UN reforms for the 2030 agenda: are the HLPF's working methods and practices "fit for purpose"?

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has initiated various reform pro­cesses to effectively implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Member states have already agreed to reorganise the United Nations (UN) development system. While further in-depth reforms are necessary, they would be difficult to realise in the current political context. Improve­ments to working methods and practices, however, are within the realm of the possible. This study starts by examining what working methods and practices helped member states consensually adopt the ambitious 2030 Agenda, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agreed in it, in Sep­tember 2015. The High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) is currently the heart of the UN's sustainable development governance. It is meant to support member states in taking on political leadership and responsibility for implementing the 2030 Agenda and SDGs. An analysis will show, however, that the HLPF risks failing in its task: the complexity of the 2030 Agenda, the HLPF's broad mandate, the large number of partici­pants, and their high expectations are creating problems for a forum that - having been founded in 2013 - is not sufficiently equipped for this. In 2016 member states already decided to review the format and organi­sational aspects of the HLPF in 2019-2020. Drawing on an analysis of the HLPF's current working methods and practices, this study explores ideas for improvements. (author's abstract

Reviewing the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: "early movers" can help maintain momentum

At the Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015 the heads of state and government of all the UN member states adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Several countries, including Germany, committed to move rapidly on implementation. During the UN High-level Political Forum (HLPF) in July 2016, twentytwo countries volunteered to conduct national reviews of their implementation. Moreover, UN member states plan to adopt a resolution on the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda before that meeting. What initiatives would be most helpful for maintaining the momentum and making ambitious progress on implementing and reviewing the Agenda? (author's abstract

Reviewing the post-2015 sustainable development goals and partnerships: a proposal for a multi-level review at the high-level political forum

In September 2015, the heads of state and government of the United Nations Member States are scheduled to decide on the Post-2015 agenda. This is to include not only a list of universal Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) but also a mechanism for monitoring and review. The High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) was launched in July 2013 to provide political leadership and guidance, and to work towards a global transformation to sustainable development. An important element of its work will be the review mechanism envisioned under the HLPF mandate, which is set to replace the Annual Ministerial Review (AMR) starting in 2016. What would the review mechanism have to look like to contribute to the implementation of sustainable development at all levels? A review process builds on and goes beyond monitoring and data collection. In this framework, the governments are asked critical, analytical questions to determine the reasons for their successes and failures, and to recommend measures needed to further improve goal attainment in the future. The present study examines the debate taking place over the review process, highlights the positions of selected key actors, discusses criteria for designing a review, and applies these to analyze and assess existing review systems. Finally, it develops specific proposals for a universal, state-led, participatory, multi-level "Commit and Review" process that could serve as a central component of the follow-up process for the Post-2015 agenda and goals. (Autorenreferat

The G20 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Sustainable Development: how to strengthen policy coherence and accountability

The next G20 Summit will take place in Hamburg on 7/8 July 2017. Under the Chinese Presidency, the G20 adopted the Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the 2016 Summit in Hangzhou. The 2030 Agenda had been signed by heads of state and government during the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2015. The German Presidency is now planning a ‘Hamburg update’ of the G20 Action Plan. What kinds of contributions from G20 countries could boost the implementation of the ambitious 2030 Agenda? How can the G20 and UN processes be meaningfully linked, particularly with regard to policy coherence and accountability measures? (Autorenreferat

Are the good ones doing better?

