President of the General Assembly: Interactive Dialogue “Elements for a Monitoring and Accountability Framework for the Post-2015 Development Agenda”

New York, 1 May 2014

Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for organising this important event. It is an honour and a pleasure to be here to discuss the critical issue of accountability, a topic that to date has not received its share of attention in the context of the post-2015 development agenda.

Without a strong accountability system, the post-2015 agenda risks becoming a list of empty promises. As the Secretary General said, in the case of the Millennium Development Goals, “shortfalls have occurred not because the goals are unreachable, or because time is too short. We are off course because of unmet commitments, inadequate resources and a lack of focus and accountability.”

There must, then, be a strong accountability system for the post-2015 development agenda; it must be effective, inclusive and coherent. What should be its key elements? Allow me to make three suggestions. We need a well-crafted post-2015 accountability framework. We need to decide on effective accountability mechanisms.  And we need to ensure an enabling environment for accountability.

In terms of the post-2015 accountability framework, goals, targets and indicators need to be established, and currently the Open Working Group is taking a lead on this work. Some of the targets and  indicators will need to be adapted to the national level. In this process, it is critical that the reasons for choosing specific goals, target and indicators are communicated transparently. We need to make sure that we deploy clear criteria to select the elements of the accountability framework, so that these choices, which will affected millions of people around the world, can stand up to scrutiny.

Secondly, we must identify effective accountability mechanisms that can help to monitor progress towards the defined goals. To go beyond the level of accountability of the MDGs provided, we need to aim for a ‘web of accountability’ that draws on existing mechanisms. We also need to build a cycle of accountability, by systematically linking those existing mechanisms. 

I would like to linger on this question of accountability mechanisms, for it is both complex and essential. Let me give a few examples of what I mean by such mechanisms. For example, political accountability is vital to the success of any development agenda. However, parliaments have played a minimal role in ensuring accountability for the MDGs. This undercuts their democratic oversight role. Parliaments should be involved more effectively in the future agenda.

We also need to ensure systematic social accountability. Here we can build on many successful examples, such as public expenditure tracking surveys in Tanzania, or Uganda’s citizen report cards to monitor and improve water services. Social accountability not only helps gather data, it also assists those who have been traditionally excluded and marginalized to claim their rights directly and effectively. The results of social accountability mechanisms provide hard data and important feedback for parliaments and other bodies when they review national progress towards the goals.

Multiple accountability mechanisms exist at the global level, even within the United Nations system, and often in the same or overlapping policy fields. These mechanisms must draw on each other more systematically to ensure synergies, reduce duplication and to ease the reporting burden of countries.

For instance, all UN member states report to several international human rights mechanisms – including the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review – on their progress across a range of policy areas, and these often overlap with development goals. These reviews provide a wealth of information that help to assess States’ results in meeting agreed goals. We must create a virtuous cycle of information, systematically feeding results from the Universal Periodic Review and other human rights bodies into the post-2015 review process – and, conversely, sharing the results of post-2015 reviews with human rights review bodies.

This exchange, or cycle of accountability, can extend well beyond country data. The post-2015 accountability framework should also draw on experiences from human rights mechanisms. The Universal Periodic Review offers some useful lessons on structuring a successful global peer review mechanism, and I would like to share some of them with you.

Participation in the UPR is compulsory for all States. When a member State is up for review, three documents are prepared: a national report; a compilation of information by the UN; and a summary of information from stakeholders, including civil society. This provides a solid basis for review and for formulating recommendations.

During the review session, the member State makes a presentation and engages in an interactive peer dialogue with other member States. A troika of three countries, selected at random, prepares a final report that includes recommendations. Although these recommendations are not binding, member states must report on them in the next UPR reporting cycle, which creates an incentive to act.

During discussion of the troika’s report, non-governmental observers have the right to speak. And – this point is vital – all UPR sessions are webcast live. Our experience demonstrates very clearly that this absolute transparency, together with the participation of a broad range of stakeholders in the UPR process, generate unprecedented engagement in the reporting process. It is not unusual for government, UN and civil society actors to gather together in the country under review to follow the sessions live on the screen.

I am confident that we can learn from the UPR process and mobilize all actors around the new SDGs in a similar way, and I am certain that this will strongly boost the likelihood that the new goals will be met.

Excellencies, I said that I would make three suggestions. The first two elements  – a clearly and carefully defined framework of post-2015 accountability goals and indicators; and identifying effective accountability mechanisms – can only function within an enabling environment for accountability. Accountability will be meaningless at all levels if the people are not genuinely free to participate and to hold duty-bearers to their commitments.

Yet attacks on the press, and on human rights defenders, have risen alarmingly in recent years. We have, indeed, seen examples of this within the UPR, involving intimidation of civil society actors participating in some country reviews. The post-2015 accountability system must firmly put into practise the core values of the United Nations. It must ensure respect for the right to information and the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

When civil society is able to express concerns, we are better able to grasp which elements of our work are truly working – and which are going wrong. But perhaps even more importantly, a process that is participative and respectful of rights will show people that their well-being and dignity are the ultimate objectives of the new goals. In short, it will make this a people’s agenda.

I look forward to your deliberations. Thank you very much.  

10 minutes