Le Programme de développement durable à l’horizon 2030 et ses 17 objectifs de développement durable (ODD) adoptés par l’ensemble des Etats membres des Nations Unies en septembre 2015 offrent à tous les pays et parties prenantes une feuille de route visionnaire pour l’édification d’un monde de prospérité durable, d’inclusion sociale et d’égalité, tout en préservant notre planète et en ne laissant personne de côté. Une telle mission n’est guère chose aisée. Au cours de l’année écoulée, elle s’est encore compliquée avec la continuation de la pandémie du COVID-19. Des succès chèrement acquis sont menacés alors que les ressources sont réorientées pour lutter contre l'impact de la pandémie sur la santé et les domaines socio-économiques. Le multilatéralisme et la solidarité mondiale sont le seul moyen de reconstruire mieux au début de la décennie d'action et de réalisation pour le développement durable. Un suivi et un examen efficaces de l’Agenda 2030 grâce à l’apprentissage par les pairs sont essentiels à un regain d’action et des progrès dans la réalisation de ces ODD ambitieux et interdépendants en ces temps difficiles. Au cœur de ce processus se trouvent les Examens nationaux volontaires (ENV), qui sont devenus un élément essentiel de l’examen et de la mise en œuvre de l’Agenda 2030 et des ODD et continueront à montrer la voie à suivre et à fournir une source essentielle d’enseignements et de partage d'expériences.

176 ENV ont été présentés au Forum politique de haut niveau (FPHN) pour le développement durable depuis 2016 et 46 autres examens devraient être présentés en juillet 2022. Le présent manuel, édité par le Département des affaires économiques et sociales des Nations Unies en sa qualité de Secrétariat du FPHN, explicite la proposition révisée du Secrétaire général relative à des directives communes d’application volontaire sur les rapports aux fins des ENV et présente six années d’expérience partagée dans la mise en œuvre de ces examens et l’appui qui leur est apporté dans le cadre du Forum. Elaboré grâce à un effort de collaboration, ce manuel fournit des informations pratiques sur les mesures que les pays peuvent prendre ors de la préparation d’un ENV. Il explique de manière pratique toutes les étapes de ladite préparation, de la communication de l’intention de le présenter à la présentation en tant que telle au FPHN, en passant par l’organisation et l’élaboration de l’examen, ses éléments constitutifs clés et ateliers préparatoires y afférents. Comme de plus en plus de pays présentent leurs ENV pour la deuxième fois et suivantes, le manuel contient également des recommandations sur la préparation des ENV ultérieurs. Il contient également des recommandations pour mieux reconstruire après la pandémie.

Comme il a été souligné de façon récurrente, les ENV ne constituent pas une fin en soi, mais plutôt un moyen d’échanger des expériences, d'identifier des défis et d’accélérer la mise en œuvre de l’Agenda 2030. Dans cet esprit, le manuel propose en outre des actions à entreprendre après la présentation des ENV. Il contient également deux annexes qui doivent être lues et utilisées conjointement avec le présent manuel : une liste de contrôle pour les préparatifs de l’ENV ainsi que la proposition révisée du Secrétaire général relative à des directives communes d’application volontaire sur les rapports aux fins des ENV.

Quoique l’on puisse difficilement s’attendre à ce qu’il mette en exergue toute la richesse du suivi et de l’examen au niveau national, j’ose espérer que le présent manuel servira de référence utile pour les pays qui entreprennent des ENV. Il se veut un outil visant à aider les pays dans leur périple vers la réalisation du Programme de développement durable à l’horizon 2030 et des objectifs de développement durable en ces temps difficiles. Il sera peaufiné et mis à jour au rythme de l’acquisition d’expériences et de savoir à la faveur de l’approfondissement du processus d’ENV, y compris toute nouvelle orientation de l'Assemblée générale sur la base de son examen des résolutions sur le FPHN.

LIU Zhenmin Sous-Secrétaire-général des Nations Unies aux Affaires économiques et sociales

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by all Member States of the United Nations in September 2015, provide a visionary roadmap for all countries and stakeholders to strive for a world of sustainable prosperity, social inclusion and equality while at the same time preserving our planet and leaving no one behind. By no means is this an easy mission and in this past year it has been further compounded with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many hard-achieved gains are threatened as means of implementation are diverted to combat impact of the pandemic on health and socio-economic areas. Multilateralism and global solidarity are the only way to build back better at the beginning of the decade of action and delivery for sustainable development. Effective follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda through peer learning is essential for renewed action and progress in achieving the ambitious and interlinked SDGs in these challenging times. At the heart of this process are voluntary national reviews (VNRs), which have become a critical component of the review and implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs and will continue to show the way forward and provide essential source of lessons learned and experience sharing.

One hundred and seventy-six VNRs have been presented at the HighLevel Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) since 2016, with a further 46 due to be presented in 2022. This handbook, which is produced by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs serving as the Secretariat of the HLPF, elaborates on the Secretary-General's guidelines on VNRs and reflects five years of shared experience in undertaking and supporting VNRs at the HLPF.

Prepared through a collaborative effort, the handbook provides practical information on the steps that countries may take when preparing a VNR. It explains in a practical way all stages in VNR preparation - from communicating the intention, to organizing and preparing the review, including its key building blocks and related preparatory workshops, to presenting at the HLPF. As more countries are presenting their VNRs for the second time, it also contains recommendations how to prepare subsequent VNRs. This year, it also contains a section on some suggestions on how to build back better after the pandemic.

As often emphasized, VNRs are not an end, but a means to exchange experiences, identify challenges and accelerate implementation. In that spirit, the handbook further proposes what to do after the VNR presentation. It also contains two useful annexes to be used in conjunction with the handbook: a checklist for VNR preparations and the revised Secretary-General's proposal for voluntary common reporting guidelines for VNRs.

Though it can hardly be expected to do full justice to all the richness of the follow-up and review at the national level, I hope this handbook will be a useful reference for countries undertaking the VNRs. It is meant to be a tool to assist the countries in their journey to achieving the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals especially in these challenging times. It will be further refined and updated as more experience and knowledge are acquired along with the deepening of the VNR process including any new guidance by the General Assembly based on its review of the resolutions on the HLPF.

LIU Zhenmin Under-Secretary-General

Source: UN

When the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted, Member States of the United Nations committed to engage in the systematic follow-up and review of the implementation of the Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A key element of this follow-up and review architecture is the preparation of Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) and the presentation of their results to the international community at the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF). This mechanism has become one of the more innovative contributions of the current global development agenda.

The VNR process was established by General Assembly Resolution 67/290 adopted in 2013, defines the format and organization of the HLPF. The resolution determined that VNR reporting exercises would replace the voluntary national presentations held in the ECOSOC annual ministerial-level substantive reviews. The same resolution determined that the new mechanism would start operating in 2016. Paragraph 74 of the 2030 Agenda outlines the principles for the followup and review process.

VNRs are presented annually to the HLPF. Even though these reports are voluntary, 176 of the 197 members of the HLPF1 have already submitted at least one VNR report. This equates to approximately 90 per cent of UN member States.

This repository identifies good practices resulting from an analysis of VNR Reports. It is intended to contribute to the national effort to conduct good national reviews and submit robust reports by learning from practice. It results from desk research analyzing 247 VNR reports submitted to the HLPF between 2016 and 2021. The author of the repository identified these good practices after considering:

• Alignment with the 2030 Agenda principles for implementing the SDGs;
• Alignment with the 2030 Agenda principles for reviewing and reporting exercises;
• Replicability and scalability of selected practices;
• Reported results arising from the selected practices;
• Consideration of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions under an Integrated Approach to Sustainable Development.

The repository contains examples of good practices from almost 100 developing and developed countries, small islands developing States, landlocked developing countries, least developed countries, and OECD members. It assumes that no country is too small or underdeveloped to have noteworthy experiences to share, and no country is too big or developed to have nothing to learn from others. One important caveat to note is that a good practice should be understood in the context in which it takes place. Good practices should not be replicated without further analysis, and what may be a good practice in one country could produce different results in others. Nevertheless, the good practices outlined in this repository may provide a gateway to identify successful practices that could be adapted to local contexts and implemented accordingly. The repository is organized in three parts, sub-divided into chapters. The first two parts aim at responding to possible support needs across VNR exercises, with part A focused on VNR report building and part B concentrated on how the reports reflect SDG implementation efforts. Part C, which refers to the effects COVID-19 pandemic, was included to link the VNRs, the Decade of Action, and the United Nations Secretary-General’s appeal to Build Back Better in the response to the pandemic. The author has also included several “Recommendation Textboxes” with suggestions for building a VNR report.

As UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated, “We must seize the opportunity of this crisis to strengthen our commitment to implement the 2030 Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. By making progress on our global roadmap for a more inclusive and sustainable future, we can better respond to future crises” (Shared Responsibility, Global Solidarity: Responding to the Socio-Economic Impacts of COVID-19. Secretary-General’s Report, page 2).

Transforming our world is still in our hands.

Source: UN

This report shows how the Indigenous Navigator framework has been used not only as a data collection tool, but also as a way to support Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination. In this process, Indigenous Peoples have also seen the need to enhance communication with other communities, local and national governments, and even international organisations. In other words, through the exploration of the Indigenous Navigator data and contact with other actors, Indigenous Peoples have adapted the tools and used them to meet their own needs in a spirit of self-led governance and open dialogue.

The report draws on data collected in collaboration between IWGIA and the Indigenous Navigator consortium, analysing the experiences of Indigenous communities under the UNDRIP and SDG frameworks,[1] which are also at the core of the Indigenous Navigator. In June-August of 2020, the Indigenous Navigator conducted a series of surveys and interviews with national partner organisations and coordinators from all 11 countries participating in the initiative: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, Cameroon, Colombia, Kenya, Nepal, Peru, the Philippines, Suriname and Tanzania. This covered more than 200 participating Indigenous communities. The data gathered and submitted by the communities, individuals and national partner organisations were collected and shared with their consent. The information was analysed and coded according to topics related to the abovementioned frameworks, which are central to the Indigenous Navigator.