Private governance schemes deploy a significant share of their resources to advocate their legitimacy. Assuming that their primary concern is to ensure their own success, this suggests that the initiators of private governance schemes presume a strong relation between a scheme’s perception as legitimate on the one hand and its success on the other. Based on this observation, this article explores the general hypothesis that the procedural legitimacy of private governance schemes – defined in terms of inclusiveness, transparency, and deliberativeness – enhances their prospects for success. We particularly focus on how right process may translate into effectiveness. To this end, the article identifies three mechanisms: the development of ownership based on inclusive, fair and representative participation; social learning and persuasion based on deliberative procedures; and social control based on transparency and accountability. The three mechanisms are subjected to a plausibility probe in an illustrative case study of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), a private governance scheme in the field of corporate sustainability politics. All in all, the study shows how the GRI’s success can be related to procedural legitimacy. In particular, it suggests that while inclusiveness and deliberation are mostly relevant to gain legitimacy, transparency and accountability are primarily relevant to maintain the legitimacy of private transnational governance schemes.Im Dezember 2006 fand am SFB 700 ein Workshop statt, dessen Teilnehmer/innen die Frage diskutierten, inwiefern die Legitimität und die Effektivität transnationaler Politiknetzwerke und Public Private Partnerships zusammenhängen. Das vorliegende Arbeitspapier war die Grundlage für diese Diskussion. Es geht davon aus, dass Legitimität eine wichtige Voraussetzung für den Erfolg privater Steuerung ist. Offen ist jedoch die Frage, wie dies funktioniert. Im Papier versuchen wir, entsprechende Kausalmechanismenzu entwickeln. Zunächst konzeptionalisieren wir die abhängige Variable „Erfolg“ als die gelungene Steuerung des Verhaltens der beteiligten privaten Akteure im Sinne der vereinbarten Normen (compliance). Im nächsten Abschnitt stellen wir verschiedene Quellen und Formen der Legitimität vor und diskutieren,warum wir prozedurale Legitimität als einem zentralen Erfolgsfaktor für private Governance sehen. Auf dieser Basis entwickeln wir Überlegungen zu den aus unserer Sicht drei zentralen Kausalmechanismen, wie sich prozessuale Legitimität in Regeleinhaltung übersetzt: (1) Aneignung durch inklusive, faire und repräsentative Partizipation; (2) Lernen und Überzeugung über Deliberation und den Bezug auf Argumente; (3) Soziale Kontrolle auf der Basis von Transparenz und Verantwortlichkeit. Unsere Überlegungen zu den Kausalzusammenhängen plausibilisieren wir in einer kurzen empirischen Studie zur Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Dort zeigt sich, dass Inklusivität und Deliberation besonders wichtig sind, um eingangs Legitimität zu erlangen, Transparenz und Rechenschaftspflichten um Legitimität zu erhalten

Organised crime in the "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development": indicators and measurements for international and national implementation

At the end of September 2015, heads of states and governments of the member states of the United Nations (UN) adopted the »2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development«, which contains 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). In the run-up to the September summit, there were particularly intense debates on the goal addressing peace, justice and governance (SDG 16). The implementation of the targets anchored in SDG 16 are of central significance for the overall success of the agenda. That applies especially to the containment of organised crime (OC). The aspired reduction of illicit financial and arms flows, strengthening of stolen asset recovery and combating all forms of OC, all covered in one target, play an important role in removing obstacles to development. However, such objectives only take full effect when convincing indicators verify their implementation. (Autorenreferat

Germany and Namibia as co-leads for the United Nations: chances and challenges on the road to the 2024 UN Summit of the Future

The President of the United Nations General Assembly has appointed the German and Namibian permanent representatives as co-facilitators for the Summit of the Future. The summit is scheduled for September 2024. Its aim is to reinforce the UN and global governance structures to better address old and new challenges. That includes making progress on implementing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) by 2030. Given the current geopolitical tensions, this will be no easy task. At this juncture it is im­por­tant to get the process off to a good start in order to gather support, generate atten­tion and engender confidence. (author's abstract

Meta-governance of partnerships for sustainable development: actors' perspectives on how the UN could improve partnerships' governance services in areas of limited statehood

