Bienvenue aux Nations Unies
Strong and effective institutions are paramount to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and all the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This is well recognized in the Agenda itself. However, five years after the start of the implementation of the Agenda, governance issues remain at the forefront. The 2021 edition of the World Public Sector Report, published by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), looks in detail at changes in national institutional arrangements for implementing the SDGs since 2015, and examines selected aspects of their effectiveness.
Since 2015, most countries have adjusted their institutional frameworks to support their commitments to implementing the 2030 Agenda. This has comprised, inter alia:
- incorporating the SDGs and other elements of the Agenda into the national institutional context (for instance, national strategies and plans, planning processes, and the work of parliaments and existing government or multistakeholder institutions);
- creating new institutions (for example, high-level coordination mechanisms or technical working groups); and
- setting up new mechanisms for engaging various stakeholders around SDG implementation.
Such changes have taken place gradually, at a pace typical of those to be expected in the institutional area, with typically some years between initial design and implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an abrupt shock to all countries. The pandemic and governments’ responses to it have impacted the functioning of public institutions in ways that directly affect the capacity of governments to deliver the SDGs, starting with the basic functions of government, including the delivery of public services and public administration. The imperatives of managing of the pandemic have meant that governments have had to take quick decisions in terms of resource allocation, prioritization of policy agendas, and sustaining the functioning of key institutional processes, all of which potentially create tensions with long-term goals such as the SDGs.
The pandemic has also revealed institutional weaknesses in areas critical for piloting the SDGs, such as crisis preparedness, policy integration, communication, and others. This has happened in countries at all levels of development. On the other hand, the year 2020 has also witnessed institutional innovations in areas as diverse as administrative management, stakeholder engagement, transparency and accountability. Lastly, the pandemic also highlighted the importance of trust between people and governments, as well as the broader social contract under which societies operate.
Documenting changes in national institutional arrangements for SDG implementation
Many countries are still putting in place or adjusting key elements of their institutional systems in relation to SDG implementation. Patterns of institutionalization of SDG implementation at the country level are highly idiosyncratic, and no regularities or “typical” patterns are discernible. Countries have built on pre-existing arrangements and created new institutional mechanisms based on national contexts and circumstances. The type of institutional arrangements that countries choose to put in place and the timing of institutional changes have also varied. In spite of these differences, there is a clear trend towards the increasing complexity of institutional arrangements for SDG implementation and the multiplication of potential entry points for different government and non-government stakeholders to support SDG implementation. In fact, compared to other internationally-agreed development frameworks, the first five years of implementation of the 2030 Agenda have seen unprecedented institutionalization at the national level. Yet institutional adjustments are not always linear. Changes in political circumstances in a country can increase or decrease the visibility and prominence of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs on the national policy agenda and affect institutional arrangements in ways that can reinforce them or diminish their effectiveness.
The long time-scale of institutional changes should in itself be considered as an important factor in the capacity of countries to deliver the SDGs. It also implies that the institutional side of SDG implementation is vulnerable to short-term changes in national contexts, including changes in policy agendas. These considerations suggest the need for increased attention to the challenges and practicalities of institutional reform.
The rapid changes observed across national public institutions during the pandemic, and their potential implications for the post-pandemic period, stand in stark contrast to the largely gradual adjustments made by countries to the institutional frameworks for implementing the SDGs between 2015 and 2019. Among potential risks created by the pandemic, the lowering of the political priority of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, the decrease in the resources available to various institutional processes related to SDG implementation (for instance for data collection and production or for stakeholder engagement), and the reduced capacity of public institutions to focus on long-term issues while addressing emergency situations, are prominent. In sum, the institutional changes observed since the beginning of 2020 have disrupted the regular, incremental process of institutional adjustments, which could negatively impact institutional frameworks for SDG implementation.
The wide reach of the impacts from the pandemic into all sectors of economies and societies has also underscored even more the interconnectedness of the SDGs and the need for policy integration. Institutionalized coordination within public administration and with other institutions is an imperative for cohesive policy responses. The pandemic also highlights the dependence of public administration on collaboration with other actors to meet challenges and achieve transformative change. Successes in tackling the pandemic and its effects have often featured or included, for instance, civil society, the private sector, and parliaments. Going forward, the institutionalization of avenues for multi-stakeholder action can facilitate progress towards short- and long-term goals, including the SDGs.
