WUNRN
Amnesty
International, the Center for Economic & Social Rights, the Center for
Reproductive Rights, and Human Rights Watch have developed a Proposal for
Post-2015 Monitoring and Accountability at the global level. In particular,
we suggest a participatory peer review mechanism (drawing inspiration from the
UPR) under the High-Level Political Forum.
High Level
Political Forum for Sustainable Development: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/hlpf - HLPF
It is our view
that robust and participatory monitoring and accountability mechanisms are
essential if the post-2015 agenda is to be truly transformative and
fit-for-purpose as a vehicle to improve human rights enjoyment worldwide. The
right accountability architecture could improve the credibility, ownership and
effectiveness of the agenda for people and for states, and make the entire process
of sustainable development more transformative and responsive to peoples’
needs. In order to do so, it must ensure accountability for the 'global
partnership', for the private sector, and for rich countries' impact on
sustainable development beyond their borders.
We hope this
proposal will push Member States to see the value and importance of a strong
global review mechanism, and seize the chance to recognize revitalized
accountability relationships as a core element of the post-2015 agenda, not just
an optional or onerous add-on.
FULL DOCUMENT: http://cesr.org/downloads/post-2015_accountability_proposal.pdf
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE POST-2015 AGENDA:
A PROPOSAL FOR A ROBUST GLOBAL REVIEW MECHANISM
Member States, UN agencies, and civil society organizations are
channeling unprecedented resources and energy towards a new sustainable
development agenda that aims to lift billions out of poverty and deprivation,
while realizing their human rights, protecting our environment and creating a
more just and equitable world. Robust and participatory monitoring and
accountability mechanisms can improve the credibility, ownership and
effectiveness of the Post-2015 Agenda for people and for states, and make
the entire process of sustainable development more transformative and responsive
to peoples’ needs. As the Secretary-General has said, a new paradigm of
accountability is in fact “the real test of people-centered, planet-sensitive
development.”1
These processes will create spaces in which States and other actors
responsible for the new commitments are answerable to the people and
communities whose lives they affect, as well as generate evidence about successful
strategies and policies, and emerging problems that require corrective action.
The Post-2015 accountability architecture can also foster learning and
dialogue and help realize the “leave no one behind” principle, by providing an
effective platform for including and integrating the experiences of the most
disadvantaged.
Strong national accountability mechanisms will be a crucial foundation.
However, the global level is also a key site for reinforcing the accountability
of national governments to their population, as well as fostering mutual
accountability between states for their respective responsibilities in meeting
their global commitments. In light of the MDGs experience, we highlight three
key attributes of a successful Post-2015 accountability system before moving on
to specific proposals for the global level review.
1. Although the SDGs will not be legally binding,
robust monitoring and accountability should be considered an integral part of
the Agenda, not an optional add-on. The lack of a systematic and well-defined accountability
architecture has been commonly identified as a key reason for some major
shortfalls in achieving the MDGs, including commitments under MDGs 5 (maternal
health) and 8 (the global partnership).2 States should recognize that by participating in accountability mechanisms
for the political commitments under the new goals—including by rigorously
monitoring progress, correcting setbacks, hearing from stakeholders and people
affected and addressing their concerns—they are helping to ensure implementation
at all levels.
2. Accountability for the Post-2015 Agenda is a matter
of universality, not conditionality. Unlike the MDGs, which applied primarily to developing
States, this is a universal agenda and therefore provides an entry point for
meaningful monitoring and accountability of domestic implementation by
countries at every income level. All States will have the opportunity to
participate and provide feedback as equals in reviewing their differentiated
responsibilities for meeting collective commitments, for example concerning
financing. High-income countries will also have to answer for their role in
the global partnership, and the coherence of their policies with the
overarching goal of sustainable development for all. In this sense, the Post-2015
follow-up and review processes have the potential to turn the old North-South
conditionality dynamic on its head.
