Abstract
In 2015, the United Nations agreed on seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDG s). These SDG s are not legally binding and lack strict enforcement mechanisms. International organizations that seek to implement these goals therefore rely on soft tools to influence governments and other actors, which is often described as “orchestration.” This article focuses on regional governance and studies the yet unexplored role of the five UN Regional Commissions. These commissions seek to link the global ambitions of the SDG s with regional actors, contexts, and priorities. Drawing on extensive document analysis and a series of semistructured expert interviews, the article analyzes the orchestration efforts of all five Regional Commissions, focusing on agenda setting, coordination, and support. It concludes that instead of a unified orchestrating role, Regional Commissions play in practice a balancing role for agenda setting, a sharing role when it comes to coordination, and a conforming role in terms of support.
1 Introduction
In 2015, the 193 Member States of the United Nations agreed on the 2030 Agenda, centered on seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDG s). (See Figure 1.) The SDG s are not legally binding, partially qualitative, lack global enforcement mechanisms, and often require further translation to regional and local realities.1 International organizations that seek to help implement and to steer actors toward achieving the goals thus need to rely on soft tools of influence, which are often described as “orchestration.”2 Earlier research focused on the role of the UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development as the global orchestrator for the SDG s, showing its political conflicts, limited resources, and fundamental institutional deficiencies.3
Figure 1
The seventeen Sustainable Development Goals
Citation: Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 29, 4 (2023) ; 10.1163/19426720-02904006
Source: United NationsThe purpose of our study was to analyze potential UN-affiliated orchestrators at the regional level, namely, the five UN Regional Commissions: the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNECLAC), UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), and UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (UNESCWA).4 (See Table 1.) In the multilevel governance of the SDG s, these commissions form an interface between global ambitions and regional realities. The outcome document of the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) has thus emphasized the importance of such regional mechanisms for the follow-up, and the Regional Commissions in turn have expressed their ambition to steer regional policy processes.5 The Regional Commissions have even noted missed opportunities for engagement during the period of the earlier Millennium Development Goals (MDG s 2000–2015) and have called for a “strong regional dimension to analysis and policy-setting” for the SDG s.6
And yet, will these Regional Commissions be able to act as orchestrators in their regions and steer actors toward implementing the SDG s? What is their policy impact, and how can we account for (potential) transregional variation among commissions? By exploring these central questions, this study makes three contributions: 1) a new framework for more fine-grained assessments of orchestration; 2) novel empirical insights on orchestration practices in the context of global goal setting; and 3) a new understanding on the role of the UN Regional Commissions in sustainable development.
Table 1
The five UN Regional Commissions
|
UNECA |
UNECE |
UNECLAC |
UNESCWA |
UNESCAP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Algeria |
Albania |
Antigua and Barbuda |
Algeria |
Afghanistan |
|
Angola |
Andorra |
Argentina |
Bahrain |
Armenia |
|
Benin |
Armenia |
Bahamas |
Egypt |
Australia |
|
Botswana |
Austria |
Barbados |
Iraq |
Azerbaijan |
|
Burkina Faso |
Azerbaijan |
Belize |
Jordan |
Bangladesh |
|
Burundi |
Belarus |
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) |
Kuwait |
Bhutan |
|
Cape Verde |
Belgium |
Brazil |
Lebanon |
Brunei Darussalam |
|
Cameroon |
Bosnia and Herzegovina |
Canada |
Libya |
Cambodia |
|
Central African Republic |
Bulgaria |
Chile |
Morocco |
China |
|
Chad |
Canada |
Colombia |
Oman |
Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of |
|
Comoros |
Croatia |
Costa Rica |
Palestine, State of |
Fiji |
|
Congo |
Cyprus |
Cuba |
Qatar |
France |
|
Democratic Republic of Congo |
Czech Republic |
Dominica |
Saudi Arabia |
Georgia |
|
Djibouti |
Denmark |
Dominican Republic |
Somalia |
India |
|
Egypt |
Estonia |
Ecuador |
Sudan |
Indonesia |
|
Eritrea |
Finland |
El Salvador |
Syrian Arab Republic |
Iran |
|
Eswatini |
France |
France |
Tunisia |
Japan |
|
Ethiopia |
Georgia |
Germany |
United Arab Emirates |
Kazakhstan |
|
Equatorial Guinea |
Germany |
Grenada |
Yemen |
Kiribati |
|
Gabon |
Greece |
Guatemala |
Kyrgyzstan |
|
|
Gambia |
Hungary |
Guyana |
Lao People’s Democratic Republic |
|
|
Ghana |
Iceland |
Haiti |
Malaysia |
|
|
Guinea |
Ireland |
Honduras |
Maldives |
|
|
Guinea-Bissau |
Israel |
Italy |
Marshall Islands |
|
|
Côte d’Ivoire |
Italy |
Jamaica |
Micronesia, Federated States of |
|
|
Kenya |
Kazakhstan |
Japan |
Mongolia |
|
|
Lesotho |
Kyrgyzstan |
Mexico |
Myanmar |
|
|
Liberia |
Latvia |
the Netherlands |
Nauru |
|
|
Libya |
Liechtenstein |
Nicaragua |
Nepal |
|
|
Madagascar |
Lithuania |
Norway |
Netherlands, the |
|
|
Malawi |
Luxembourg |
Panama |
New Zealand |
|
|
Mali |
Malta |
Paraguay |
Pakistan |
|
|
Mauritania |
Monaco |
Peru |
Palau |
|
|
Mauritius |
Montenegro |
Portugal |
Papua New Guinea |
|
|
Mozambique |
Netherlands, the |
Saint Kitts and Nevis |
Philippines, the |
|
|
Morocco |
Norway |
Saint Lucia |
Korea, Republic of |
|
|
Namibia |
Poland |
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |
Russian Federation |
|
|
Niger |
Portugal |
Republic of Korea |
Samoa |
|
|
Nigeria |
Republic of Moldova |
Spain |
Singapore |
|
|
Rwanda |
North Macedonia |
Suriname |
Solomon Islands |
|
|
São Tomé and Príncipe |
Romania |
Turkey |
Sri Lanka |
|
|
Senegal |
Russian Federation |
Trinidad and Tobago |
Tajikistan |
|
|
Seychelles |
San Marino |
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Thailand |
|
|
Sierra Leone |
Serbia |
United States |
Timor-Leste |
|
|
Somalia |
Slovakia |
Uruguay |
Tonga |
|
|
South Africa |
Slovenia |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of |
Türkiye |
|
|
South Sudan |
Spain |
Turkmenistan |
||
|
Sudan |
Sweden |
Tuvalu |
||
|
Tanzania |
Switzerland |
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
||
|
Togo |
Tajikistan |
United States |
||
|
Tunisia |
Türkiye |
Uzbekistan |
||
|
Uganda |
Turkmenistan |
Vanuatu |
||
|
Zambia |
Ukraine |
Vietnam |
||
|
Zimbabwe |
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|||
|
United States |
||||
|
Uzbekistan |
Note: UNECA, UN Economic Commission for Africa; UNECE, UN Economic Commission for Europe; UNECLAC, UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean; UNESCWA, UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia; UNESCAP, UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
The article proceeds as follows. In Section 2, we present the analytical framework and research methods. In Section 3, we discuss the findings. We provide our conclusions in Section 4.