After using the Indigenous Navigator to turn their priorities into real-life projects, a key commonality experienced by participants is the sense of autonomy to organise themselves, and take action. Through the data collection tool, the advocacy component and the small grants facility, Indigenous communities have reasserted their self-determination, and been able to seek the respect and implementation of their rights at all levels – local, regional, state and international. Common key challenges still remain, especially as regards Indigenous peoples’ rights to lands, territories, and resources, consultations and free prior and informed consent, as well as equal political representation to ensure development opportunities in the economic, health, and education sectors. What is most apparent is the need to continue providing opportunities for all stakeholders to access data to extend the geographic areas of action of the Indigenous Navigator to increase dialogue and improve communication, as well as the critical role Indigenous Peoples and communities serve in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals when they are empowered to do so.

The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic added to the challenges that Indigenous Peoples face on a daily basis. In October 2020, the Indigenous Navigator launched a report to document the experiences of the Indigenous communities that are currently working with the Indigenous Navigator during the pandemic. The report highlighted how preventive measures against the virus and community assessments were insufficient, as well as to what extent the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples were affected by pandemic mitigation efforts, and the slowing global economy. Conclusions emphasised the urgent need to respect labour and land rights.[2] This report also analyses how the COVID-19 pandemic proved to be a challenge to Indigenous Peoples, but how these resorted to the Indigenous Navigator and their own knowledge to overcome the additional burden that the pandemic brought to their daily struggle towards the fulfilment of their rights.

In the pages that follow, selected topics from these interviews are discussed, supported by direct quotes, additional material made by the partnering organisations and readily available online, and legal and academic texts that provide additional input to the analysis.

The report starts with a brief introduction to the Indigenous Navigator. Then, it moves on by presenting the factual achievements of the initiative, followed by the persistent challenges towards Indigenous wellbeing. It finally discusses the possibilities to improve the framework and tools based on suggestions made by Indigenous Peoples. Each section refers to the linkages between the UNDRIP and the SDGs, which represent key elements of the Indigenous Navigator framework, as well as COVID-19 boxes emphasising the issue.

Source: Indigenous Navigator

The drafting of this White/Wiphala Paper was coordinated by the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems and edited by a Technical Editorial Committee that summarised the main points received. The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems is the result of collective work by indigenous and non-indigenous experts, scientists and researchers. The initial draft received over 60 direct contributions from indigenous organizations, indigenous experts and institutions from six socio-cultural regions. We owe our thanks to all who contributed, and whose names can be found at the beginning of the paper.

This White/Wiphala Paper offers a constructive, evidence-based contribution to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. The contributors and co-authors of the paper look to the leadership of the UN Food Systems Summit to incorporate the principles and values of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems in the Summit’s agenda, and in the policy discussions and programmes beyond the Summit.

This paper articulates the importance of respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples to ensure the protection and preservation of their foods systems, and the value this can add to tackle emerging global challenges. Furthermore, it advocates that lessons learned from Indigenous Peoples’ approach to food will contribute to the resilience and sustainability of other food systems worldwide. In this vein, the paper provides evidence on the sustainability of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, including the ways in which they have proven resilient over time.

To date, the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit has not paid sufficient attention to the food and knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples challenge the Summit’s current conceptualisation of food systems, which is not representative of their realities, beliefs, livelihoods and food systems.

The paper also challenges some widely accepted ideas and paradigms about food, food systems, sustainability, biodiversity conservation and territorial management. This is intended. Indeed, reassessment of such paradigms is needed to fully grasp Indigenous Peoples’ views and the possible contributions they can make to food systems’ thinking and approaches. Whilst there has been widespread acceptance of Indigenous Peoples’ capacity to preserve biodiversity, there has been only incipient understanding of the important ways that biodiversity conservation intersects with indigenous cultural diversity, language diversity, spirituality, cosmogony and food systems.

This paper highlights the risks of not taking on board the time-tested contributions that Indigenous Peoples have and continue to make for sustainability and territorial management, amongst other dimensions. It also addresses the ongoing policy contradictions and limitations in meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), UN Climate Change Conference of Parties’ (COP) debates and international agreements about sustainability. The White/Wiphala Paper authors expect Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge systems to be recognised, respected and valued with equal consideration and integration by the scientific and academic communities informing the Summit, and beyond.

Whilst we hope and expect that this paper will invoke greater respect for Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge, a number of important considerations must be taken into account.

First, we must be mindful of the ways in which this knowledge is used. There are important differences between scientific formalised knowledge and Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems, but also points of complementarity. Researchers have often been extractive in their use of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional ix knowledge. We advocate for the creation of platforms upon which Indigenous Peoples and scientists can work together to co-design sustainable and resilient food systems in support of wellbeing of people and ecosystems.