3. As such, in addition to reviewing individual States’
implementation domestically, mechanisms at the global level should also examine
States’ impact on Post-2015 progress beyond their borders. This could be a
unique strength of a global review mechanism, as compared to national and
regional reviews, especially given the magnitude of many of the cross-border
challenges we face. A global review should examine the transnational
consequences of States’ policies and practices, for example in the areas of
financing, tax, trade and the environment, which have a major impact on other
States’ abilities to develop sustainably and realize human rights. It should
provide a sense of overall progress and common challenges in creating an
international policy environment conducive to the fulfilment of the new goals,
highlight issues that require joint action, and share lessons learned across
countries and regions. Furthermore, it should allow space for examining the
effectiveness and impact of partnerships, particularly those involving the
private sector and international financial institutions, whose role in the
implementation of the new commitments must be subject to rigorous scrutiny to
guard against potential adverse human rights impacts.
According
to General Assembly resolution 67/290, the High Level Political Forum (HLPF)
will serve as the venue to “follow up and review progress in the implementation
of sustainable development commitments.” As States further define the contours
of this global review, they should take inspiration from existing mechanisms
such as the African Peer Review Mechanism and the Universal Periodic Review
(UPR) at the Human Rights Council, a well-established, State-led peer
review process that monitors human rights obligations in all States. The other
international human rights mechanisms may also be a useful reference point for expert-driven
review against global standards, based on dialogue with the State with
significant involvement from civil society. Building in particular on the UPR
working methods, States should ensure that a global review mechanism for the
Post-2015 Agenda has the following characteristics:
A culture of universal participation: While the HLPF review will be
voluntary, States themselves must create a culture that expects and
incentivizes participation by all. This requires that all States prioritize
timely and comprehensive reporting and participate constructively in reviews,
including by effectively responding to recommendations.
An interactive dialogue that reviews each State’s
progress in implementing the Post-2015 Agenda: This will require that reviewing States
and other stakeholders, including civil society, provide feedback and share
experiences to advance the implementation of the Post-2015 Agenda. It will also
require sufficient time to conduct effectively moderated dialogues. The
dialogues should conclude with targeted and human rights-based recommendations
to the State under review.
Review of every State three times between 2016 and
2030: This
schedule will allow States to report on their implementation of the Post-2015
Agenda (in the first review, this will largely involve their national plans and
initial progress) and receive recommendations every 4-5 years.
Comprehensive reporting that feeds into reviews: Reports should consist of:
Member State reports, in which States monitor progress and analyze
challenges, and which also are informed by the national-level review processes
and stakeholder consultations, particularly with civil society organizations,
and are based on disaggregated, updated data.
Stakeholder
reports,
compiled by the HLPF (High Level Political Forum) Secretariat from civil society and others’ submissions
into official, detailed documents for the review.
United
Nations reports,
summarizing the assessments of UN agencies as well as the outcomes of other
relevant reviews, particularly those from the human rights treaty monitoring
bodies and the UPR process. Information should be shared systematically between
these different review bodies.
Sufficient
support and meeting time for the HLPF (High Level Political Forum): It is critical that the HLPF is adequately resourced
to conduct meaningful reviews of implementation. This requires that the HLPF be
given sufficient meeting time to conduct around 40-50 reviews each year and
that it has an adequately staffed, permanent secretariat which can support
those reviews including periodic follow-up.
Open,
participatory, and transparent modalities and a meaningful role for civil
society: A
people-centered sustainable development agenda must enable individuals, particularly
those from the most marginalized communities, to participate in the reviews.
Civil society organizations, including those without ECOSOC status, should be
permitted to participate in interactive dialogues, with a trust fund
established to support travel and technology for remote participation.
Documents should be available in the languages of the country under review, and
dialogues should be live webcast.
A web of
effective monitoring and accountability: The HLPF review should be complemented and informed by
efforts at the national and regional levels, as well as global thematic review
bodies that are mandated to look at overall progress and bottlenecks on
specific goals, drawing on relevant international standards (including human
rights and environmental standards) and the cumulative evidence from HLPF
country reviews. These thematic bodies should be made up of independent experts
and could be coordinated by existing specialized bodies, such as UN agencies.