Informal collective reflection by CSOs on HLPF 2017

Informal collective reflection by CSOs on HLPF 2017 Wednesday 19 July 2017 | Qatar Lounge, UNHQ NY   







 





About 30 people from CSOs, Major Groups and Other Stakeholders (MGoS) gathered to reflect on experiences of 2017 High Level Political Forum and discuss opportunities for coordinated action moving forward.

The meeting was initiated by Savio Carvalho, with the understanding that this is a neutral space, moving beyond brands, logos or networks.

To establish a context, last years experience was briefly mentioned and reminded that some critical issues raised by CSOs through an open letter to the President of ECOSOC were remedied for this year. Participants were then invited to share their views regarding the process, content and whether meaningful participation has been realized for the different groups.

As such, this year participants reflected on improving HLPF process and structure, for example by recommending that the HLPF start rather than ending with Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs), have longer time for VNR presentation (i.e., 30 minutes including 15 min for state and CSOs exchange), and build in other spaces for currently missing dialogue.

Participants discussed how the HLPF process has been “scandalously inadequate.” Civil society are being used as a box ticking exercise in VNR reviews, and are being pushed into lowest common denominator input given the extremely limited spaces, which does not ensure meaningful participation.

Meaningful participation of CSOs / members is not possible with just a conference once per year with 1 min group interventions, where civil society not only has extremely limited space (and often without translation) but also faces censorship and direct attacks as seen in HLPF 2017.

Not having CSOs / MGoS shadow reports being received by DESA or included on the DESA SDG website means input are not adequately recognised.

Concerns were raised that some governments are actively trying to undermine the HLPF, and that the voluntary nature and process of the HLPF is setting it up to fail. Further, the Ministerial Declaration is not being taken seriously enough, despite its importance for the 2019 review.

There were also concerned raised that the SDG HLPF process is in fact moving backward, both on process and approach. Highly restricted space for meaningful participation is unacceptable. Furthermore, the overall approach to the SDGs seems to be using the idea of sustainable development to rationalise “business as usual” rather than realising the transformative intent of the SDGs to create economic development that strengthens human rights and protects the environment.

Participants discussed how ensuring meaningful participation for MGoS requires on-going partnership not one-time meetings, with MGoS being prepared to engage with opportunities for substantive impact at national and global level across the year. Participation should be in line with Rio Principle 10 on that ensures information, access, and accountability, and should build 1

on existing good practice, including in the Geneva human rights bodies (e.g., UPR and CEDAW processes) and Quito/Habitat. One approach would be to understand the HLPF as the embodiment of SDG17 (Means of Implementation/ Partnerships): this requires platforms that enable meaningful engagement with impact from outset, building on good practice.

In particular, participants explored developing the following: 1. Shared political strategy a. Build consistent messaging in our outreach where all support the importance of meaningful participation and link to the human rights agenda at both global and national levels b. CSOs / MGoS members should individually evaluate the HLPF and decide for 2018 if to prioritise receptions for another “fair”/conference, or if there will be meaningful space and reason to engage on advocacy 2. Collective formal submission/letter (Drafting group: Savio/others?) a. Letter should recognise that some things have improved on the HLPF, but that further is needed from the next ECOSOC president. b. Letter should be translated into all UN languages (volunteers welcome) c. Key recommendations could include: i. Provide an HLPF process in that supports meaningful participation of MGoS not “box ticking” 1. Model MgoS engagement based on Geneva human rights (HR) (UPR, CEDAW) & Habitat good practice (early, ongoing input with HR baseline) 2. Host MGoS shadow reports on the DESA website 3. Provide translation to all UN languages ii. Strengthen the MGoS Coordination Mechanism d. Follow up: i. Advocacy: follow up with member states/ UN (all) 1. Share letter with all Member States and UN 2. Identify and follow up with possible champions (i.e, German led “Partners for Review” Initiative linking SDGs and HR, Danish government support robust CSO engagement, Portugal, DESA on receiving shadow reports, others) – identify follow up opportunities with their colleagues for second level follow up 3. At national level: Push for increased local action on meaningful participation on VNRs including through parliamentary debates, town hall meetings, etc. ii. Share coordination doc where MGoS members can note where they have shared the letter (i.e., NY Mission, capital, UN) iii. Press: press conference?

3. Strengthen the MGoS mechanism 2

a. Create a timetable for the HLPF across the year that identifies national and global points on VNRs, Financing for Development (FfD), Human Rights (UPRs, CEDAW+), Habitat, and other UN action b. Learn from this year’s MGoS and secretariat experience: i. identify how to increase engagement where space already exists, building on existing good practice (e.g., Women’s Major Group coordination of always someone in the WMG seat) ii. consider pushing for strengthened Steering Committee/ Secretariat support

3