Second, the multiple and different contributions from Indigenous Peoples across the world manifest a way of understanding reality and communicating that is predominantly oral. The transcription of oral thoughts and knowledge into written form is often a challenge. As much as possible, we sought to retain the diversity and richness of the contributions received, whilst acknowledging that we could not reflect many of the subtleties of the comments within the limited pages of the paper. The contributions received from Indigenous Peoples often covered an intersection of topics, including cosmogony, territorial management, food, and rights to their lands, resources and territories. The Editorial Committee has in many cases presented a selection of the concepts and ideas in minimising repetition and structuring contributions into the paper’s final format.

Third, Indigenous Peoples and their perception of their food systems and their traditional knowledge is fundamentally systemic. Indigenous Peoples look at the overall, observing the total plus the relationships and interactions between the elements in the food system. When communicating, they give as much importance to the balance and harmony in the system as to elements that compose it. This systemic approach is now being actively sought by scientists to analyse other food systems. Indigenous Peoples have it intrinsically due to their understanding of food, spirituality, nature and relations.

Fourth, whilst scientists base their analysis in modelling and experimentation, Indigenous Peoples refine their knowledge systems through accumulated constant observation of the environment, adjusting their responses over time. This has enabled Indigenous Peoples not only to understand natural cycles, weather patterns and wildlife behaviour but also to develop a day-to-day practical de facto experimentation based on this observation. The accumulated knowledge created during the constant observation is passed on orally through the inter- and intra-generational transmission of knowledge. This way of analysing reality and the phenomena is already a unique contribution by Indigenous Peoples to the scientific community and the world.

To support the process leading up to the UN Food Systems Summit, the White/Wiphala Paper puts forward proposals under each of the five Action Tracks pursued by the UN Food Systems Summit. This silo-creation and piecemeal approach created by the five Action Tracks when analysing food systems is not the way in which Indigenous Peoples would have approached the analysis, opting instead for a more holistic and systemic look.

The term “white” paper is used broadly to refer to frame documents and papers that, at the global level, establish important conceptual references for discussions and debates. Because this paper was written by Indigenous Peoples with Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge, it was suggested it be called the White/Wiphala Paper. “Wiphala” refers to the colourful flag of Indigenous Peoples in the Andes that portrays an idea of the diversity of knowledge and views that have been included in the drafting process. Therefore, the White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems does make reference to its characteristic as a frame paper that will inform global discussions yet maintains the diversity of knowledge and peoples that have informed its drafting process, both of which are integrated into this paper.

We invite readers to reflect on the millions of people around the world who feed their families through food systems that are different from the urban, commercial and value chain food systems with which they may be more familiar. Often these unfamiliar food systems are grouped together as “traditional” food systems. However, as this paper shows, traditional food systems are not all alike, and Indigenous Peoples’ food systems present characteristics that render them unique and must be better understood.

Download the Paper to know more.

Source: FAO

Macquarie University prides itself on the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content in its curriculum and is committed to producing graduates who value Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives and knowledges and the importance of these in our nation’s history and future. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the Indigenous peoples of Australia. The terms “Aboriginal” and “Torres Strait Islander” are collective names that do not emphasis the diversity of languages, cultural practices, worldviews and experiences that exist across the continent now called Australia. Studying at Macquarie University you will have the opportunity to learn more about Indigenous peoples here in Australia and around the world. The Department of Indigenous Studies in the Faculty of Arts has developed this guide to assist you with the appropriate ways to write and speak about Indigenous people in Australia. Maranadyi Maranama Dharug Ngurra (Always was always will be Dharug Ngurra)

Download the guide to know more. 

User Guide

Introduction

In September 2015 a set of global goals were agreed, intended to map out a path towards sustainable development over the next fifteen years. These sustainable development goals are intended to set an ambitious path for a more equitable global economy with a clearer social and environmental balance.

The UN has been engaged in sustainable development policies since the Brundtland Commission published its report named Our Common Future in 1987 and the subsequent UN Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 (Also known as The UN Conference on Environment and Development), but sustainable development was rarely given the recognition in policy-making that it deserved. This changed with the Rio+20 Conference in 2012. The Rio+20 Outcome Document, named “The Future We Want” positioned sustainable development as the backbone of all future development.

This has been further reiterated by the work carried out by the UN Open Working Group, whereby governments, representatives from civil society and the private sector contributed to further crafting this new agenda. After 18 months of deliberations, 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) were agreed upon, in addition to 169 related targets. The SDGs were subsequently debated further and adopted under the title: “Transforming Our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

It was agreed at the United Nations that these goals should be subject to annual review and not only acceding to their own national plans but also by using the indicators to measure these reviews. In order to provide a space for this regular review to take place, in 2013 the Member States of the UN agreed to establish the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) which replaced the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) established at the UN Earth Summit in 1992.

The HLPF has been called the preeminent forum within the United Nations to work on sustainable development issues for the next fifteen years or so. It is also referred to as the home of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda. This Forum is the ‘apex body’ at the UN to ensure monitoring, follow-up and review of the SDG commitments. It provides a forum to review progress across nation states and to connect policies within the UN system.

The HLPF accords NGOs the most far reaching participatory privileges and rights in the history of the UN. But how can civil society most effectively engage with this process? How does the UN enable voices to be heard from the people who are most directly affected by these policies?

