Statement by the Republic of Maldives on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States
Session on Review and Follow-up of the post-2015 development agenda
18 May 2015
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). We align ourselves and fully support the statement delivered by the distinguished Permanent Representative of South Africa, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.
The followup and review mechanism is an essential requirement for the realisation of any agenda: let alone one that is as ambitious and far-reaching as the Post 2015 Development Agenda.
The follow up and review framework that we seek to establish:
- Must recognise the primacy of national ownership of development, while taking into account that one-size-does NOT fit-all. National priorities, circumstances and capabilities must be taken into account fully.
- It must be one that strengthens accountability at all levels. It must be transparent, inclusive, robust and effective in delivering the ambitious agenda we have set for ourselves
- The follow up and review mechanism must look at development holistically: the economic, social and environmental dimension. It is our understanding that we can no longer continue business-as-usual. In all our development activities, we must consider the social impact and the environmental sustainability. In other words, what we are striving for is sustainable development.
- The review and followup mechanism must be informed by reliable and timely data. But at the same time, it should be mindful of heavy reporting burdens, making use of existing mechanisms as much as possible, and provide capacity building for strengthening national data collection mechanisms. For SIDS, improved data collection and statistical analysis is required to enable us to effectively plan, follow up on, evaluate the implementation of, and track successes in attaining the internationally agreed goals. And further more, the followup and review mechanism should make greater use of our national statistics and developmental indicators, where available.
- The review mechanism, must also review the activities of the UN system and stakeholders on their efforts to realise the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
We are of the view that adequate time must be put into integrating the global development agenda into national planning processes. Support must be provided to realise this. However, we must assert that the followup of the development agenda at the national level must be nationally-owned, based on individual capacities.
We remain mindful of how international obligations place very heavy reporting burdens on countries such as SIDS, where capacity is severely constrained. Thus, we would be weary of proposals to have multiple national reports, and short reporting cycles at the national level.
We recognise that competent regional agencies, where relevant, can also play a useful role within the review and followup process. Regional commissions have been successful in developing clear understanding of, and focus on specific challenges facing regions and sub-regions, which would be invaluable to the success of the development agenda. They could be an important forum to share best practises and experiences within the region.
The effective implementation of our agenda requires a robust global follow-up system to strengthen monitoring and review of implementation at all levels, and the HLPF should play an important role in this regard. The HLPF needs to be shaped in a way that addresses the post-2015 development agenda holistically: on what is being implemented and realised, as well as what kind of support is being offered and what more needs to be done to address the gaps and challenges.
We would like to reiterate our position that the monitoring and review mechanisms for the Post 2015 Development Agenda and the Financing for Development process must be separate in scope and substance. But because of the interlink ages, coherence across these two tracks must be ensured. This is the same for all other processes as well. We believe, for example, that the specific challenges faced by SIDS, must be given special consideration throughout the review process, and in realising sustainable development challenges in SIDS. In this regard, it is important that followup mechanisms being created to follow up on commitments made towards the sustainable development of SIDS in the SAMOA Pathway, ensure coherence and those processes feed into each other.
In closing, we wish to stress the centrality of follow up and review to the implementation of all outcomes. It is only through followup we can know the successes, and identify the challenges. It is only through followup and review that we can progress further on our quest towards sustainable development.
I thank you.