Resources from the ARROW SRHR Knowledge Sharing Centre.
Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: Accountability, Monitoring and Evaluation
EuroNGOs. (2015). Tool kit: Accountability for the post-2015 framework. Brussels: EuroNGOs. Retrieved from http://www.eurongos.org/fileadmin/files/We_ Do/Learning_and_training/EuroNGOs_Accountability_ Toolkit_February_2015_24022015.pdf
This toolkit, developed by EuroNGOs, provides a set of core advocacy and knowledge products on accountability in the post-2015 development agenda. It makes accessible current discussions on accountability and the post-2015 development framework. It also enables readers to identify key areas and challenges in relation to accountability framework in the post-2015 agenda.
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2015). Post-2015: A new era of accountability? Retrieved from http://unstats.un.org/ unsd/statcom/statcom_2015/seminars/post-2015/ docs/Panel%201.3_FukudaParr%20.pdf
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were criticised by many for failing to address the issue of governance and accountability as its "aid and exhortation" model only focused on national accountability and performance against indicators, and was not able to address structural irregularities. This report sheds light on the limitations of accountability mechanisms adopted by MDGs. It also advocates for an accountability framework, which emphasises the responsibility of agenda-setting bodies.
Independent Expert Advisory Group on a Data Revolution for Sustainable Development. (IEAG). (2014). A World that counts: Mobilising the data revolution for sustainable development. Retrieved from http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/11/A-World-That-Counts.pdf
There is no denying that data is the lifeblood of accountability and evaluation frameworks. Without the availability of effective data, providing the needed information on the indicators, conceptualising and implementing effective monitoring and evaluation programmes would become an impossible task. However, data needs improvement and needs to be documented to the highest level of detail required for decision-making by policy makers. This report entails an overview of the opportunities, as well as challenges presented by the data revolution. It also provides recommendations for data usability for sustainable development through proactive measures.
Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Plan International, & Office of the UN Secretary-General's Envoy on Youth. (2014). Young people's engagement in strengthening accountability for the post-2015 agenda. London: ODI. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/ publications-opinion-files/9165.pdf
The need for an effective accountability framework in order to ensure that states honour the commitments made in the post-2015 development agenda has been widely acknowledged. However, accountability to 'whom' and for 'what' still needs to be defined. This paper argues that young people aged between 15 and 24 should be included as key stakeholders, not only within the goals and targets of the framework, but also in the post-2015 monitoring and accountability mechanisms. The paper also puts forward recommendations for meaningful participation of young people in ensuring effective implementation of accountability mechanisms at local, national, regional and global levels.
United Nations Development Group. (UNDG). (2014). Participatory accountability mechanisms for the post2015 development agenda. Retrieved from http:// www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/UNDG%20 Paper%20Participatory%20Accountability%20 Mechanisms%20P2015%20for%20Asia-Pacifi....pdf
Proactive and participatory accountability mechanisms can improve the credibility and effectiveness of the Post-2015 Agenda and make processes more transparent, more inclusive and more responsive to peoples' needs. While a global level accountability architecture is a key site to ensure that accountability principles are being followed, there is a strong need for national accountability mechanisms which will serve as a crucial foundation. The paper highlights key features of a successful post-2015 accountability system.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) & Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR). (2013). Who will be accountable? Human rights and post-2015 development agenda. New York & Geneva: OHCHR & CESR. Retrieved from http://cesr.org/downloads/who_will_be_accountable. pdf
In order to ensure that the post-2015 development agenda translates into tangible results, it needs to be backed up with a framework for accountability which clearly articulates who is responsible to whom and for what. This report makes a case for the need of an accountability mechanism which effectively and explicitly aligns goals with the binding obligations that states already have under various international human rights treaties in order to establish clear and measurable benchmarks.
World Vision International. (2015). Grassroots to global: Seven steps to citizen-driven accountability for the Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from http://www.wvi.org/united-nations-and- globalengagement/publication/grassroots-global-seven- steps-citizen-driven
In this report, World Vision International proposes seven key guiding principles to define citizen-driven planning and monitoring processes at local level. Once the development needs are identified and prioritised at the local level and its implementation are contextualised in a participatory manner, a robust accountability framework should be set up with foundations at the grassroots levels. Collaboration among key players and actors would also be important to ensure that policy targets are fulfilled. Citizen-generated information and data can provide critical information about the quality of service. In this context, governments would also need to create spaces for sharing of citizen-generated evidence. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can hence play an important role. Importantly, administrative and institutional remedies would be required to advance accountability.