Download the User Guide to know more. 

The theme chosen for the twentieth session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) was: “Peace, justice and strong institutions: the role of indigenous peoples in implementing Sustainable Development Goal 16”.

The format of this year’s session was modified due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In-person meetings took place at the opening and closing meetings, with limited in-person participation of Permanent Forum Members and Member States. For the rest of the participants, the Permanent Forum Members and the Secretariat decided to hold the sessions in a virtual format, with a session of 2 hours each day.

The discussion that raised the most interest was discussion agenda item 4 on “the six mandate areas of the Permanent Forum (economic and social development, culture, environment, education, health and human rights), with reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. The statements highlighted the persistent inequalities faced by Indigenous Peoples, such as lack of access to education for women and youth, human rights violations (pollution of their environment, land grabbing and killings, especially of indigenous women, etc.) and the need to preserve their indigenous languages. In light of this, they recommended the full implementation of UNDRIP and the strengthening of their participation in UN meetings. The dialogue over agenda item 3 on the theme, “Peace, justice and strong institutions: the role of indigenous peoples in implementing Sustainable Development Goal 16”, also raised a lot of interest. The interventions outlined the need for Indigenous Peoples to uphold their land rights, as their territories have been at the center of continued militarization and invasion by extractive industries. The declarations also expressed the wish that Indigenous Peoples would see their right to self-governance and autonomy fulfilled. In addition, Member States were recommended to strengthen their participation in decision making processes.

Download the report to know more. 

Source: Docip

Summary

In accordance with General Assembly decision 70/1, this report provides a global overview of the current situation of the Sustainable Development Goals, based on the latest available data (as of April 2021) on the global indicator framework for the SDGs 1 . It was prepared with inputs from over 50 international and regional organizations.

Introduction 1. The year 2020 was an extraordinary year in human history. To date, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken over three million lives, devastated the global economy, and upended all spheres of human life.

2. Before the pandemic, progress was being made on the implementation of some important areas of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for example, on reducing poverty, improving maternal and child health, increasing access to electricity and advancing gender equality. In many instances, however, those advancements were not happening fast enough. And in some truly transformative areas, such as reducing inequality, lowering carbon emissions and tackling hunger, progress had either stalled or reversed. In short, by early 2020, the world was not on track to meet its 2030 targets.

3. With the pandemic still raging in many parts, the degree to which the SDGs have been knocked further off track is not yet fully known. As this report shows, however, it is clear that the pandemic has already had a very significant impact in a number of areas, undermining decades of development efforts.

4. This is particularly evident in SDG 1, where the pandemic-related economic downturn has pushed an additional 119 to 124 million people into extreme poverty in 2020, further compounding poverty eradication challenges such as conflict, climate change and natural disasters. The crisis is also exacerbating inequalities. In 2020, the equivalent of 255 million fulltime jobs were lost and an additional 101 million children and youth fell below the minimum reading proficiency level, wiping out the education gains achieved over the last two decades. It is also estimated up to 10 million additional girls at risk of child marriage in the next decade as a result of the pandemic.

5. The slowdown associated with COVID-19 has done little to slow the climate crisis. Preliminary data show global greenhouse gas emissions increased in 2020 while the global average temperature in 2020 was about 1.2°C above pre-industrial level, dangerously close to the 1.5°C limit called for in the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, the world fell short on 2020 targets to halt biodiversity loss and 10 million hectares of forest being lost per year between 2015-2020.

6. This report also shows that the means of implementation required to support SDG transformation have been negatively affected by the COVID-19 crisis. Funding flows fell significantly in 2020: global flows of FDI fell by 40% and remittance flows to low and middle-income countries fell by 7%. The value of global merchandise trade is predicted to fall by 5.6% in 2020 compared to 2019. The numerous fiscal impacts of the pandemic are leading to debt distress in many countries. While net official development assistance increased in 2020 to a total of $161 billion, 3 this still falls well short of what is needed to respond to the COVID-19 crisis and to meet the long-established target of 0.7% of GNI.

7. Overall, this report paints a worrying picture regarding the state of the SDGs six years after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda. But it will depend on the collective response over the coming 18 months whether or not the COVID-19 crisis serves as a much-needed wake-up call that spurs a decade of truly transformative action that delivers for people and planet.

8. Over the past year, there have been rays of hope. There has been immense community resilience, decisive action from governments, a rapid expansion of social protection, an acceleration of digital transformation; and a unique collaboration to develop life-saving vaccines and treatments in record time. And as documented in this report, there are solid foundations to build on in some areas.

9. Now a concerted effort is needed to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, to strengthen the financial position of developing countries and to embrace a recovery that is guided by the 2030 Agenda. To get the SDGs back on track, governments, cities, business and industries have to use the recovery to adopt low-carbon, resilient and inclusive development pathways that will reduce carbon emissions, conserve natural resources, create better jobs, advance gender equality and tackle growing inequities.