2 Research Design and Methods
Orchestration in global governance has been extensively studied for over a decade. It is defined as a form of soft and indirect steering characterized by a reliance on voluntarily recruited intermediaries.7 Orchestration is expected to fill governance deficits by complementing existing regimes and approaches.8 Given their relatively weak formal power base, intergovernmental organizations have been well studied as potential orchestrators, especially regarding the conditions that might lead to orchestration and the criteria that could explain successful orchestration.9
Among other findings, orchestration has been found to be more likely when actors lack capabilities to achieve goals through other governance modes, which implies that one cannot compare the macroefficiency of orchestration to more classic command and control approaches.10 Causal inferences about links between actors and the goals of the orchestrator are mostly indirect.11 Assessments of the effectiveness of orchestration must thus consider the details of a specific case.12
To study the UN Regional Commissions as orchestrators, we used a gradient of potential roles that they might play for three orchestration activities; namely, 1) agenda setting, 2) coordination, and 3) support. These three orchestration activities are derived from the orchestration literature, (re-)organized to serve our specific research interests.13 Although distinct categories, in practice, these categories are not (always) mutually exclusive. For each orchestration activity, we studied how they were performed and conceptualized, using different roles as gradients for each activity.
We defined orchestration through agenda setting as the attempt of an orchestrator to shape or prioritize the goals of other actors.14 This might occur through the provision of information about available policy options, nudging toward priorities or strategic decisions that align with the orchestrator’s goals, or legitimizing and encouraging external support to particular organizations. For the SDG s, successful agenda setting would occur if the orchestrator steered actors toward aligning their policies with the seventeen goals as an integrated and holistic agenda.15 The alternative would be mere coexistence; that is, when target actors continue to pursue their existing agendas and priorities. Between these two extremes of full coherence and mere coexistence is a gray area with mixed roles. Cherry-picking, for instance, would describe a situation where an actor promotes action on the SDG s, but only for those goals that they already prioritized,16 as may be the case with some of the carryover from the MDG s. An orchestrator might also combine earlier agendas with the new SDG agenda; for instance, by steering toward those areas that already show some degree of convergence, overlap, or synergy.17
We conceptualized orchestration through coordination as the attempt of an orchestrator to steer the interactions of policy actors toward joint achievement of the SDG s. Coordination includes initiatives to synchronize,18 balance, or align19 the relations of actors by engaging them in collective action.20 Initiatives might aim at building trust and a common culture of cooperation among heterogeneous actors or aim at improving linkages between domestic and global policies and at reducing fragmentation through new institutional structures or policies.21 It might thus include support for, and the active shaping of, networks.22 The orchestrator might become part of network itself,23 but can also bring others together in networks and working groups, or stimulate them to host joint activities.24 Support in practice might vary from providing legitimacy to an existing network to playing an active role in setting up and resourcing novel structures. Successful orchestration would here be successful coordination toward the purposeful alignment for coherent SDG implementation.25 This type of coordination would require a set purpose for coordination efforts, and an active role of the orchestrator in shaping interactions toward that purpose.26 Unsuccessful orchestration would be a platform role, where aims are defined only broadly and where the orchestrator does not define the terms of engagement. To some extent, this platform function has been observed for the High-Level Political Forum.27 Also here, many gradients are possible where the role of orchestrator stands between successful coordination and a mere platform; for instance, when an orchestrator brings actors together in an attempt to steer toward alignment while remaining unable to shape this process effectively.28
We defined orchestration through support as the attempt of an orchestrator to assist intermediaries and target actors through ideational and material resources.29 Such support includes (project) funding, the provision of operational capacity,30 information or other knowledge (through shared databases or broader programs), or access to third parties.31 These types of support might be provided using a range of different tools. To help build capacities for the SDG s, for instance, the orchestrator might use any technique ranging from education to awareness raising, providing equipment, strategic planning, or consulting.32 Successful support would help to transform the capacities of others to implement a coherent SDG agenda.33 The converse is mere confirmation; that is, when an orchestrator lends support only within the framework of existing demands. In between these extremes of transformation and confirmation is, for instance, when an orchestrator supports only some parts of the agenda by identifying missing capacities, yet without leading toward a holistic, coherent, and transformative capacity.34
Methodologically, we followed a comparative case study approach to gain meaningful and contextualized observations about the five Regional Commissions. First, we analyzed the mandates of UN Regional Commissions and their expectations in the context of the SDG s. Documents included resolutions and declarations from the commissions, the UN General Assembly, and the UN Economic and Social Council; various terms of reference, annual reports, and work plans; and reporting from the Regional Commissions New York Office. We also looked for earlier agendas in which the commissions developed regional priorities, as well as parallel regional agendas with a time line that partially overlapped with that of the SDG s.
Second, we studied substantive documentation on the initiatives, agendas, and mechanisms of the Regional Commissions for achieving the SDG s since 2015. We found relevant information, first, in seven databases. These include SDG portals of all commissions (which convey SDG priorities, assessment tools, and knowledge products), the UN Development Account Portal (thirty-seven capacity-building projects from 2016 to 2022 on governance and institutions and statistics), and the UN System SDG Implementation Database that includes a survey of each Regional Commission’s contribution to the 2030 Agenda. Additionally, we found information in the documentation of the Regional Fora on Sustainable Development (twenty-eight sessions post-2014); evaluation reports of Joint Inspection Unit of the United Nations System and the Office of Internal Oversight Services (nineteen relevant reports); and recurring reports for each of the five commissions, for instance, on Regional Collaborative Platforms (pre-2019), Regional Coordination Mechanisms (post-2019), and Financing for Development. We also included documentation from Regional Civil Society Engagement Mechanisms. We focused on documents informing about activities after the establishment of the SDG s.
Third, we conducted eighteen semistructured expert interviews between May and December of 2022. Interviewees from the Regional Commissions included civil servants working in SDG units and those involved in organizing regional fora, sustainable finance mechanisms, capacity building or the integration of regional priorities with the SDG s. Some interviewees were also from organizations that cooperate with the Regional Commissions, including the Regional Commissions New York Office and regional civil society actors. We supplemented our initial results with insights gained after conducting the set of interviews, which complemented our overall assessment.
3 Results
We now present our findings regarding the role of the UN Regional Commissions as potential orchestrators for the achievement of the SDG s in terms of regional agenda setting, coordination, and support.
3.1 Agenda Setting
Formally, all Regional Commissions are committed to steer the regional agendas toward policy coherence for the SDG s.35 In practice, however, when it comes to agenda setting, the Regional Commissions mostly seek to balance the new global agenda with their regional priorities and prior agendas. No Regional Commission has in its founding mandate a reference to sustainability or to the environmental dimension of development; the key goal is to “raise the [regional] level of economic activity” (Joint Inspection Unit 2015). This definition was then stretched to include sustainable economic development. While the work programs of the Regional Commissions have been formally adapted to support all dimensions of sustainable development,36 the programs are still not always supported by adequate resources to implement the full SDG agenda.37 We now detail this general findings for each Regional Commission.