Financing the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals
Fonn, S., & Ravindran, T.K.S. (2011). The macroeconomic environment and sexual and reproductive health: A review of trends over the last 30 years. Reproductive Health Matters, 19(38), 11-25. doi: 10.1016/S0968-8080(11)38584-9
The quality and accessibility of public health services are directly dependent on resource allocation. How allocated funds are utilised and how services are prioritised can have an implication for the provisions of health services, including sexual and reproductive health services. A review of trends of the last 30 years, this report provides a review of factors which have influenced key decisions about resource allocation for sexual and reproductive health services across the world. It also examines the role played by donors in determining how services are prioritised and their lack of accountability.
High-Level Task Force for ICPD (HLTF). (2015). Policy considerations for financing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the post-2015 era. Retrieved from http://icpdtaskforce.org/resources/ HLTFFinancingSRHRBrief.pdf
The commitments related to sexual and reproductive health and rights in the post-2015 development agenda will require increased and sustained funding. Despite the proven benefits of spending on investments on SRHR, underfunding of programmes to promote SRHR persists globally. That also explains why the core goal of achieving universal access to SRHR still remains unfulfilled. The focus of donors has remained on the provision of SRH services only, whereas a more holistic approach is needed in order to be able to meet the goal of universal access to SRHR. Broader investments and a multi-sectoral approach is the need of the hour. Additionally, national level financial plans for SRHR and tracking of resource flows for SRHR are also required.
Hill, P. S., Huntington, D., Dodd, R., & Buttsworth, M. (2013). From Millennium Development Goals to post2015 sustainable development: Sexual and reproductive health and rights in an evolving aid environment. Reproductive Health Matters, 21(42), 113-114. doi: 10.1016^0968-8080(13)42737-4
Using case studies from various countries, this paper provides an overview of the structural changes in development economic framework and its impact on policy making around provision of sexual and reproductive health services at national level. It also provides an insight into how a greater focus by donors was brought on by the MGDs, but at the expense of a broader sexual and reproductive health and rights agenda. It also calls advocates to claim inclusion of a broader sexual and reproductive health and rights agenda by linking it with all elements of sustainable development framework: gender inequality, education, population dynamics, but also urbanisation, migration, and climate change.
Olsen, S. H., Zusman, E., Miyazawa, I., Cadman, T., Yoshida, T., & Bengstsson, M. (2014). Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG): An assessment of means of implementation (MOI). Paper presented at ISAP Conference. Retrieved from http://www.iges.or.jp/isap/2014/PDF/IPSS_SDGs_ conference_paper.pdf
The paper argues that more focus is needed to articulate, aggregate and convert diverse needs into the policies and to allocate and distribute resources, which are in compliance with those policies. The paper also provides an overview of existing literature and examines how the linkages between governance, sustainable development and implementation have been conceptualised. It also offers a critical overview of the same in MDGs. It outlines a framework for means of implementation that hinges upon three core features: articulation of needs; resource allocation and distribution; and monitoring and evaluation. Lastly, the paper argues for a similar criteria for both national level and global level MOI and governance frameworks.
Overseas Development Institute (ODI). (2014). Financing the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals: A rough roadmap. London: ODI. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/ publications-opinion-files/9374.pdf
This paper provides an overview of three main components of a global development financial model across different countries and areas for investment. It argues that the financial models for sustainable development goals should be made at the national level so that trade-offs and interdependencies across various funding types can be explored and the potential of public and private resources can be unlocked. It also provides an overview of the implications of such an approach at the global level. Lastly, the report looks into the role that multilateral development banks (MDBs) can play and sets outs four areas of reform, including systemic reforms of MDBs.
The World Bank Group. (2013). Financing for development: Post-2015. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/ content/dam/Worldbank/document/Poverty%20 documents/WB-PREM%20financing-for-developmentpub-10-11-13web.pdf
In September 2015, heads of the states will agree on the Sustainable Development Goals, which is meant to revitalise the means of implementation as well as global partnership for development. This paper provides an overview of existing and emerging financial resources for development. It also provides insight on how to best support developing countries in harnessing diverse resources. The paper also entails discussion on issues of aid effectiveness and ways to provide smarter, more effective aid.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Arrows For Change|
|Date:||Mar 1, 2015|
|Previous Article:||Forthcoming key post-2015 and related events.|
|Next Article:||Other resources.|