10. The ability of governments to respond effectively and recover better will also depend on the availability of data. Over the last year, the data and statistical community has faced unprecedented disruptions in statistical operations and a spike in demand for data to monitor and mitigate the effects of the global pandemic. Many national statistical offices have adapted quickly to the challenges and played a major role in governments’ COVID-19 response. New partnerships, data innovations and new measures have been introduced which have profoundly changed the statistical production process in many countries. However, the pandemic has exacerbated critical funding gaps in national, regional, and global statistical offices, making the need to mobilize international and domestic resources to support data for decision making more urgent than ever.

 11. The same is true of the availability of internationally comparable data on SDGs. Considerable progress has been made in this area, with the number of indicators included the global SDG database increasing from 115 indicators in 2016, to around 160 in 2019 and to 211 in 2021. At the same time, significant data gaps still exist in terms of geographic coverage, timeliness and the level of disaggregation, making it difficult to fully comprehend the pace of progress, differences across region and who is being left behind. With a view to the High-level Political Forum and the 2021 World Data Forum, it is essential that greater resources and innovation are deployed to further strengthen data for the SDGs

To read the full report, download the document. 

Foreword

Anne Nuorgam

Chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

At the core of indigenous peoples’ struggles are their rights to lands, territories and resources. Ancestral lands are the source of indigenous peoples’ cultural, spiritual, social and political identity and the foundation of traditional knowledge systems.

José Martínez Cobo1, in his capacity as Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, stated the following:

It is essential to know and understand the deeply spiritual special relationship between indigenous peoples and their land as basic to their existence as such and to all their beliefs, customs, traditions and culture. For such peoples, the land is not merely a possession and a means of production. The entire relationship between the spiritual life of indigenous peoples and Mother Earth, and their land, has a great many deep-seated implications. Their land is not a commodity which can be acquired, but a material element to be enjoyed freely.

Deep connections endure within this context that are unique to indigenous peoples. There is a profound relationship between indigenous peoples and their lands, territories and resources, and this relationship is characterized by various social, cultural, spiritual, economic and political dimensions and responsibilities. The collective dimension of this relationship is significant, and the intergenerational aspect is crucial to indigenous peoples’ identity, survival and cultural viability.

Land and resource issues, particularly the dispossession of indigenous peoples from their lands, has been at the forefront of the deliberations of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues since its inception, with two dedicated thematic sessions held in 2007 and 2018.

The lack of formal recognition, non-implementation or abolition of collective land rights in many countries continues to make indigenous peoples highly vulnerable to displacement, poverty, discrimination and marginalization. Indigenous lands containing natural resources sought after for extraction have regularly been the source of disputes and conflict. The intensification of natural resource exploitation is adversely affecting indigenous peoples’ lands and territories and rapidly dispossessing them of their primary sources of livelihood.

Violent conflicts directly related to land issues are increasing, and indigenous peoples are suffering systematic human rights violations, internal displacement, the loss of cultural identity, the destruction of livelihoods, poverty, permanent environmental damage, pollution, and the loss of biodiversity in their traditional lands and territories.

In addition, over the past decade, there has been an expansion in agribusiness, rising demand for more land to source “green” fuels, and the adoption of conservation measures that have restricted indigenous peoples’ access to their lands and resources. The growing demand for greater “economic productivity” from indigenous lands and resources is reflected in the increasing number of agreements made with investors by third parties that have failed to obtain free, prior and informed consent from indigenous residents. These circumstances are contributing to the rising incidence of land-grabbing, forced evictions, relocations, and reprisals against human rights defenders.

Since they first came to the United Nations, indigenous peoples have emphasized the fundamental importance of their relationship with their lands, territories and resources. Recognition of their attendant rights is crucial for their survival as distinct peoples.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination (articles 3 and 4), their collective right to own and control their lands and resources (articles 25-27), their right to free, prior and informed consent in relation to legislation, measures and projects that may have an impact on their rights (articles 10, 11, 19, 28, 29 and 32) and their right to participate in decision-making processes (articles 5, 18 and 27). The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of the International Labour Organization — ILO Convention No. 169 (1989) — also makes explicit reference to the land rights of indigenous peoples, and there is jurisprudence developed by human rights treaty bodies, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights that focuses on the land rights of indigenous peoples. Ensuring the collective rights of indigenous peoples to lands, territories and resources is important not only for their well-being, but also for addressing some of the most pressing global challenges, including climate change and environmental degradation. Strengthening and safeguarding such rights constitute an effective way to protect critical ecosystems, waterways and biological diversity.

Source: UN

Abstract:

The document summarizes the report that, based on a review of more than 250 studies, demonstrates the importance and urgency of climate action to protect the forests of the indigenous and tribal territories of Latin America as well as the indigenous and tribal peoples who protect them. These territories contain about a third of the continent's forests. That's 14% of the carbon stored in tropical forests around the world; These territories are also home to an enormous diversity of wild fauna and flora and play a key role in stabilizing the local and regional climate.