First, the Economic Commission for Europe has presented a set of SDG priorities, which resulted from a mapping and prioritization of its existing activities against the goals.38 These consist of most SDG s except for SDG 10 (on reduced inequalities), SDG 14 (on life below water), SDG 1 (on poverty reduction), SDG 2 (on hunger), and SDG 4 (on quality education). The social dimension is mostly absent, as can be expected since unlike UNESCWA and UNESCAP, UNECE does not include the “social” agenda in its name. Additionally, the commission actively tries to use existing regional norms to accelerate SDG implementation.39 This is visible in the mapping, where each SDG focused on is linked to one or more guidelines and conventions.40 Efforts to use existing norms to set the agenda impact not only the themes that are focused on, but also the efforts to mobilize more regional actors; for example, through standards for the Sustainable Development Goals. This initiative has mobilized public and private actors to map existing standards against the SDG s.41 The commission further stimulates the integration of the SDG s into existing instruments. The Environmental Impact Assessments of the Economic Commission for Europe are utilized for this purpose. However, the commission has early on recognized that the relevant goals or targets “would [mostly] be environment related.”42 In practice, early reviews indeed focused mostly on environmental goals, covering only 40 to 65 of the 169 SDG targets.43 The commission also asked countries to refer to “relevant” SDG s in their voluntary commitments to the Pan-European Framework for Greening the Economy.44 By focusing on existing activities, norms, and instruments, the Regional Commission for Europe thus runs into challenges when attempting to balance economic and environmental priorities with the social dimension of development.
Second, in Asia Pacific, the Regional Commission’s road map on coherent SDG implementation has not prioritized specific SDG s, but rather it has identified priority areas. Third-party consultations have fed into this road map, which also aimed to activate third parties, such as UN funds, specialized agencies, and regional organizations, to provide more support to Member States.45 The road map has structured the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific’s support for the SDG s, but has in practice been superseded by discussions following the Covid-19 pandemic.46 UNESCAP47 has increasingly emphasized the need to strengthen systems thinking and policy coherence for the SDG s, especially for national planning efforts. The commission furthermore engages with other regional actors to link their agendas to the SDG s. One example is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Community Vision 2025. To steer toward coherence between this regional agenda and the SDG s, and to “efficiently draw on limited resources,” a joint initiative between the Regional Commission, ASEAN, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand was set up to identify complementarities.48 And yet, parts of Vision 2025 were not deemed synergistic with the SDG s such as the Political-Security Chapter. For other regional agendas—for instance, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s (APEC) Vision 2040—steering toward synergies is also being considered. A challenge is that regional agendas outside the SDG framework are continually evolving, as exemplified by the new ASEAN Recovery Framework and ASEAN’s Vision 2040.
Third, in the African region, we note that the UN Economic Commission for Africa seeks to balance the global SDG s with prior regional agendas that are supported by governments. Notably this is done for Agenda 2063, which was agreed on by the African Union a few months before the launch of the SDG s. While the executive secretary of UNECA stated that the SDG s and Agenda 2063 would “converge” and that it would be easy to infuse the SDG s into national plans for Agenda 2063,49 Agenda 2063 still includes many priorities not covered by the SDG s. To better integrate the two agendas in country plans and activities, UNECA has developed an online tool indicating synergies and trade-offs and an integrated planning and reporting toolkit.50 In terms of gaps, three of twenty Agenda 2063 goals do not align with any SDG (notably the goals on the establishment of continental financial and monetary institutions and on regional peace and stability, although perhaps these can be caught in a broad definition of SDG 17).51 Conversely, SDG 12 (on sustainable consumption and production) shows only weak alignment with Agenda 2063. Implementing Agenda 2063 and Agenda 2030 simultaneously is seen as potentially resulting in mutual gains, but it is not yet clear if countries are indeed focusing on the “synergy” between the two agendas.
Fourth, in Latin America and the Caribbean, a mapping of the Regional Commission’s activities to the SDG s shows that its current work emphasizes four SDG s; namely, SDG 17 on partnerships, SDG 8 on decent work, SDG 10 on reduced inequalities, and SDG 16 on peace and justice.52 The least prioritized SDG s are SDG 14 (life below water), SDG 15 (life on land). and SDG 11 (clean water and sanitation). In practice, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean53 strives toward its own regional paradigm, called Global Environmental Keynesianism, which promotes multidimensional equality as the purpose of development. The commission seeks to balance the new SDG s with its earlier focus on equality and to better emphasize the environmental dimension of economic development.54 In addition, the UNECLAC also aims to balance the SDG s with the subregional agenda on the Caribbean. While complementary with the characteristics of Small Island Developing States the two agendas pose slightly different challenges, and resources are lacking to report on both agendas consistently.55
Fifth, in West Asia, the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia established a bottom-up list of SDG priorities in the context of regional agenda(s) with a time line that surpasses the SDG s. The commission’s Regional Priorities for the SDG s arise bottom up by linking various official documents of regional governments to the seventeen SDG s.56
This prioritization includes as its top SDG 8 (economic growth), SDG 11 (sustainable cities), SDG 5 (gender equality), and SDG 4 (quality education). Thus far, the commission based its work on Vision 2030,57 which built five priorities based on emerging insights about potentially (un)successful interventions in the region. At the time, it was recognized that the SDG s might be more ambitious than this regional agenda. Since then, however, the commission has developed an SDG-Interlinkages Toolkit to prioritize financing interventions and has begun to develop a new regional agenda.58 The Arab Vision 2045 aims to support long-term sustainable development in the region, with key goals such as security, justice, innovation, prosperity, diversity, and cultural renewal.59 A mapping of these goals to the seventeen SDG s will be published once first initiatives and projects related to Arab Vision 2045 are validated, and the commission plans to link the review of these agendas.60 We expect that, in practice, this vision will strike a balance between global goals and regional priorities and contexts.
3.2 Coordination
As for coordination of SDG-related policies, we found that all five UN Regional Commissions have extended their activities, especially through the Regional Fora for Sustainable Development and novel coordination mechanisms, the latter facilitated by reforms of the UN development system. The commissions bring more actors together to debate progress on the SDG s and to share their experiences. However, especially for the coordination of policies among UN entities, it is not always clear what its eventual aims are, given that mechanisms are still under development while the SDG s are already in their implementation phase.
The Regional Fora for Sustainable Development, a first coordination mechanism, are said to resemble a “mini-High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF)” in the region; they are seen as a key contribution of the Regional Commissions toward the SDG s.61 Historically, these fora evolved from the Regional Implementation Meetings of the earlier Agenda 21 from 1992 and the MDG s from 2000.62 Some regions have also established subregional fora, including the Latin American and Asia Pacific regions. The fora actively connect with the global HLPF-review of the SDG s. A key way in which this materializes is through peer-learning sessions based on the SDG s under review each year, at times captured under broader themes.63 The outcome documents of the regional fora have started to cite other global processes and events, moving beyond the review of the SDG s per se.64 The Seventh African Forum on Sustainable Development, for example, was followed by efforts to seek more funding for the Congo Basin by taking the conference outcomes to both the twenty-sixth conference of the parties to the UN climate convention in Glasgow and to the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development.65
Compared to their predecessors, the Regional Fora for Sustainable Development have a broader reach in mobilizing actors, which is in line with the broader nature of the SDG s. Participants now include actors from business, civil society, youth, international and regional organizations, academia, parliaments, and local governments.66
The fora are also causing rapid innovations in stakeholder engagement.67 Civil society engagement is especially notable because of its increased institutionalization. Civil society engagement mechanisms were set up either in anticipation of, or to further streamline, participation in the regional fora. These mechanisms are comparable across regions in terms of constituencies, aims, and organizational structure, except for the somewhat less institutionalized mechanism in West Asia.68 Concerning the European mechanism, it is said that “its modality mirrors that of the Major Groups and Other Stakeholder mechanism that supports civil society input into the … the High-Level Political Forum Process.”69 This mechanism, similar to the one in the Asia Pacific region, is now included with a dedicated representative in the list of Major Groups and Other Stakeholders of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA).70 The UN Regional Commissions are not just increasing regional engagement; they are also facilitating global recognition of and a global platform for regional actors.
Another key category of actors mobilized by the Regional Fora for Sustainable Development are UN entities and specialized agencies. Whereas the earlier Regional Implementation Meetings and the first regional fora included only a few UN entities depending on the topics, further reforms of the Regional UN Development System and the new custodianship role of many UN entities have given them a more consistent role in the organization of the fora and the preparation of voluntary national reviews.71 Such preparations for voluntary national reviews have become comprehensive coordination efforts between UN Regional Commissions, UN DESA, the custodian agencies of the SDG indicators, and region-specific institutions. Preparatory workshops in which countries are, among others, invited to share best practices, allow for a more in-depth analysis, discussions, and peer learning than the VNR Labs and workshops at the global level.72
Regional Commissions also coordinate activities and facilitate alignment of the regional UN system through Regional Collaborative Platforms. These platforms unite all UN entities addressed by the SDG s in a particular region.73 Since 2019, each Regional Collaborative Platforms have created issue-based coalitions, chaired by relevant UN entities, on the most pressing regional issues.74 Coalitions are expected to build partnerships around multiple SDG s,75 and coordinate their cross-sectoral activities. They might do so through interagency guidance notes, common position papers, side events and input at intergovernmental meetings, or operational support. The question has emerged as to whether the coalitions are vehicles for structural coordination or whether they more closely resemble temporary task forces for policy support.76 Although it is too early to draw conclusions, we do note relative continuity of issues addressed, and increasing crossregional similarity of topics focused on. Efforts have been made to better integrate the reporting of these platforms with the Regional Fora for Sustainable Development. However, the reports submitted for this purpose do not consistently link issue-based coalitions to the SDG s.77
In sum, the UN Regional Commissions do help actors in their region to share experiences and jointly review policies regarding the implementation of the SDG s, but they are not yet firm orchestrators that actively and decisively shape the policies and programs by regional actors. Part of the reason for this is that institutional structures are still under construction while the implementation phase of the SDG s is well under way.
3.3 Support
Many countries have limited capacities to implement, or even measure progress on, the 17 SDG s’ 169 targets and 247 indicators. We found that in trying to lend their support, the UN Regional Commissions play mainly a conforming, not a transforming, role, as their support is primarily shaped by the demands of member governments.
One reason is that all five commissions have established novel tools to structure their support to their Member States and others.78 Examples include the Regional Commission for Asia and the Pacific’s SDG Rapid Response facility, used for individual and shared support requests, and its SDG Helpdesk, which offers a platform with tools, knowledge products, expertise, good practices, advice, opportunities for peer learning, and regional South-South Cooperation. Commissions have also supported the measurement of SDG s by setting targets for indicators that did not have one in the global framework, using a “traffic light” model to indicate progress.79 Tools also exist to support subsets of (developing) Member States, including Least Developed Countries and small island developing states.80
When it comes to capacity-building projects, most follow the historic focus of the Regional Commissions on capacity building for economic and social development.81 Of the capacity-building projects for statistics and governance and institution building since the onset of the SDG s, the Regional Commissions mainly have provided support for SDG 17 (global partnerships) and SDG 16 (peace and strong institutions), as well as the two SDG s that focus on economic concerns; namely, SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) and SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure).82 As the SDG (indicators) have led to a further functional differentiation between (custodian) agencies, an existing division of labor provides part of the rationale for the responsibilities for SDG monitoring.83
However, the demand-based approach of the Regional Commissions also plays a key role here, as the commissions continue to cater to the demands of Member States. In this context, the commissions support the analysis of and improvement of regional and national measurement of SDG s.84 However, some initiatives are starting to arise to create effective demand for data and to fill policy data voids. The Every Policy Is Connected tool of the Regional Commission for Asia and the Pacific, for instance, provides a structured approach for formulating inclusive policies and developing comprehensive indicator frameworks for policy monitoring that link indicators with “issues for action.”85
Regional Commissions also make attempts to move beyond small-scale and sectoral projects. One example is a joint project aimed at building comprehensive statistical capacities, costing $ 11.4 million, while regular projects ranging from $ 400,000 to $ 1 million were executed by all Regional Commissions and five other UN entities between 2016 and 2021.86
Helping Member States gain funding is becoming an increasingly important category of support, ranging from domestic resource mobilization to funding from third parties. SDG bonds, for example, are monitored,87 advised on,88 and form the topic of workshops organized by the Regional Commissions.89 For public-private partnerships, a novel standard has even been introduced. Previously, multiple commissions noted that public-private partnerships were challenging and produced mixed results.90 In 2019, all commissions agreed to cooperate on the topic more closely. The UN Economic Commission for Europe, with its long history of working on public-private partnerships, has taken the lead in introducing a format for public-private partnerships for the SDG s, called “People-Proof” public-private partnerships. After diffusing the idea during yearly conferences, in 2022 the commission launched an evaluation methodology for these partnerships,91 after which the Regional Commissions for Latin America and the Caribbean and for Africa also indicated their commitment to start implementing this methodology.92
The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in more debts for many countries and sparked a global discussion on new financial mechanisms.93 All commissions—except for the one for Europe, given the prevalence of high-income countries in its membership94—launched new initiatives, many linked to climate finance. The UN Economic Commission for Africa launched the Liquidity and Sustainability Facility in 2021 to mobilize (private sector) capital, supported by an asset management firm and a collateral management provider.95 Its objectives are to support the liquidity of African sovereign eurobonds and incentivize SDG-related investments on the continent.96 The Regional Commission for Western Asia launched the Climate/SDG s Debt Swap–Donor Nexus Initiative, directed at debt relief and at enhancing fiscal space of (middle-income) countries.97 This mechanism systematizes debt swaps, which allow creditors to convert debt-serving payments into domestic investments for indebted countries. Debtors thereby invest in climate or SDG-related programs, while creditors may claim higher amounts of official development assistance or climate finance without expanding their budgets. The Regional Commission acts here as a liaison between the parties and has set up performance indicators that focus on the SDG s where countries are most behind for the proposal, monitoring, and evaluation of projects.98
The Regional Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean has been working on a debt-swap strategy since 2016, currently titled the Debt for Climate Adaptation Swap and Caribbean Resilience Fund.99 This fund aims to reduce the debt and fiscal constraints for investment in green industries, stimulate growth, promote economic transformation, and expand fiscal space for public investment such as for the SDG s.100
Finally, the Regional Commission for Asia and the Pacific seeks to create interaction between debtors and creditors with a focus on the small island states in the Pacific.101 To date, this has been done through a Regional Debt Conference, rather than some more permanent tool.102
4 Conclusions
Overall, our study suggests that all UN Regional Commissions have expanded their activities to work toward achieving the SDG s. They increasingly include a concern for the environmental and social dimensions of development, along with their traditional economic focus; they have mobilized novel actors, especially through the follow-up and review instruments of the regional fora; and they have set standards for SDG implementation by providing (financial) support through reporting guidelines, performance indicators, and other managerial tools.