Assessing the effectiveness of SDG follow-up and review systems and processes
Effective monitoring, follow-up, review and reporting are crucial for strengthening the implementation of the SDGs. This has gained further importance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. Extreme poverty and inequality have increased. The most vulnerable have been particularly affected by the social and economic impacts of COVID-19. Urgent and coordinated action is needed to address the impacts of the pandemic on SDG implementation. Monitoring systems and timely, comparable data are fundamental resources to assess the differentiated setbacks along the SDG goals and targets and to inform policymaking in the longer-term recovery efforts.
National efforts to institutionalize SDG monitoring, follow-up, and review are evident. However, the resulting systems differ depending on how the SDGs have been integrated into each country’s institutional structure. Moreover, while most countries have identified the institutions responsible for SDG monitoring, the performance of such institutional arrangements is not always conducive to effective follow-up and review.
Progress is also evident in the traction of the voluntary national review (VNR) process and its spillover effects at the subnational level. Overall, countries have improved the preparation of the VNRs and the reports themselves. Online reporting has also increased, as countries leverage ICTs and open data to communicate on SDG progress and implementation. Yet, the limited provision of regular SDG implementation reports to parliament illustrates the lack of articulation with the institutional oversight system to ensure accountability. A note for optimism is the increasing number of external audit reports on SDGs and the significant uptake they have had in several countries. Stakeholder engagement has also increased, and more diverse stakeholders are contributing to SDG follow-up and review.
Significant opportunities for improvement include the coordination and integration of SDG monitoring, follow-up and review with existing monitoring systems, and strengthening subnational participation in SDG monitoring as well as subnational reporting processes. Other constraints relate to data gaps, disaggregation and quality, coordination of data producers and the capacity of local governments to collect and analyze data. Subnational governments have also experienced challenges with regard to the definition of roles and responsibilities for SDG monitoring, follow-up and review and their operationalization. The value of embedding VNRs as part of a continuous cycle of national monitoring, follow-up and review also deserves attention.
The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the fulfillment of monitoring responsibilities and the routine operation of national statistical systems and oversight bodies. It has also imposed new challenges to the participation of stakeholders, and disrupted VNR preparations as a result of social distancing measures. In this context, innovation, new partnerships and digital technologies have been crucial to support SDG monitoring. Going forward, structural bottlenecks related to communications infrastructure and access to digital devices should be addressed to ensure inclusive and effective SDG monitoring, follow-up and review.
Taking stock of efforts to build the capacity of public servants to implement the 2030 Agenda
The capacity of public institutions and individual public servants is a key determinant of the effectiveness of national institutional arrangements for SDG implementation. The importance of building the capacity of public administration at all levels for implementing the 2030 Agenda was recognized in the Agenda itself; in particular, the text of the Agenda identified key areas where capacity building should receive attention and resources. Since 2015, considerable efforts have been made by national governments, academia, non-governmental organizations, international organizations and other national and international actors to raise SDG awareness among public servants and build their capacity for SDG implementation. Those efforts have covered areas such as planning, monitoring and reporting; policy integration; stakeholder engagement; and many others. A key question is the extent to which the sum of those efforts has been meeting national needs in this regard. As shown in the report, publicly available information on ongoing capacity building initiatives is limited and does not, in general, provide a clear answer to this question.
Here too, the pandemic has caused shocks that may have profound implications for the delivery of the 2030 Agenda. During the pandemic, public institutions and public servants have faced compelling demands on their resources to continue to provide key public services. Many have been faced with crisis situations requiring radical shifts in the way they operate, as well as reallocation of resources. In addition, the constraints imposed by the pandemic on physical meetings, travel, and other resources have affected the delivery of capacity building efforts, with a shift to digital delivery modes whose long-term impacts are yet unknown but could have negative implications for SDG implementation.
There is therefore a need to better understand the trends in and features of capacity building efforts in support of SDG implementation targeted at public servants, in terms not only of how they have developed over the past five years and are meeting the needs of countries, but also of how they could be adjusted in the future, taking into account lessons from the pandemic period.
by Mr. Elliott Harris, Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development and Chief Economist, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs