
the
UN
commit
to
integrating
the
SDGs
in
their
national
plans,
thousands
of
NGOs
will
be
seeking
to
work
on
sustainable
development
issues.
The
engagement
will
take
place
at
all
levels
–
local,
national,
regional
and
global.
The
engagement
will
be
multidimensional:
policy
development
and
analysis,
implementation
of
programmes
and
projects,
reviews
and
upgrades
of
targets
and
indicators,
searching
for
emerging
issues.
Serving
these
organizations,
as
well
as
harnessing
and
reaping
the
benefits
of
their
engagement
will
demand
a
well
integrated
and
resourced
secretariat.
It
is
imperative
that
the
present
UNDESA/DSD
must
be
upgraded
with
resources,
its
autonomy
buttressed,
its
finances
bolstered.
To
conclude,
we
believe
that
an
HLPF
as
a
strong
autonomous
body
will
also
make
ECOSOC
stronger.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
this
important
issue.