However, Regional Commissions also face challenges. Their limited resources force them to prioritize; diverse sets of priorities in the region only partially overlap with the SDG s; UN reforms are still under way as the agenda is being implemented; and priorities of other UN entities, Member States, and global actors must also be considered when taking action.
We also observed differences among the Regional Commissions. For one, the commissions differ in the hurdles they face in moving toward a coherent SDG approach. The systems-thinking approach of the Regional Commission for Asia and the Pacific seems to be challenging, for instance, for the UN Economic Commission for Europe, which is more constrained by its organizational structure and specific legally binding agreements such as on environment protection. Also, parallel agendas impact regions differently. Finally, in regions with many middle-income and high-income countries, financial support mechanisms and UN system coordination mechanisms are less prominent as steering tools.
Overall, the extended activities of the UN Regional Commissions fit with broader trends toward SDG implementation through multilevel governance and localization.103 The effect of these activities on SDG attainment, however, remains largely unknown. For instance, the novel financial mechanisms raise questions as to their additionality,104 and the mobilization of business actors must be evaluated to assess its impact on power (im)balances in the region. One might also question whether the combined follow-up and review of multiple agendas creates a more coherent and efficient SDG approach. The effect of regional coordination mechanisms in shaping priorities, for example, at the Member State level, also forms a topic for investigation.
Structurally, the role of the Regional Commissions presents a paradox. On the one hand, our observation that there are parallel agendas and multiple regional priorities reflects a commonly held view that the SDG s pretend to be a universal agenda, but are implemented only after being shaped by regional and local preexisting priorities. On the other hand, many commissions do try to increase overall SDG coherence; for instance, by supporting tools to help countries to build comprehensive capacities and not disregarding the politically more sensitive aspects of the agenda. Furthermore, although the SDG s are largely “regionalized” through Regional Commissions, their successful initiatives are often diffused across regions, leading at times to globally harmonized approaches. Examples thereof include the Regional Collaborative Mechanisms and the standards for “People-First” public-private partnerships, both initiated by the UN Economic Commission for Europe. Yet transplanting innovations without ensuring a regional fit is not without risks.105 Finding the proper balance between regional prioritization and resource constraints on the one hand, and global harmonization and ambition on the other, will thus remain a central challenge for the success of the SDG s as a global policy agenda.
Vijge et al. 2020.
Abbott et al. 2015; Schleifer 2013; Widerberg 2017; Bäckstrand and Kuyper 2017; Chan and Amling 2019; Bendlin 2019; Hickmann et al. 2021.
Beisheim and Fritzsche 2022; Qerimi 2022.
We could not find studies based on a Scopus search using “Sustainable Development Goal” or “SDG” and the names of any of the five UN Regional Commissions. This search was limited to social science and multidisciplinary works published in English between 2015 and 2022.
UN 2015.
Regional Commissions 2013.
Abbott et al. 2015; Pegram 2015.
Chan and Amling 2019; Gordon and Johnson 2017; Abbott et al. 2015.
Abbott et al. 2015; Abbot and Hale 2014.
Schleifer 2013.
Abbott et al. 2015; Bendlin 2019; Partiti 2017; Widerberg 2017.
See also Henriksen and Ponte 2018; Klingebiel and Paulo 2015; Nasiritousi and Grimm 2022; Bäckstrand and Kuyper 2017; Schleifer 2013; Hickmann et al. 2021.
Abbott et al. 2015, 14–16; Abbott and Bernstein 2015, 228.
Abbott et al. 2015.
UN 2015, 63.
Forestier and Kim 2020; Heras-Saizarbitoria, Urbieta, and Boiral 2022.
Nilsson and Weitz 2019.
Abbott et al. 2015.
Chan and Amling 2019.
Klingebiel and Paulo 2015.
Klingebiel and Paulo 2015.
Klingebiel and Paulo 2015; Nasiritousi and Grimm 2022; Pengram 2015.
Henriksen and Ponte 2018; Bendlin 2019.
van der Lugt and Dingwerth 2015; Abbott et al. 2015.
Christensen and LÆgreid 2018; see also van Driel et al. 2022.
See also Galperina and Kyian 2021, 10.
Beisheim and Fritzsche 2022, 8.
Bäckstrand and Kuyper 2017.
Abbott et al. 2015.
Mattli and Seddon 2015; Klingebiel and Paulo 2015.
van der Lugt and Dingwerth 2015.
Lempert 2015.
Sachs et al. 2019, 812.
See Bester 2015.
Regional Commissions 2013.
Regional Commissions 2013, 2.
Joint Inspection Unit 2020, 7.
UNECE n.d. b; Interview 1.
Interview 1.
UNECE n.d. a.
UNECE 2022a.
UNECE 2017a, 6.
IISD 2020.
UNECE 2016.
UNESCAP 2017a, 7.
UNESCAP 2018.
UNESCAP n.d.
UNESCAP 2017b.
Lopes 2015.
Interview 2.
UNECA n.d.
Joint Inspection Unit 2020.
UNECLAC 2016b, 12.
UNECLAC 2016b, 169.
Uitto, Kohlitz, and Todd 2017.
UNESCWA n.d. a.
UNESCWA 2015.
UNESCWA 2021.
UNESCWA 2022a.
Interview 3.
Interview 8; Interview 4.
Commission on Sustainable Development 2004.
Interview 9; Interview 11.
Interview 2.
Interview 8.
See, for example, UNECE n.d. a.
Interview 4.
See Appendix A.
ECE-RCEM 2022.
Major Groups and Other Stakeholders Coordination Mechanism 2020; UN DESA 2021.
Interview 8; Interview 11.
Interview 2; Interview 9.
UN 2020b.
UNESCWA n.d. b.
Surasky et al. 2020, 18.
Interview 12.
See The Africa Regional Collaborative Platform 2022; UNESCWA 2022b; UNESCAP 2022a; UNECLAC 7 March 2022b; UN Sustainable Development Group 2022.
Regional Commissions New York Office n.d.
Interview 7.
Interview 5.
Office of Internal Oversight Services 2017. The commissions led or collaborated on fifteen out of eighteen statistical capacity-building projects, and twenty-two out of twenty-five projects for governance and institution building.
UN DESA n.d.
Interview 6.
For example, UNECE 2017b.
Bidarbakhtnia et al. 2019; Interview 7.
UN DESA n.d.
UNECLAC 2020; 2017.
UNESCAP 2021.
UNECA 2022b.
UNESCWA 2013; UNECLAC 2020; UNECA 2021.
UNECE 2021.
UNECE 2022b.
UN 2020a.
Interview 9.
UNECA 2022a.
Interview 8.
UNESCWA 2022c.
Interview 10.
UNECLAC 2016a.
UNECLAC 2022a.
UNESCAP 2022c.
UNESCAP 2022b.
For example, Narang Suri, Miraglia, and Ferrannini 2021; Marx et al. 2021.
Michaelowa and Namhata 2022.
Meuleman 2019.
MeSCALC 2021.
UNECE 2022.
ECE-RCEM 13 December 2022.
For example: ECE-RCEM 2018.
ECE-RCEM 19 November 2022.
AP RCEM 12 December 2022.
AP RCEM 6 October 2022.
AP RCEM 12 October 2022.
UNECA 27 February 2020.
Ibid.
UNDEF 28 December 2018.