In the context of negotiations on the Post-2015 or 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the process of formulating Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the United Nations (UN) (again) assigns an important role to multi-stakeholder partnerships. But how do actors view these partnerships more than ten years after the UN’s engagement with them? Our previous research found that transnational multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development are neither as successful as their proponents claim nor as ineffective as their critics argue (Beisheim/Liese 2014). In light of these findings, we ask whether relevant actors argue that lessons learned with regard to partnerships’ success conditions should be translated into rules and standards that guide the operations of existing and the development of new partnerships. This kind of meta-governance of partnerships could be exerted by state or non-state actors at the national or international level. Moreover, we distinguish between two broad functions of meta-governance: enabling and ensuring. In this paper, we present first insights into actors’ views on the meta-governance of partnerships. We focus on the actors in the UN-context, where reforms of the framework for partnerships are under debate.Im Kontext der Verhandlungen der Post-2015 bzw. 2030-Agenda für nachhaltige Entwicklung und der Formulierung der Ziele nachhaltiger Entwicklung (Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs) weisen die Vereinten Nationen (UN) Multi-Stakeholder-Partnerschaften erneut eine zentrale Rolle zu. Aber wie bewerten die beteiligten und betroffenen Akteure derartige Partnerschaften nach rund zehn Jahren Erfahrung? Unsere bisherige Forschung zeigt, dass transnationale Multi-Stakeholder- Partnerschaften weder so erfolgreich sind, wie ihre Befürworter behaupten, noch so ineffektiv, wie es ihre Kritiker darstellen (Beisheim/Liese 2014). Vor dem Hintergrund untersuchen wir, ob relevante Akteure dafür plädieren, dass Erkenntnisse bezüglich der Erfolgsbedingungen von Partnerschaften in entsprechende Regeln und Standards umgesetzt werden sollen, die sowohl bestehende Partnerschaften als auch zukünftige Partnerschaften anleiten könnten. Diese Art von Meta-Governance könnte sowohl von staatlichen als auch von nicht-staatlichen Akteuren auf der nationalen oder internationalen Ebene betrieben werden. Außerdem unterscheiden wir zwei unterschiedliche Funktionen von Meta-Governance: ermöglichend und sicherstellend ("enabling and ensuring"). In diesem Working Paper präsentieren wir erste Einsichten zu den Perspektiven von Akteuren auf Meta-Governance für Partnerschaften. Dabei fokussieren wir auf Akteure im UN-Kontext, wo derzeit Reformen der Rahmenbedingungen für Partnerschaften debattiert werden

Partnerships for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: transformative, inclusive and accountable?

The United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development defines Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs) as a tool for helping to realise the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, prior experience of such partnerships between state and non-state actors (from the private sector or civil society) has shown mixed results. Significant successes have been marred by too many failures. This study examines to what extent policymakers and other relevant actors integrate these insights into multi-stakeholder partnerships -especially as regards their conditions for success- when calling for and fostering new partnerships for the SDGs. This study presents the results of a series of interviews to establish the views and requirements of selected actors on the topic. These interlocutors come from four areas: the United Nations environment, donors and funders, governments and private initiatives. We will also examine the extent to which these actors already deliver de facto "meta-governance" to support, steer and verify partnerships in a more targeted manner. Meta-governance means overarching principles, rules and guidance intended to enable or ensure partnerships in their work. Here too the results are mixed. Whilst we identified many meta-governance building blocks, they add up to a fragmented rather than coherent overall picture. Given these conditions, there is a risk that new partnerships will repeat past mistakes instead of learning from them. In that case, partnerships will struggle to contribute inclusively and accountably to "transforming our world" along the lines of the 2030 Agenda. (Autorenreferat

Die G20 und die 2030-Agenda für nachhaltige Entwicklung: kohärente Umsetzung und Rechenschaftslegung stärken

Der nächste G20-Gipfel der Staats- und Regierungschefs findet am 7./8. Juli 2017 in Ham­burg statt. Unter chinesischer Präsidentschaft hat sich die G20 der 2030-Agenda für nach­haltige Entwicklung der Vereinten Nationen (VN) samt der 17 Ziele nachhalti­ger Entwick­lung (SDGs) angenommen und beim 2016er Gipfel in Hangzhou einen entsprechenden Aktions­plan verabschiedet. Die deutsche Präsidentschaft plant nun ein »Update« dieses Aktionsplans. Welche Art von Beiträgen der G20-Staaten würde die Umsetzung der ambi­tionierten 2030-Agenda voranbringen? Wie können die G20- und VN-Prozesse sinnvoll verzahnt werden, gerade auch hinsichtlich der Rechen­schafts­legung? (Autorenreferat