Based on an analysis of the approaches that have proven effective in recent decades, a set of investments and policies is proposed for adoption by climate funders and government decision-makers in collaboration with indigenous and tribal peoples. These measures are grouped into five main categories: i) strengthening of collective territorial rights; ii) compensate indigenous and tribal communities for the environmental services they provide; iii) facilitate community forest management; iv) revitalize traditional cultures and knowledge; and v) strengthen territorial governance and indigenous and tribal organizations. Preliminary analysis suggests that these investments could significantly reduce expected carbon emissions at a low cost, in addition to offering many other environmental and social benefits.

Source: FAO

How can transparency improve the governance and accountability of “land investments,” such as agriculture, forestry, wind and solar energy, and similar projects? Land investments have long been characterized by poor governance and accountability, which is often exacerbated by inadequate information sharing and the exclusion of communities from decisions that will affect them. The Covid-19 crisis amplified these challenges. Governments fast tracked project approvals to the exclusion of communities and intensified criminalization and persecution of rights defenders. Reductions in government monitoring of investments were accompanied by opportunistic regulatory rollbacks. Opaque actions taken during the fog of the pandemic will have long-term implications, including an increased risk of social conflict, imperiling recovery efforts and even increasing the risk of governmental collapse.

Transparency is often seen as a means of improving governance and accountability. But its transformative potential can be hindered by vagueness concerning how “transparency” is defined and who it is intended to serve. Transparency is too often used interchangeably—and erroneously—with “disclosure,” effectively protecting powerful actors from changes in the status quo. Existing transparency and governance initiatives also fall short on meeting communities’ transparency needs, precisely because such initiatives focus on other beneficiaries, such as commodity buyers or international civil society actors. This report seeks to re-orient conceptions of transparency in ways that can lead to more transformative impacts— particularly for local rights holders—in the governance of land. Reorienting understandings of what land investment transparency means can also benefit governments, companies, and other actors by enabling them to more effectively manage operational risk linked to social conflict and community opposition.

THE DEFINITION

“Land investment transparency” (LIT) is public disclosure of relevant land investment-related information, as well as the ability of people to access, understand, and use that information. LIT entails an ecosystem of open systems and processes, in which project-affected community members can participate and influence decisions that will affect them. These elements can support community members in exercising their rights, anticipating and avoiding negative impacts, resolving grievances, seeking redress, and driving their own development. Governments have a legal duty to ensure land investment transparency, which is based in the binding norms of international human rights law. In addition, companies and investors have responsibilities to respect human rights, which means that they, too, must work proactively to advance the components of LIT within their control.

RELEVANT ACTORS This report divides the actors relevant to land investment transparency into two groups:

1. Project-affected communities and the actors who support them. This group is often sidelined from investment-related decision-making. It includes all community members, not only leaders, and allies such as Indigenous and peasant organizations, civil society organizations, and paralegals and other experts supporting communities

2. “Gatekeepers.” These actors control access to relevant information and how policy and decision-making processes around land investments function. Gatekeepers include host governments, companies carrying out land investments, as well as lenders, equity investors, and other actors in the investment chain.

CHALLENGES EXPERIENCED BY COMMUNITIES AND THEIR ALLIES

Communities, their allies, and other actors experience a range of challenges, which diminish land investment transparency. Disclosures fall short. Information is usually not disclosed early enough, and some information and documents are never disclosed. A lack of proactive disclosure puts the burden on communities to track down information, exposing them to additional risks and costs. Disclosed information can also be inaccurate, used by gatekeepers as part of “information wars.” Communities struggle to access information. Information, when disclosed by gatekeepers, often does not reach communities. Instead it can remain inaccessible in faraway government buildings or online. Gatekeepers, too, are often inaccessible for community members, limiting communities’ ability to obtain key information.

More is needed to enable communities to understand available information. Communities often start with a low understanding of their rights and other technical issues, which can impair their ability to obtain and understand information about proposed projects. When technical information is disclosed, it can remain incomprehensible unless gatekeepers or others take the time to summarize, translate, and convert it into a form that can be understood by community members.

Communities face barriers to using information and to participating in open decision-making processes. One limiting factor to communities’ use of information is that investment related decisions are often made behind closed doors, without community participation. In addition, the ability of communities to use information to influence decision-making is regularly undermined by their lack of leverage. This is linked to governments’ reluctance to recognize community land rights or their rights to free, prior and informed consent, which would enable communities to influence or control whether or not projects take place and on what terms. Communities are regularly faced with governments that rely on company information to the detriment of community perspectives, and with regulators that often neglect their mandates, thus undermining accountability. Although good faith regulators and other “reformers” within government can help to bolster community participation in decision-making, those government actors are also frequently undermined by more powerful actors. Less obviously, communities seeking to use information to influence decisions may find that gatekeepers may sometimes cede to community requests for information and participation merely as a strategy to dampen pressure for deeper systemic changes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The big picture Donors, global policy makers, and civil society organizations should:

• Conceive of transparency as extending beyond disclosure, to include community access, comprehension, and use of information in open decision-making processes and governance systems.

• Ground transparency efforts in the needs of communities and other local actors.

• Support or implement transparency efforts that seek to navigate, change, or circumvent political barriers.