Appendix A: Regional Civil Society Mechanisms
|
Region |
Mechanism |
Mobilization |
Status and initiation |
Aims |
Leadership |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Latin America and the Caribbean |
Civil Society Participation Mechanism in the Sustainable Development Agenda |
13 interest groups, 4 geographic regions, 3 thematic groups |
Originated during LA Civil Society Meeting convened by ECLAC during first RFSD (2017), constituted (2018)106 |
Facilitate participation of Civil Society in Regional Forum and other processes related to sustainable development, promote acknowledgement of the mechanism |
Elected focal points |
|
Europe and Central Asia |
Regional Civil Society Coordination and Engagement Mechanism (ECE-RCEM) |
14 constituencies and 5 sub-regions107 |
Set up under auspices of ECE, but presented as ‘for and by civil society actors’ (2018)108 |
Facilitate Civil Society participation in all stages of follow up and review. Work flows into Regional Fora via civil society forum.109 Engage with UN entities. Write position papers for HLPF sessions |
Elected focal points110 |
|
Asia and the Pacific |
Civil Society Coordination and Engagement Mechanism (AP RCEM) |
17 constituencies, 5 sub-regions, cross-cutting thematic working groups111 |
Initiated ‘bottom-up’ during UNEP Regional Consultation in response to Rio+20 conference (2012),112 recognized by ESCAP |
Enlarging engagement, influence outcomes and become a key platform for engagement on development related projects, aim to engage with international organizations, governments and others in the region113 |
Elected focal points |
|
Africa |
Africa Regional Mechanism of the Major Groups and other Stakeholders (ARMMGOS) |
17 constituent groups |
‘Independent mechanism’ that runs under auspices of ECA, launched during 2020 Regional Forum on Sustainable Development114 |
Facilitates major groups and other stakeholders and civil society organizations based in Africa in regional and global UN sustainable development processes, towards implementation, follow-up and review. Liaise with the United Nations and organize civil society preparatory event before forum |
Three co-chairs115 |
|
West Asia |
Civil society organized, but not (formally) linked |
Organized along 6 sub-themes |
Involved in preparatory meetings for Regional Forum on Sustainable Development, but not formally linked. |
Engaging with Regional Forum, organize CSO preparatory events before forum, but also organizing civil society organizations more broadly |
Convened by ANND116 |
Appendix B: List of Interview References
|
Date |
Name |
Affiliation |
|---|---|---|
|
1. September 30th 2022 |
Michael Kunz |
Economic Affairs Officer, Sustainable Development and Gender Unit, UNECE |
|
2. July 1st 2022 |
Interviewee 2 |
Environmental Affairs Officer, Green and Blue Economy Section, UNECA |
|
3. September 20th 2022 |
Altayeb Aldajani |
Senior Economic Affairs Officer, Shared Economic Prosperity Cluster, UNESCWA |
|
4. June 23rd 2022 |
Maria Yera Ortiz De Urbina Rodriguez |
Deputy Director, Regional Commissions New York Office |
|
5. October 17th 2022 |
Oussama Safa |
Chief, Social Justice Section, Gender, Justice, Population and Inclusive Development Cluster, UNESCWA |
|
6. August 9th 2022 |
Steven Vale |
Senior Statistician and Regional Adviser, UNECE |
|
7. August 8th 2022 |
Arman Bidarbakht Nia |
Head, Statistical Data Management Unit, ESCAP |
|
8. July 24th 2022 |
Nassim Oulmane |
Chief, Green and Blue Economy Section, UNECA |
|
9. July 5th 2022 |
Interviewee 9 |
Environment Division, UNECE |
|
10. October 3rd 2022 |
Niranjan Sarangi |
Senior Economic Affairs Officer, Shared Economic Prosperity Cluster, UNESCWA |
|
11. July 19th 2022 |
Hania Sabbidin Dimassi |
2030 Agenda and SDG Coordination Cluster, UNESCWA |
|
12. September 2022 |
Interviewee 12 |
Staff member of a UN Regional Commission |
* All interviewees were speaking in their personal capacity
Bibliography
Abbott, Kenneth W, and Steven Bernstein. “The High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: Orchestration by Default and Design.” Global Policy 6 (3) (2015), 222–233.
Abbott, Kenneth W., Philipp Genschel, Duncan Snidal, and Bernhard Zangl, eds. International Organizations as Orchestrators (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Abbott, Kenneth W., and Thomas Hale. “Orchestrating Global Solution Networks: A Guide for Organizational Entrepreneurs.” SSRN (2014), 2431956.
Bäckstrand, Karin, and Jonathan W. Kuyper. “The Democratic Legitimacy of Orchestration: The UNFCCC, Non-state Actors, and Transnational Climate Governance.” Environmental Politics 26 (4) (2017), 764–788.
Beisheim, Marianne, and Felicitas Fritzsche. “The UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: An Orchestrator, More or Less?” Global Policy 13 (5) (2022), 683–693. DOI 10.1111/1758–5899.13112.
Bendlin, Lena. Orchestrating Local Climate Policy in the European Union: Inter Municipal Coordination and the Covenant of Mayors in Germany and France (Berlin: Springer, 2019).
Bester, Angela. Capacity Development. Report prepared for the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2016 Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (28 November 2015). Independent expert report.
Bidarbakhtnia, Arman, Ryan, Christopher, and Serrao, Sharita. Every Policy Is Connected (EPIC): A generic tool for policy-data integration (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Working paper series: September 2019).
Chan, Sander, and Wanja Amling. “Does Orchestration in the Global Climate Action Agenda Effectively Prioritize and Mobilize Transnational Climate Adaptation Action?” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 19 (2019), 429–446.
Christensen, Tom, and Per LÆgreid. “Governance Coordination Capacity and Quality: Does Wicked Policy Areas Matter?” Working Paper No. 5 (Bergen: Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies, 2018).
Commission on Sustainable Development. “CSD Multi-Year Programme of Work.” (United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, 2004). Published online. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1483.
ECE-RCEM (Economic Commission for Europe Regional Civil Society Engagement Mechanism). “ECE-RCEM Position Paper 2022” 10 June 2022. https://ece-rcem.eu/ece-rcem-position-paper-2022/#:~:text=Its%20modality%20mirrors%20that%20of,High%20Level%20Political%20Forum%20process.
Forestier, Oana, and Rakhyun E. Kim. “Cherry-Picking the Sustainable Development Goals: Goal Prioritization by National Governments and Implications for Global Governance.” Sustainable Development 28 (5) (2020), 1269–1278.
Galperina, Liubov, and Yehor Kyian. “Conceptual Principles of Global Coordination of Economic Development Strategies.” International Economic Policy 35 (2021), 7–27.
Gordon, David J., and Johnson, Craig A. “The orchestration of global urban climate governance: conducting power in the post-paris climate regime.” Environmental Politics, 26(4) (2017), 694–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1320829.
Henriksen, Lasse F., and Stefano Ponte. “Public Orchestration, Social Networks, and Transnational Environmental Governance: Lessons from the Aviation Industry.” Regulation and Governance 12 (1) (2018), 23–45.
Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki, Laida Urbieta, and Olivier Boiral. “Organizations’ Engagement with Sustainable Development Goals: From Cherry-Picking to SDG-Washing?” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 29 (2) (2022), 316–328.
Hickmann, Thomas, Oscar E. Widerberg, Markus Lederer, and Philipp H. Pattberg. “The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat as an Orchestrator in Global Climate Policymaking.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 87 (1) (2021), 21–38.
IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) “Integrating SDGs into Environmental Performance Reviews: Lessons Learned in Europe.” 4 February 2020. https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/integrating-sdgs-into-environmental-performance-reviews-lessons-learned-in-europe/?fbclid=IwAR2ojBMHhjuAT-fVZNXJhegXC42trrp1j0gy6NN_fNROV91OiwM9xhycaFMg.
Joint Inspection Unit. “Supplementary Paper.” JIU/REP/2015/3_Supplementary Paper (Geneva: UN, 2015).
Joint Inspection Unit. Review of Management and Administration in the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. JIU/REP/2020/4 (Geneva: UN, 2020).
Klingebiel, Stephan, and Sebastian Paulo. “Orchestration: An Instrument for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals.” Briefing Paper No. 14 (Bonn: German Development Institute, 2015).
Lempert, David. “A quick indicator of effectiveness of “capacity building” initiatives of NGOs and international organizations.” European Journal of Government and Economics, 4(2) (2015), 155–196.
Lopes, Carlos. “Financing Africa’s Development Agenda.” African Renewal 29 (3) (2015), 9. DOI 10.18356/5e6d4752-en.
Major Groups and Other Stakeholders Coordination Mechanism. Terms of Reference (Published online:18 December 2020). https://hlpf.un.org/mgos.
Marx, Axel, Sukmawani B. Pertiwi, Charline Depoorter, Michiel Hoornick, Tirta N. Mursitama, Kari Otteburn, and Lili Y. Arnakim. “What Role for Regional Organizations in Goal-Setting Global Governance? An Analysis of the Role of the European Union and ASEAN in the Sustainable Development Goals.” Global Public Policy and Governance 1 (4) (2021), 421–445. DOI 10.1007/s43508-021-00027-6.
Mattli, Walter, and Jack Seddon. “Orchestration along the Pareto Frontier: Winners and Losers.” In International Organizations as Orchestrators, eds. Kenneth W. Abbott, Philipp Genschel, Duncan Snidal, and Bernhard Zangl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 315–348.
Meuleman, Louis. Metagovernance for Sustainability: A Framework for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (London: Routledge, 2019).
Michaelowa, Katharina, and Chandreyee Namhata. “Climate Finance as Development Aid.” In Handbook of International Climate Finance, eds. Axel Michaelowa and Anne-Kathrin Sacherer (Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2022), 62–82.
Narang Suri, Shipra, Martino Miraglia, and Andrea Ferrannini. “Voluntary Local Reviews as Drivers for SDG Localisation and Sustainable Human Development.” Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 22 (4) (2021), 725–736.
Nasiritousi, Naghmeh, and Julia Grimm. “Governing toward Decarbonization: The Legitimacy of National Orchestration.” Environmental Policy and Governance 32 (5) (2022), 411–425.
Nilsson, Måns, and Nina Weitz. “Governing Trade-Offs and Building Coherence in Policy-Making for the 2030 Agenda.” Politics and Governance 7 (4) (2019), 254–263.
Office of Internal Oversight Services. “Thematic evaluation of the regional commissions.” United Nations Economic and Social Council (17 March 2017). E/AC.51/2017/8.
Partiti, Enrico. “Orchestration as a Form of Public Action: The EU Engagement with Voluntary Sustainability Standards.” European Law Journal 25 (1) (2019), 94–117.
Pegram, Tom. “Global Human Rights Governance and Orchestration: National Human Rights Institutions as Intermediaries.” European Journal of International Relations 21 (3) (2015), 595–620.
Qerimi, Qerim. “The Ambitious Modesty of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development.” Global Policy 13 (2) (2022), 281–288.
Regional Commissions. A Regional Perspective on the Post-2015 United Nations Development Agenda. E/ESCWA/OES/2013/2 (Beirut: UNESCWA, 2013).
Regional Commissions New York Office. “Regional Commissions’ SDG Gateways.” https://www.un.org/regionalcommissionsnyoffice/content/regional-commissions-sdg-gateways. n.d.
Sachs, Jeffrey. D., Guido Schmidt-Traub, Mariana Mazzucato, Dirk Messner, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, and Johan Rockström. “Six Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature Sustainability 2 (9) (2019), 805–814.
Schleifer, Philip. “Orchestrating Sustainability: The Case of European Union Biofuel Governance.” Regulation and Governance 7 (4) (2013), 533–546. DOI 10.1111/rego.12037.
Surasky, Javier, Patti Londoño, Günther Bachmann, and Jonathan Glennie. “Why Member States Should Support the UN Regional Reform.” (Berlin and Bogotá: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Cepei, 2020).
The Africa Regional Collaborative Platform. Annual Results Report 2021. (Published online: February 2022). https://unsdg.un.org/resources/africa-regional-collaborative-platform-annual-results-report-2021.
Uitto, Juha, Jeremy Kohlitz, and David Todd. “Evaluating Sustainable Development in SIDS-Lessons from the Pacific and the Caribbean.” In Evaluation for Agenda 2030: Providing Evidence on Progress and Sustainability, eds. Rob D. van den Berg, Indran Naidoo, and Susan D. Tamondong (Exeter: IDEAS, 2017).
UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1 (21 October 2015).
UN. “Financing for the Development in the Era of COVID-19 and beyond Initiative.” 20 May 2020a. https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/financing-development#:~:text=On%2028%20May%202020%2C%20the,19%20health%20and%20development%20emergency.
UN. Regional Collaborative Platforms (RCP): Functioning and Working Arrangements (New York: Executive Office of the Secretary-General, November 2020b).
UN DESA (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs). “Major Groups and Other Stakeholders: A Review and Evaluation of the Engagement in the 2020 and 2021 Session of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) and Areas to Strengthen Participation in 2022” (New York: UN DESA, December 2021).
UN DESA. “Development Account Projects” https://www.un.org/development/desa/da/project-view-public/. n.d.
UN Sustainable Development Group. “Regional Results Rep ort of the Regional Collaborative Platform for Europe and Central Asia” (Geneva: UN Sustainable Development Group, May 2022).
UNECA (UN Economic Commission for Africa). Fiscal Risks in Public-Private Partnerships: A Benchmark Study on Africa. (Addis Ababa: UNECA, 2021).
UNECA. “The United Nations ECA Outlines Path for African Sovereign Debt Liquidity and Sustainability at the Conference of African Ministers of Finance Thanks to the Liquidity & Sustainability Facility It Established and with the Support of BNY Mellon and Amundi.” 19 May 2022a. https://www.uneca.org/stories/the-united-nations-eca-outlines-path-for-african-sovereign-debt-liquidity-and-sustainability.
UNECA. “Green, Social, and Sustainable Bonds to Serve Africa’s Sustainable Investment Needs.” 26 May 2022b. https://www.uneca.org/stories/green%2C-social%2C-and-sustainable-bonds-to-serve-africa%E2%80%99s-sustainable-investment-needs
UNECA. “Integrated Planning and Reporting Toolkit.” https://iprt.uneca.org/agenda/agenda2063/overview/25. n.d.
UNECE. Role of Environmental Performance Reviews in Supporting the Achievement and Monitoring of Sustainable Development Goals in the Pan-European Region. ECE/CEP/2017/11 (Geneva: UNECE, 29 August 2017a).
UNECE. Conference of European Statisticians: Road Map on Statistics for Sustainable Development Goals (New York: UN, 2017b).
UNECE. People-First Public-Private Partnerships Evaluation Methodology for the Sustainable Development Goals. ECE/CECI/WP/PPP/2021/3 (Geneva: UNECE, 1 October 2021).
UNECE. “UNECE Launches World’s Largest Repository of Standards Mapped to the SDGs.” 9 March 2022a. https://unece.org/circular-economy/press/unece-launches-worlds-largest-repository-standards-mapped-sdgs.
UNECE. “Regional Forum on Sustainable Development for the UNECE Region.” https://regionalforum.unece.org/. n.d. a.
UNECE. “UNECE and the SDGs.” https://unece.org/unece-and- sdgs-4. n.d. b.
UNECE. “UNECE Launches PPPs for the SDGs Evaluation Methodology to Support Sustainable Infrastructure.” 5 October 2022b. https://unece.org/media/news/371474.
UNECLAC (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean). “ECLAC Presents a Debt Alleviation Strategy Based on a Debt Swap Proposal at High-Level Meeting in Saint Kitts.” 21 April 2016a. https://www.cepal.org/en/pressreleases/eclac-presents-debt-alleviation-strategy-based-debt-swap-proposal-high-level-meeting.
UNECLAC. Horizons2030:EqualityattheCentreofSustainableDevelopment. C/G.2660/Rev.1 (Santiago: UNECLAC, July 2016b).
UNECLAC. The Rise of Green Bonds: Financing for Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. LC/WAS/TS.2017/6 (Washington, DC: UNECLAC, 2017).
UNECLAC. “Public-Private Partnerships under the ‘People-First’ Approach.” FAL Bulletin 383 (7) (2020), 1–15.
UNECLAC. Information Note: The ECLAC Debt for Climate Adaptation Swap and Caribbean Resilience Fund (Port of Spain: ECLAC February 2022a).
UNECLAC. System-Wide Results Report of the Regional Collaborative Platform: Latin America and the Caribbean (Published online: 7 March 2022b). https://unsdg.un.org/resources/2021-system-wide-results-report-regional-collaborative-platform-latin-america-and.
UNESCAP (UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific). Regional Road Map for Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific. (Bangkok: UNESCAP, 2017a).
UNESCAP. Complementarities between the ASEAN Community Vision 2025 and the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: A Framework for Action. (Bangkok: UNESCAP, 2017b).
UNESCAP. Support for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (Bangkok: UNESCAP, 2018).
UNESCAP. An Introduction to Issuing Thematic Bonds (Bangkok: UNESCAP, 2021).
UNESCAP. System-Wide Results of the United Nations Development System at the Regional Level in Asia and the Pacific in Support of the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda. ESCAP/RFSD/2022/INF/2 (Bangkok: UNESCAP, 17 March 2022a).
UNESCAP. “Pacific Regional Debt Conference Addressing Debt Sustainability in the Pacific in the Aftermath of COVID-19.” 5 April 2022b. https://www.unescap.org/events/2022/pacific-regional-debt-conference-addressing-debt-sustainability-pacific-aftermath-covid.
UNESCAP. Financing a Sustainable Recovery from COVID-19 and beyond (Bangkok, UNESCAP, 25 May 2022c).
UNESCAP. “Integration of SDGs into the National Planning.” https://e-learning.unescap.org/thematicarea/detail?id=11. n.d.
UNESCWA (UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia). Public-Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development in the Arab Region. E/ESCWA/EDGD/2013/4 (New York: UNESCWA, 2013).
UNESCWA. “Facilitating Evidence-Based Policymaking in the Arab Region.” https://andp.unescwa.org/. n.d. a.
UNESCWA. “Regional Collaborative Platform.” https://www.unescwa.org/about/rcp. n.d. b.
UNESCWA. Arab Development Outlook: Vision 2030. E/ESCWA/EDID/2015/3 (Beirut: UNESCWA, 2015).
UNESCWA. SDG Indicators as an Input-Output System. E/ESCWA/CL3.SEP/2021/TP.5 (Beirut: UNESCWA, 2021).
UNESCWA. “Arab Vision 2045 Expert Group Meeting.” 23 March 2022a. https://www.unescwa.org/events/arab-vision-2045.
UNESCWA. System-Wide Annual Results Report Arab Region 2021. Revised Draft (Beirut: UNESCWA, 12 May 2022b).
UNESCWA. Climate/SDGs Debt Swap—Donor Nexus Initiative (Beirut: UNESCWA, 21 June 2022c).
van der Lugt, Cornis, and Klaus Dingwerth. “Governing Where Focality Is Low: UNEP and the Principles for Responsible Investment.” In International Organizations as Orchestrators, eds. Kenneth W. Abbott, Philipp Genschel, Duncan Snidal, and Bernhard Zangl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 237–261.
van Driel, Melanie, Frank Biermann, Rakhyun E. Kim, and Marjanneke J. Vijge. “International Organisations as ‘Custodians’ of the Sustainable Development Goals? Fragmentation and Coordination in Sustainability Governance.” Global Policy 13 (5) (2022), 669–682. DOI 10.1111/17585899.13114.
Vijge, Marjanneke J., Frank Biermann, Rakhyun E. Kim, Maya Bogers, Melanie van Driel, Francesco Montesano, Abbie Yunita, and Norichika Kanie. “Governance through Global Goals.” In Architectures of Earth System Governance: Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation, eds. Frank Biermann and Rakhyun E. Kim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 254–274.
Widerberg, Oscar. “The ‘Black Box’ Problem of Orchestration: How to Evaluate the Performance of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda.” Environmental Politics 26 (4) (2017), 715–737.
List of references
AP RCEM. “Structure.” Accessed on 12 December 2022. http://asiapacificrcem.org/about-rcem/what-is-the-rcem/structure-of-rcem/.
AP RCEM. “Constituency Focal Points.” Accessed on 12 October 2022. http://asiapacificrcem.org/transitional-committee/constituency-focal-points/.
AP RCEM. “The Dual Objectives of Participation.” Accessed on 6 October 2022. http://asiapacificrcem.org/about-rcem/what-is-the-rcem/objectives-of-rcem/.
ECE-RCEM. “About UNECE-RCEM.” Accessed on 20 December 2022. https://ece-rcem.eu/.
ECE-RCEM. “Sustainable development: New steps forward for a stronger collaboration between the UN Economic Commission for Europe and civil society.” ECE-RCEM, 12 July 2018.
ECE-RCEM. “Regional Civil Society Engagement Mechanism for the 2030 Agenda process of the UN ECE region.” RCEM Concept Note, accessed on 19 November 2022. https://ece-rcem.eu/about-rcem/rcem-concept-note/.
MeSCALC. The Organizations of the Society Civil Latin America and the Caribbean before the decade of action for the implementation of Agenda 2030 Message to the IV CEPAL Forum (March 2021).
UNDEF. Mainstreaming the Sustainable Development Goals in the Arab Civil Society Agenda. UDF-14–599-RAS (28 December 2018).
UNECA. “Africa Regional Mechanism of the Major Groups and Other Stakeholders launched in Victoria Falls.” 27 February 2020. https://archive.uneca.org/stories/africa-regional-mechanism-major-groups-and-other-stakeholders-launched-victoria-falls.
UNECE. “About Regional Forum on Sustainable Development for the UNECE Region.” Accessed on 13 December 2022. https://regionalforum.unece.org/regionalforum-about.