• Strategically support or implement transparency programming when it is needed to complement—or to fill voids created by the blockage of—more transformational frameworks for improving the governance and accountability of land investments, such as human rights, access to justice, and the protection of legitimate tenure rights.

Source: Columbia

(i) Introduction

MOMENTUM FROM A YEAR OF PROTESTS IN 2019 CARRIED INTO THE OPENING MONTHS OF 2020 AS HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS (HRDS) SOUGHT TO CAPITALISE ON GAINS MADE THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN DEMANDING CHANGES TO HOW THEIR COUNTRIES WERE GOVERNED. BY MARCH, HOWEVER, IT WAS CLEAR THAT SIGNIFICANT NEW CHALLENGES WOULD EMERGE WHEN THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION DECLARED COVID-19 A GLOBAL PANDEMIC. THE SITUATION CREATED NEW DEMANDS ON DEFENDERS AS THEY SOUGHT TO ASSIST THEIR COMMUNITIES, WHILE ALSO CREATING NEW RISKS IN THE FORM OF RESTRICTIVE MEASURES, EXPOSURE TO THE VIRUS THROUGH THEIR OUTREACH WORK AND INCREASED EFFORTS BY STATES TO CONTROL THE FLOW OF INFORMATION. THE CRISIS LED TO AN INCREASE IN RISKS FOR WOMEN HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS (WHRDS), LGBTIQ+ DEFENDERS5 AND FOR THOSE DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, INCLUDING REFUGEES, MIGRANTS AND SEX WORKERS. 6

Against this backdrop, the regular everyday risks faced by HRDs all over the world remained ever-present; according to information collected by Front Line Defenders and provided by partners in the HRD Memorial project, at least 331 HRDs were killed for carrying out their peaceful human rights work in 2020; as more cases continue to be verified, it is expected that this number will ultimately increase. 69% of those killed worked on land, environmental or indigenous peoples’ rights. Colombia alone accounted for 177 or 53% of the murders (see note, page 21). Impunity remained the norm and killings were frequently preceded by aggressive on- and offline smear campaigns aimed at discrediting the work of HRDs. Given how many killings occur in the context of efforts to exploit land for economic activity, and in which there is often conflict and violations of rights, there remains a fundamental disconnect between the responsibilities and actions of businesses, investors, local authorities and the rights of communities, including to be informed of and to reject proposed projects. In a year when the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) warned that “a serious risk to global food security” is being posed by dramatic losses in biodiversity and highlighted the vital role indigenous communities play in the sustainable management of nature, the continued targeting of indigenous peoples’ rights defenders is something that should concern policy makers everywhere. Last year, 26% of those killed were defenders of indigenous peoples’ rights. Front Line Defenders has recorded the killing of 327 indigenous peoples’ rights defenders since 2017.

In every region of the world, arrest and detention continued to be the most common reported violation used by states to undermine or stop the work of HRDs. In addition to restrictive legislation introduced supposedly in response to the pandemic, various other laws were passed which were designed to limit the ability of HRDs and civil society to function well and safely (see below). Some of these, along with COVID 19-specific restrictions, were brought in or used to undermine protest movements which had gained both momentum and experience the previous year. Yet despite these circumstances, rights-based social mobilizations did occur on a large scale throughout the year in which HRDs played a vital role, as outlined below in Belarus and the USA, among other countries. Popular discontent with ruling powers’ manipulation of elections continued to be a trigger for exceptionally violent crackdowns in a number of countries, with defenders often violently targeted and attacked as they documented abuses, provided medical assistance to the injured and campaigned for free and fair elections. The dramatic moves taken by many major social media platforms to ban thousands of individuals inciting violence and promoting mis- and disinformation in the US in early 2021 may bring more attention to the type of online violence that HRDs have been subjected to for years. Unfortunately, those companies have frequently been too slow or unaware of the real, acute danger when cases of HRDs being targeted online are brought to them, especially in contexts where there is a proven pattern that suggests physical attack often follows such online posts. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders notes in her 2021 report to the 46th Session of the Human Rights Council, that she “received testimonials from multiple defenders indicating that killings and attempted killings are often the culmination of a series of acts involving abuse, vilification and threats.” In the inevitable debate on the extent of and limits to freedom of speech and the role of tech companies as moderators, it is essential that the voices and experiences of HRDs, who have been trying to flag these issues for years, are taken into account.

Source: Frontline Defenders

This year’s VNRs synthesis report provides highlights of country progress in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals and its SDGs. As with past years, the report identifies examples, best practices, lessons learned and challenges from countries conducting reviews. It also addresses specific topics, including national ownership, stakeholder involvement, institutional mechanisms, incorporation of the SDGs into national development frameworks, means of implementaton and partnerships. It also provides an overview of how countries addressed each of the SDGs, and examines actions to implement the principle of leaving no one behind. While the synthesis aims to highlight practices from all reporting countries, it is not exhaustive; the examples included are illustrative and their selecton does not imply that the 2020 VNRs do not contain other equally valid and useful examples of country practces. Background informaton and details concerning the mandate for the VNRs is contained in the 2016 Synthesis Report of Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) and it is not repeated in the present report.

Source: UN